h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7998334.stm

"Alcoholics face having their benefits docked if they do not get treatment, under government plans.

Minister James Purnell has announced a review into the idea to be carried out jointly by the Department of Health and Department for Work and Pensions.

Measures that require drug addicts to get treatment in order to keep receiving benefits are currently going through Parliament."

What do people think? Good idea? Bad idea?

Personally I think this could end up hurting kids of addicts more than the addicts themselves. They'll always find some way to feed their addiction so they'll have less money to spend on feeding their kids.

But I expect they'll get around that by saying that a) not doing it will encourage the parents to not get help and b) that they wont change the child benefits...

On the face of it I dont necessarily think it's the worst idea in the world.

But the support system and the mental health systems we have here in the UK cant properly help people, all they can do is offer drugs and try and stop them harming themselves and others...

Bottom up reform would be better, close the holes in that net rather than scrape the fallen off the floor and put them back through thr wringer.

Well firstly this idea assumes that treatment will be easily accessable. Something we *know* is miles and miles away from being something even remotely approaching being true.

Secondly, what flipping planet is Purnell on? We know what happens when addicts cannot support their habits. Guess which of the following scenarios happens:-

Shamed by having benefit removed, said addict turns life around, gets clean and gets job.

Addict turns to petty crime and prositution to pay for shortfall.

FB

I actually know Purnell. He's a good guy generally, very personable, but he is *so* out of touch with his constituency it's unreal. If it was actually a competitive seat he wouldn't have gotten elected in a million years.

or just descends to cheaper alcohol, less helpful social circles and eventually falls out through the holes in the net and winds up on a doorstep with wet trousers and a half-empty bottle of turbo white...

That's it, if the help were actually there, I'd be more supportive, but you cant just use the stick, you need some actual support there, too...

Of course, all they are suggesting is that you have to be seeking help. it's not like you have to stop drinking, just be trying to get help...

I'm not convionced it's a bad thing, just clumsy and badly done, like so many of these things...

Well as far as I can determine there is very little evidence that for addicts the stick is of any benefit.

Truth is though grown up policy about this kind of thing is irrelevant, shrug.

FB

Brilliant idea. Obviously thought up in a smoke(hammer)filled room by readers of the Daily Mail with a nasty vindictive streak.

Thinking it through, this means that thanks to these people, I'm now more likely to get burgled. Thanks.

Personally, I'd prefer it if people who could PROVE they were addicts - by demonstrating a sustained level of personal consumption - were legally provided with whatever they were addicted to at nominal cost or free, paid for by me. It's worth it to keep the worthless sods off the streets and out of my house and pockets. It's far cheaper keeping them zonked out in their own hovels than it is keeping them in prison, where let's be honest they'll be zonked out anyway.

"paid for by me" = "by the taxpayer", not actually by me, obviously.

Addiction is an illness. Not comfortable with the idea of penalising people specifically because they're ill.

Whilst I concur with that SWL, it does rather remind me of the frankly hilarious "South Park" episode where Randy (Stan's dad) decides his alcaholism is and illness....

Trust me well worth checking out....

FB

This post has been removed.

If...*IF*...we could demonstrate that reducing benefits would force people into (successful) treatment, then he might have a point. But there are various reasons why this would be unlikely, so the net result would be to punish alcoholics. (or, at least, the subset of alcoholics so ed up as to not find help, no matter how far they are pushed).

Basically, it's another tired version of the deserving vs undeserving. Those who deserve help are those who are willing to help themselves.

To put it charitably...it's naive.

Look - people don't *choose* addiction. It chooses them. None of us are more than a couple of catastrophic life events from the gutter. Moral of this story: give generously to the next shambling alky you meet. Of course they'll spend it on drink! So would you.

This post has been removed.

What about a system, like in the States, where a person gets vouchers to spend on certain things in certain shops?

I used to hate benefits day as a kid because my mum would usually be trollied by lunchtime, instead of her usual mid-afternoon. I'd have much rather her been given vouchers which she could only spend on food, rather than the money.

What complete and utter cr@p this is.

Addiction isn't just something like, 'I could murder a curry right now' but no I won't go to the expensive takeaway but spend the money on a sensible meal for the whole family instead.

Addiction means that the substance is more important than any human relationship, any life goals, indeed life itself.

Unbelievable, but par for the course for people out of touch with reality and basically thick.

Addicts have been known to sell their own children its not right to assume they wont swap done stamps for cash or the substance they crave.

Like I said earlier this sounds like a gesture to placate middle England and if it ever happens as others do I fail to see how it will work practically.
Before I get moderated again would someone care to tell me why its OK to use insulting terms about some groups of people but not others even they clearly are hypocrits?

Having been off work for two years (am back working now, yay!) I had the misfortune to watch Jeremy Kyle a lot, and yes a lot of the people snoking drugs and drinking excessively were using benefits to support their habit. Those that weren't were living off someone else. Obviously crims aren't going to go on there and say 'oh yes I nicked someones video to pay for my draw' but I personally know someone who'd steal the clothes off your back to get some.

How do they define 'addict' though? My brother has just had his wife run off taking their daughter with her and denying him access. He's always liked a drink, and now he's drinking quite heavily. He's also had to go on the dole - he was the primary carer for the child, so is he an addict? I don't like it that's he's using benefits money to drink 8 bottles every night, but is he an addict? And really, does anyone had a right to tell us how much we can drink? If he pays all his bills and has some money left over, why can't he use it how he pleases? Or are benefits only for necessities?

I know from being off work for so long that I had plenty of day trips out, bought myself a new pair of shoes, etc if I wanted to, took my son on camping holidays. I also spent a fair bit of money on my dogs. I could have spent all that money on drinking. I was just careful with my money.

Frankly I'm more skint now as I'm getting used to being back at work! I would have been better off continuing to not work, but I prefer to be working. Some people are going to be the other way around and that's something I don't think can be changed by just taking away their money.

Having, irronically, to post off a form to benefits people right now as been off sick from work nearly a year now with mental health problems, it is interesting to see such things on news about forcing some to get treatment.
Could I work at moment? I wouldn't give me a job in a million years at moment, not due to violent behaviour as I don't act like that, but due to my behaviour being odd and irrational at times. I have been getting help but should I have benefits stopped if refuse it? The problem with my mental illness is I know I need help but getting help means meeting new people constantly for often quite indepth and intense assments, often not locally which is the last thing I need right now. I have had/am having around 5 or 6 such assessments in as many months. The last was in one of the busiest places in country and as can't use public transport had to cycle there in what turned out to be one hell of an hours cycling and ended up paranoid and hallucinationg by time I got there and jumping outv my skin as so nervous
.
Suposing all the assessments got too much and I couldn't cope with it, would I get any benefits stopped then? That is what I thought about when I heard the new announcement about benefits on news if they applied to mental health problems too. If I had no savings and they stopped benefits how would I live, would I have to turn to crime, shop lifting, etc just to eat?

To whomever yikesed my post, I take none of it back, those who break into other people's houses are the lowest of the low. Although still a crime at least shoplifting doesn't terrify householders, and terrify it can. It amused me to see a housebreaking thief on TV saying how angry he would be if happened to him, but caring not what happend to those he robed..