Should drug addicts be stripped of benefits?

[onlyme]

But sitting on the fence here, we're having it shoved down our throats how much smokers are costing us with the NHS etc, and in fact it is illegal now to smoke in pubs, so does that put us smokers in the same category as those who smoke weed (after all, that only just the wrong side of legal, unless you're supplying)

Dont get me wrong, I'm a smoker, couldnt give up if I wanted to (which I dont lol) so am an 'addict'. Just making sure I;m not getting shipped off anywhere soon lol

[Neil]

Originally Posted by onlyme

Dont get me wrong, I'm a smoker, couldnt give up if I wanted to (which I dont lol) so am an 'addict'. Just making sure I;m not getting shipped off anywhere soon lol

We won't ship you off anywhere then unless they make smoking and drinking illegal.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy

The short answer is No.

Drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers………all addicts. All need support and I agree with beechy that taking their cash will only lead to higher drug related crime.

What is it with all these gimmicks at the moment, only the other week we had the harebrained idea from the new housing minister Caroline Flint to put those out of work on the streets as discussed in the thread Work Or Lose Your Council Home

I think that is the point. There is support. They are offered support. They refuse it.

At that point it is suggested that they should lose their benefits. Why should the tax payer continue to fund their habits?

If thry accept the help and support to get off the drugs then by all means continue paying their benefits but if they refuse to accept help to get off the drugs that is their choice but surely they must see that it's a stupid one. Do addicts really want to continue to be addicted? In that case I agree with Grannyclaret that they should not be in charge of children. They want to mess their own lives up then fine, let them. If they have been offered help and refuse to accept it that is up to them. But they should not be financially supported in their habit by the general public out of our taxes and they certainly should not be left to ruin the lives of their children.

[panther]

Originally Posted by magpie

The difference between a drug addict and a smoker or drinker is: drinking and smoking is LEGAL , you can buy both from your local store…

If they are taking drugs… then it’s their own fault: why should we finance them:

well said magpie

smoking a fag doesnt make ya paranoid and crazy, like drugs, unless ya shoved summat in with it...as for booze, now that can make ya paranoid and crazy, ....but only in large amountsbut it is legal.............

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I think that is the point. There is support. They are offered support. They refuse it.

At that point it is suggested that they should lose their benefits. Why should the tax payer continue to fund their habits?

If thry accept the help and support to get off the drugs then by all means continue paying their benefits but if they refuse to accept help to get off the drugs that is their choice but surely they must see that it's a stupid one. Do addicts really want to continue to be addicted? In that case I agree with Grannyclaret that they should not be in charge of children. They want to mess their own lives up then fine, let them. If they have been offered help and refuse to accept it that is up to them. But they should not be financially supported in their habit by the general public out of our taxes and they certainly should not be left to ruin the lives of their children.

I agree with Willow, in fact the news item was about people who actually go into rehab but don't finish the treatment, I can't remember the exact numbers but I think it was some 180,000 people enter into programs but less than 20, 000 actually finish the course. It is these people who do not finish rehab that may be targetted, because the government are spending millions on these programs each year and if those people do not finish these programs then its just money down the drain.

[katex]

I sometimes feel a little sorry for 'druggies' as the pressure by the drug pushers to get them onto drugs must be very convincing. They will do anything to get a young person to start taking these drugs until they are hooked and got a customer for life.

Must be awful trying to break free from this habit, even if they want to.

[emamum]

what about giving known drug users the depo jab so that they cant get pregnant? or is that against their human rights? what about the rights of the poor little babies that are born addicted, some with disabilities because of it? and the poor children that have to live with drug users?

[MargaretR]

Alcoholics have malformed babies too
http://members.aol.com/creaconinc/fas.html
extract-
Characteristic Facial Patterns: There are characteristic dysmorphic features which appear due to prenatal alcohol insult or exposure.

The eyes appear to be widely spaced; the nose is often short and upturned; the philtrum (area between the bottom of the nose and upper lip) is elongated and flat; the upper lip is thin; and the ears might be low-set and rotated to the back of the head. In addition, the teeth of individuals with FAS are often misshapen and misplaced. It is common for orthodontia to be necessary

[emamum]

foetal alcohol syndrome..... children with this are born with smaller brains.. any amount of alcohol during pregnancy can cause this..

[Yolanda25]

drugs addicts shoudnt have any benefits with or without kids, they get offered loads of help, i used to live in canal st and there was this woman who had kids and she was on drugs, she kept having kids and her mother will look after them, i think is selfish to get pregnant while on drugs, its not the babys fault to have irresponsible parents

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I think that is the point. There is support. They are offered support. They refuse it.

At that point it is suggested that they should lose their benefits. Why should the tax payer continue to fund their habits?

If thry accept the help and support to get off the drugs then by all means continue paying their benefits but if they refuse to accept help to get off the drugs that is their choice but surely they must see that it's a stupid one. Do addicts really want to continue to be addicted? In that case I agree with Grannyclaret that they should not be in charge of children. They want to mess their own lives up then fine, let them. If they have been offered help and refuse to accept it that is up to them. But they should not be financially supported in their habit by the general public out of our taxes and they certainly should not be left to ruin the lives of their children.

Perhaps more to the point is that we give people the option to take or refuse support.

Perhaps that option should be revoked. The fact is that drug addicts and alcoholics have mental issues associated with their addictions. They don’t think rationally and have lost the ability to reason, therefore, remove the option. Not sure what we would do with the working alcoholics and drug addicts, some do hold down jobs, but that wasn’t the question.

I don’t think taking their benefits alone would solve anything at all. They still have to be housed and eat. Maybe we need to have rehabilitation courses whereby living expenses are met, vouchers or something, who knows. Vouchers isn’t the answer I know, but neither is just removing benefits.

We’re closing the door after the horse has bolted. More need to be done to stop people ever using drugs.

[katex]

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy

We’re closing the door after the horse has bolted. More need to be done to stop people ever using drugs.
[/SIZE]

Exactly Bonnyboy ... the ultimate sentence for drug pushers in my opinion .. ruins lives so why not life sentences. !