GREG'S LEGACY

Specialising in the human experience of Living with prostate cancer – warts and all

A message from a hard working Aussie


A regular reader has sent in the following piece that highlights the inequalities between the Aussie battler and those that abuse the social welfare system.

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to earn that pay cheque, as I work on a mine site or a Kalgoorlie construction project, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them …?

Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.

I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking booze & smoking dope.

Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a social welfare cheque … ?

Hope you will pass this along because something has to change in this country, and soon.

Advertisements

Written by Greg Naylor

16 August 2007 at 10:23 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Greg I’m not sure how that comment got through your spam filter, it’s obviously some hawker trolling the blogosphere.

    alburywodongaonline

    23 May 2008 at 5:16 pm

  2. in response to the topic, I guess it comes down to a question of whether you consider substance abuse issues to be a legitimate ailment or not.
    Personally I do, I don’t think there are many people who wake up and decide “I think I’m going to become a drug addict or an alcoholic”.

    On a purely pragmatic level, what do you think would happen if such draconian measures as drug testing welfare recipients was implimented?
    You’d have a lot of people with actual substance abuse issues being denied social welfare and therefore denied an income.

    Absolute prime conditions for organised criminals to recruit under.

    Impliment such a ridiculous concept as drug testing welfare recipients and watch the power and influence of organised criminal gangs rise exponentially.
    That’s a guilt edged guarantee.

    I’d say the author of the original suggestion is actually grappling with his own demons, probably jealousy that he can’t remain drunk all the time himself high among them.

    It’s a non-sensical suggestion and clearly not fully thought through.

    alburywodongaonline

    23 May 2008 at 5:26 pm

  3. How is it going Greg? We haven’t heard from you for a while. Hope you’re holding up OK – regards, Ray

    raydixon

    29 May 2008 at 11:34 pm

  4. oh great Ray, I post an acerbic response to a comment, you show genuine concern for Greg’s health.

    Don’t I feel like a heel now!!!

    alburywodongaonline

    1 June 2008 at 7:01 pm

  5. To be honest I didn’t pay any attention to the topic AWOL, I just clicked on the lst comment (which happened to be yours) to send Greg a message.

    As for the topic, I tend to agree with you – it’s not a viable proposition to drug-test welfare recipients. The author may have to undergo urine tests in his particular job but that’s hardly ‘par for the course’ with most forms of employment and (by extension) unemployment.

    If drug testing were made compulsory at all jobs I reckon there’d be a few high-flying red faces around the corporate world, including at board level and especially in the media.

    I agree with drug-testing sportspeople though, for obvious reasons – drug taking is cheating.

    raydixon

    2 June 2008 at 4:17 pm

  6. trouble is if organisations like the AFL or the NRL got serious about banning not only performance enhancing but also illicit drugs they’d be scraping to put together a league.

    I mean there wouldn’t be a West Coast Eagles side for a start, you could probably scratch Hawthorn and Collingwood as well.

    Come to think about it, maybe there ISN’T a down-side.

    alburywodongaonline

    3 June 2008 at 3:40 pm

  7. There’s gotta be a code in that somewhere.

    raydixon

    22 July 2008 at 12:16 am

  8. I got three spam messages on this post – it ain’t no code!

    Greg Naylor

    22 July 2008 at 11:11 am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: