UK Government considering denying benefit payments to addicts

ceadaoin.

From the BBC...

BBC wrote:

People dependent on drugs and alcohol who refuse treatment could have their welfare benefits withdrawn under plans being considered by the Home Office.
The idea is in a consultation paper on the government's drug strategy for England, Wales and Scotland.
The proposals also suggest that addicts on benefits should not be required to seek work while receiving treatment.
Some experts have suggested that withdrawing benefits could lead addicts into crime and prostitution.
The Labour government intended to carry out pilot schemes this year to get drug users into work.
Under the plans, addicts who failed to attend a treatment awareness programme would lose welfare benefits.
However, in May the Social Security Advisory Committee - an independent statutory body - said withdrawing benefits from drug users would lead them into crime and prostitution.
The coalition government scrapped the pilot programme - but the Home Office has now revived the idea.
It asks for views on whether there should be some form of "financial benefit sanction" for claimants who do not take action to address their drug or alcohol dependency.

Does anyone think that this could actually work? You can't force an addict to get help so personally I think that all this would do is force them into committing crime to feed their habit.

This seems a ridiculous measure when there are far more healthy people claiming benefits with no intention of ever working, surely getting those people into work is more important?

Full article here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11033139

Sea Sharp

It's motivation for them to quit.
Also they'll have to rob 5 times as much and are therefore 5 times more likely to be caught robbing.

Jesus Juice

Thats a brilliant idea but you just know it wont be introduced!

Cuddlesworth

No it won't work. Their addiction to the product won't disappear with the lack of money. Far better idea to pump them full of it and let them kill themselves quickly. Cheaper in the long run too.

Jesus Juice

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

No it won't work. Their addiction to the product won't disappear with the lack of money. Far better idea to pump them full of it and let them kill themselves quickly. Cheaper in the long run too.

So the dealers get more money, they produce more drugs more people get hooked and now theres twice as many addicts?

Cuddlesworth

Sea Sharp wrote: »

It's motivation for them to quit.
Also they'll have to rob 5 times as much and are therefore 5 times more likely to be caught robbing.

And where will you put them? The jails are so full with "drug" offenders that they will spend little time there, will most likely start something worse to get rid of the boredom, will find it more difficult to straighten up and get a job with a criminal conviction and will take away from time server by actual criminals and violent offenders by crowding out the system.

Cuddlesworth

Jesus Juice wrote: »

So the dealers get more money, they produce more drugs more people get hooked and now theres twice as many addicts?

Government could supply it. Its been trialed with heroin users in a large amount of locations. Give them a good supply of the drug and just enough to survive outside of it and the constant option of rehabilitation. So the hard-core addicts will live out their lives stoned and not stealing like they normally would, the people who want to quit can and get the support they need. This affects other people as well, less money in the illegal drugs trade, lower insurance rates for company's and less hassle for normal people.

bugler

This is bound to straighten them out. I predict addiction to disappear within the year if this is introduced.

After all, what rational person (or junkie) will persist with drugs when it leads to withdrawal of welfare? They are sure to weigh up the pros and cons in a calm manner and get clean when faced with this.

veritable

Jesus Juice wrote: »

So the dealers get more money, they produce more drugs more people get hooked and now theres twice as many addicts?

Just simply legalise all drugs. If people want to f*ck their lives up let them do it.
Drugs would be sold in special shops and the drugs gangs would vanish along with much violent crime and homicide.

bonerm

There's no point taking junkies and general scum off welfare as they're only going to cause more trouble to society without that cash than they would were they given their handouts.

southsiderosie

bugler wrote: »

This is bound to straighten them out. I predict addiction to disappear within the year if this is introduced.

After all, what rational person (or junkie) will persist with drugs when it leads to withdrawal of welfare? They are sure to weigh up the pros and cons in a calm manner and get clean when faced with this.

You're assuming that people with a serious addiction problem are rational...?

Jesus Juice

veritable wrote: »

Just simply legalise all drugs. If people want to f*ck their lives up let them do it.
Drugs would be sold in special shops and the drugs gangs would vanish along with much violent crime and homicide.

I agree but governments are way too much of pussies to ever do that!

Jesus Juice

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Government could supply it. Its been trialed with heroin users in a large amount of locations. Give them a good supply of the drug and just enough to survive outside of it and the constant option of rehabilitation. So the hard-core addicts will live out their lives stoned and not stealing like they normally would, the people who want to quit can and get the support they need. This affects other people as well, less money in the illegal drugs trade, lower insurance rates for company's and less hassle for normal people.

As I said, I completely agree with that but its just not viable because the government will just never take that chance!

prinz

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Government could supply it..

Yay \o/ maybe the government could supply me with free booze too.:rolleyes:

R0ot

Finally the UK Government does something right.

Wertz

lol this is bordering on idiocy...if they take this in prepare for a huge jump in street crime, begging, burglarly, muggings. Taking away someone's only form of income is going to force them into even more desparate measures.
I can see the problem normal people have with people being paid money not to work and to get wasted all day, I really can...but this isn't the solution it might at first appear to be.
Whilst drugs remain illegal and the price is dictated by illegality, addicts will need both their giro and a supplementary income from other sources to afford their fix...this could all be remedied by regulated supplied product as I discussed at length in the our drug war thread...

mickydoomsux

prinz wrote: »

Yay \o/ maybe the government could supply me with free booze too.:rolleyes:

Yeah, exactly. I'm addicted to WoW. I fully expect the government to buy me the new expansion and a few years worth of game time.

This is a great idea by the UK government. Offer them rehab, if they don't take it kick them out of their council house and take their benefits away. If they do take it then piss test them weekly to make sure it sticks and if they fail then denying their benefits.

Also all the people saying it will lead to more crime by making people desperate clearly don't realise that they still steal **** even though they get free money now.

Morlar

Wertz wrote: »

lol this is bordering on idiocy...if they take this in prepare for a huge jump in street crime, begging, burglarly, muggings. Taking away someone's only form of income is going to force them into even more desparate measures.
I can see the problem normal people have with people being paid money not to work and to get wasted all day, I really can...but this isn't the solution it might at first appear to be.
Whilst drugs remain illegal and the price is dictated by illegality, addicts will need both their giro and a supplementary income from other sources to afford their fix...this could all be remedied by regulated supplied product as I discussed at length in the our drug war thread...

Where is personal responsibility in all of this ? Why should the state subsidise an individuals abuse of illegal drugs ? Commit crime go to jail. Commit enough crime stay there.

Wertz

prinz wrote: »

Yay \o/ maybe the government could supply me with free booze too.:rolleyes:

I know of a few people who both now and throughout the boom years, happily languished on the dole whilst getting drunk on cheap booze most days...what's the difference between an alco and a junkie? The only plus side is that the revenue make something back on the duty on alcohol, whereas with illegals the money disappears into the black economy...

Wertz

Morlar wrote: »

Where is personal responsibility in all of this ? Why should the state subsidise an individuals abuse of illegal drugs ? Commit crime go to jail. Commit enough crime stay there.

Personal responsibility? From an addict? Doesn't happen.
Why should the state subsidise anything? But it does...

So build more prisons? Employ more staff at enforcment and judicial level? Suffer the consequences of a jump in the crime rate?

Unfortunately it's not that simple, no matter how much people in charge want it to be...

Morlar

Wertz wrote: »

Personal responsibility? From an addict? Doesn't happen.

& never will unless. . . . .

Wertz wrote: »

Why should the state subsidise anything? But it does...

That's not an answer though is it ?

Why should the state subsidise an individuals abuse of illegal drugs ?

Wertz wrote: »

So build more prisons? Employ more staff at enforcment and judicial level? Suffer the consequences of a jump in the crime rate?

So your argument boils down to - 'if you don't pay there may be consequences', threats of ciminality should not really form the basis of setting policy.

We could apply the same principle to armed bank robbers, pay them 3x the normal dole amount so they commit less crimes ?> it would be the same principle as in paying addicts to be addicted to reduce their criminality.

Brendog

Why haven't we done this??.......

Theres thousands of junkies out there who don't have to pay bus fair because they've a "Problem"....







"If the needles in, your payments in the bin."

Cuddlesworth

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Yeah, exactly. I'm addicted to WoW. I fully expect the government to buy me the new expansion and a few years worth of game time.

As it stands you easily could live off the dole and play way. Just don't expect a great lifestyle otherwise.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This is a great idea by the UK government. Offer them rehab, if they don't take it kick them out of their council house and take their benefits away. If they do take it then piss test them weekly to make sure it sticks and if they fail then denying their benefits.

Putting them on the street and making them get desperate. Never back a desperate animal into a corner and expect the best.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Also all the people saying it will lead to more crime by making people desperate clearly don't realise that they still steal **** even though they get free money now.

They steal **** to get drugs. Give them the drugs and they won't give a **** about stealing stuff. It will save far more money then the current issue. And if you think I'm talking about a soft option here, you are basically imprisoning them to a nothing life buried in addiction and failure. Its the true hardline approach. "you want drugs, here you are. Don't leave a stain on your way out"

Morlar wrote: »

Where is personal responsibility in all of this ? Why should the state subsidise an individuals abuse of illegal drugs ? Commit crime go to jail. Commit enough crime stay there.

Why are they illegal in the first place? Who should you have to go to jail for getting high? Why do you feel so morally self righteous when a huge portion of the planet does the same with Alcohol? Why not make that illegal and send them to jail? Once you remove the legal/illegal aspect, what actually separates the two?

Why can I go to jail for years for selling something that allows somebody to get high, but get a suspended sentence for kicking the **** out of you for no reason. Because the jails of full of drug users who didn't use physical violence on people or affect anybody else life's in any significant way. Like a said, nobody's. Let them rot it out in a council flat somewhere. Its cheaper and will be far safer when you remove the drug dealers and bring in shops.

Morlar wrote: »

Why should the state subsidise an individuals abuse of illegal drugs ?

They shouldn't. What makes you think that people can't hold down both a drug addiction and a job? Or that the cost of the now legal drugs couldn't be maintained by the dole like drink is currently.

Morlar wrote: »

So your argument boils down to - 'if you don't pay there may be consequences', threats of ciminality should not really form the basis of setting policy.

Its not a threat from drug users. Its a fact of life, the poorer you make a area the higher the crime rate in both the area and surrounding areas. Less money=more crime. Its why councils around the world are now desperately trying to get out of the "council estate" plan and move into social integration within middle class areas.

Morlar wrote: »

We could apply the same principle to armed bank robbers, pay them 3x the normal dole amount so they commit less crimes ?> it would be the same principle as in paying addicts to be addicted to reduce their criminality.

Back to the same argument. Stealing and drug use are too very separate crimes. One has a serious impact on others through violence and aggression, the other has a impact on others through need of a substance. You can't stop bank robbers but you can drug up addicts till their like little kittens.

Brendog wrote: »

Why haven't we done this??.......

Theres thousands of junkies out there who don't have to pay bus fair because they've a "Problem"....

"If the needles in, your payments in the bin."

If the payments in the bin the junkie is in the streets hassling you for money. Or shoving that needle in your face.

Morlar

Originally Posted by Morlar View Post
Why should the state subsidise an individuals abuse of illegal drugs ?

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

They shouldn't.

Glad we can agree on that.

PeterIanStaker

Brendog wrote: »

Why haven't we done this??.......

Sorry but can you even imagine putting the HSE in charge of something like this. It would be a ****ing catastrophe.

Odysseus

They have been talking about this for a few years, very badly thought out. Whilst I disagree with this, if we where to try introduce something similar; the first thing we would need are decent treatment facilities.

For those who think this would sort out a person's addiction, look at the wording. It's about treatment, this could be a life of methadone.

Herodotus

This should help put the braoder debate in context.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91y9KqvVggY&feature=player_embedded


The war on drugs has and continues to be a failure

the purple tin

How exactly are they going to clarify who is an addict and who isn't? Will people who have been arrested for drug offences or who have tried to get help quitting drugs be classed as addicts?
Will they be poking their noses into peoples medical records?
Sounds like a load of political posturing to me.

ceadaoin.

the purple tin wrote: »

How exactly are they going to clarify who is an addict and who isn't? Will people who have been arrested for drug offences or who have tried to get help quitting drugs be classed as addicts?
Will they be poking their noses into peoples medical records?
Sounds like a load of political posturing to me.

This is what I was wondering too. The only way would be to drugs test everyone who is claiming benefits which obviously is unfeasible. Anyway, a positive result would not necessarily mean that someone is an addict.

The report also says that this will also apply to alcoholics..don't even know where they would start with that one.

Wertz

Morlar wrote: »

That's not an answer though is it ?

Why should the state subsidise an individuals abuse of illegal drugs ?

It wasn't an answer, no...it was a rhetorical question, my point beign that the state (in the UK) provide a welfare state to so many of it's citizens and has done for so long that they're probably into the their 3rd generation of people who are almost solely dependent on government handouts, housing benefit etc.
Why should a teenage girl be paid a benefit and housed, simply because she decides (or accidentally) get's pregnant and who's child will themselves probably end up on welfare when they they're old enough, after having been educated for free at great expense for a decade?

Why should immigrants to the country be housed and fed at the expense
of the UK taxpayer when they bring nothing positive to the country with them in the way of economic benefit?

Why should those able to afford private medical care be treated under the same scheme that treats those who can't pay?
(I'm not picking on single mothers, immigrants or the middle class here, just making a point)...

Well, it's for the greater good of the society in the UK (at least in theory).
You can't let that child (or their mother) starve or grow up on the streets...you can't lock immigrants away and feed them gruel for the rest of their natural lives, you can't pick and choose who you provide state funded healthcare to (in reality working taxpayers are more entitled to it than someone who never paid a penny in revenue in their life, but that's not how the system was set up)...

So why then make a distinction towards addicts? I agree with you that the idea of people nodding out or pissed out of their minds on their sofa all week while others go out and work to pay taxes that partly fund it is flawed and unfair...if you came at it from a logical direction, the majority of addicts on the dole are probably "not available" for work, and hence shouldn't qualify...addiction should probably be seen as a disability, a possibly avoided one, but one nonetheless. Treatment should be available the same way as it would be to anyone else with a disability...if you simply threaten to get clean or else no more money, then you just place another burden and more pressure on them, on top of their addiction. As someone else said, if the treatment infrastructure is there to deal with addicts, then this could be workable over many years...as it stands I doubt the systems in place could deal with the amount of jobless alcos in the UK nevermind those addicted to illicit drugs.

Morlar wrote:

So your argument boils down to - 'if you don't pay there may be consequences', threats of ciminality should not really form the basis of setting policy.

We could apply the same principle to armed bank robbers, pay them 3x the normal dole amount so they commit less crimes ?> it would be the same principle as in paying addicts to be addicted to reduce their criminality.

There may be consequences, yes...as I said in the above paragraph, welfare state exists for the greater good of the country...if you decide to hand out money to people for doing nothing, that set of people will thrive and become ever more dependent on the state...what people decide to do with the money they're given isn't going to change....if their benefit is gone, alongside many of them probably being made homeless, they source the money from elsewhere...huge rise in (illegal) prostitution, huge jump in the number of people selling drugs to fund their own little habit (and the ponsy scheme of heroin addiction continiues) and as mentioned a rise in street crime and crime against property. That's not a threat or some form of blackmail, that's just the way it'll be...you have to ask which is better, which is more cost effective (throwing people in jail isn't before you start making that point again)...

Your point about bank robbers is moot; give them as much as you want...the type who rob and steal on that level won't stop because they get a bigger handout...but with addicts, the tendency to steal or commit crime is driven by desparation to afford whatever it is they've become hooked on...they're not inherently bad people who make a conscious decision to steal as a lifestyle choice.

Listen I agree with where you're coming from and can see the point of anyone who backs this, but there is no easy fix like that which Cameron et al are suggesting...it's a consevative means of dealing with something that they don't sem to fully grasp that will not be the magic bullet they seeem to think it will.

Chances are if you turned around to any addict and gave them a choice between benefits in cash or a free source of their choice of susbstance, nearly all would go for the latter, unless they're among the minority who do want to get clean...all that then comes back to the illegality of drugs and the price which is affected by their prohibition...any governemnt could if they really wanted source addictive drugs for much moch less than their street price and dole them out in lieu of benefits...cutting the funding of drug dealers, stopping money entering the black economy and avoiding so many of the health hazards that street cut drugs present...

That would be formative and radical thinking...this idea is mreley a conservative ideal that won't do what they think it will...

smellslikeshoes

The pull of addiction is way stronger than the desire to have welfare. If addicts don't have welfare they will steal to fund their habit. Simple as that really.

I'm also not so sure if UK prisons would actually be able to cope with the extra influx of inmates if this went ahead, instead of having junkies strung out and happy in their little hovel you have them costing the tax payer even more money by keeping them in prison.

I personally see the releasing of this information as nothing more than propaganda, it's not realistic to have this go ahead but it gets people talking about people on welfare and draws people's eyes away from the real causes of this recession.