Tories considering benefit review for people with drug and obesity problems.

[meglet]

I have to be really angry to start a thread in this topic .

Cutting benefits for people with addiction problems is surely only going to lead to them committing more crime to raise the money for drugs? Seeing as mental health support is already virtually nonexistent I can't imagine how they think this is going to work.

bbc link

[NoArmaniNoPunani]

It's a very cruel idea, exactly what I'd expect from the Tories :(

[Dolallytats]

I just had an assessment for PIP due to my severe agoraphobia-I can't get further than 5/10 mins from my home and am unable to stay out for longer than 20 mins. On very rare occasions I have managed a short bus trip and been out for an hour, but this has been twice in the last 6 months. It is horrible and depressing and scary.

I am also fat. I am currently a size 18/20 (5'2"). I had anxiety and agoraphobia 7 years ago when I was a size 14.

The woman from ATOS asked me what I weigh. I said I wasn't going to tell her as that has no bearing on my condition. She wrote something down.

Is it likely I'm going to get turned down because I am fat? Who knows. I am concerned about this as it is not my size that keeps me stuck in, it is my head, but have I just been seen as a lazy fat person trying to get out of work? I wish I could work. I feel useless and stupid enough about not being able to do what a 'normal' person can. I don't want to be judged for seeking comfort in the fridge to cope.

[Isithappening]

Well people w the disabilities and illnesses that they haven't caused any part in creating themselves also have their sickness benefits reviewed and have to attend fitness to work tests so why shouldn't people with obesity and alcohol or drug problems?
We have people who have served their country and lost limbs being sent for fitness to work tests and being found fit to work and I have much more sympathy and compassion for those people.
I probably sound very cold hearted but I just think there are lots of people that shouldn't be going for mandatory tests to satisfy the DWP and some situations make me more angry than the proposal to send obese people and addicts for the tests.

[Isithappening]

I would hope that the govt also look at better funding to enable people to get the recommended treatment programs. As long as appropriate treatment is available then I stick by what I said in my post above.

[BMW6]

I've just seen this on BBC news, as I understand it the proposal is to cut benefits If the claimant refuses help with their issue - so help offered first, to put claimant in better position to apply for work.

That seems reasonable to me.

[LikeIcan]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Quiero]

Yes but what is the "help for the issue". The help just isn't there.

Drug addiction is criminalised in this country which perpetuates rather than helps. Residential rehab for addiction is virtually non existent if you can't pay for it and waiting lists for talking therapies are extensive.

This is nothing more than another cruel way of forcing people off benefits and demonising the poor.

It's a really good idea stopping benefits for people with drug and alcohol addictions isn't it...it's not like they'll just turn to crime or anything.

Or what's the alternate; forcing them onto workfare. I bet pound land will be thrilled when their whole workforce is made up of rattling Junkies who can't afford a tin of soup never mind their next fix.

Fucking ludicrous proposals as usual

[Isithappening]

It's a really good idea stopping benefits for people with drug and alcohol addictions isn't it...it's not like they'll just turn to crime or anything.

You do realise that most drug addicts already commit crime don't you? Most drug addicts don't survive on their benefits alone. The most entrenched drug users will spend their benefit cheque in one day and then spend the next 13 days committing crime to fund their habit.
Yes, I do think we would see an increase in crime if this proposal goes ahead but I still have far more sympathy for other groups who are facing mandatory fitness to work tests and having their benefits cut.
We do need better rehab facilities (there is already more than one residential rehab unit in my local area) but as long as better treatment is made available then I have no problems with the proposal.

[chosenone]

It might sound like a good idea on first look. It also does a good job at deflecting issues from the top, the tax avoiders etc...but

What support will these people be offered ? Will these addicts suddenly all be able to access rehab ? Or are we honestly expecting them to suddenly get clean and get a job ? Seriously? Most of these people will now be unemployable. Its hard enough to get a job as it is without turning up for an interview whilst withdrawing from drugs or alcohol. If you look around any town or city you can see addicts rooting through the bins behind the supermarkets and finding ways to feed themselves, as any cash they have goes on their addiction. Many will certainly turn to crimeas an easier option to fund their lifestyle, which in turn affects every community.
I honestly think the government could do a lot more about drugs if they wanted to, but what would be the point? They keep huge sections of society anasethtised and usually quietly out of view. People who have developed drink and drug and possibly food addictions aren't happy people who will suddenly start doing 9-5 when their hand is forced.

[Quiero]

"The likelihood of frequent drug use in the last month tended to decrease as household income rose; 6.2% of respondents with an annual household income of under £10,000 reported frequent drug use, decreasing to 1.5% of respondents with a total household income of £50,000 or more."

From the 2013/14 Crime survey for England and Wales. So what's the answer - make them poorer. Very odd!

Crime levels amongst drug users will decrease as more funding is given to treatment. For every £1.00 spent on treatment £2.50 is saved by reduction in crime.

The answer to getting drug addicts off benefits and into work is to change drug use from a criminal to a health concern and fund treatment programs and therapies.

And before anyone asks how to fund them...by stopping rich people avoiding paying taxes.

We don't live in a fair society. The only way we can judge others and decide whether they are 'deserving' is when we all start from the same equal starting point.

Some people will never be able to dig themselves out of their situation purely because of the circumstances of their birth. Some people will always succeed and be rich purely because of the circumstances of their birth.

And yet those people in the latter group get to decide the fate of those in the former. How does that even begin to be fair.

[PilchardPrincess]

Seems like yet again they're focussing on making life difficult for people who already are in difficulties and pretending it's for reasons other than ideology.

Substance abuse and weight issues are often linked into mental health issues. What sort of "treatment" are they suggesting.

[prh47bridge]

Seems like yet again they're focussing on making life difficult for people who already are in difficulties

I disagree. It seems to me they are focussing on those who refuse treatment for their difficulties and asking why everyone else should fund their lifestyle. They are not talking about reducing benefits for everyone with obesity, drug or alcohol problems, only those who refuse treatment.

What sort of "treatment" are they suggesting.

They are suggesting that people with these difficulties should take the treatment recommended by the medical professionals treating them.

[Nancy66]

I think it's a good idea - but only workable if the help they want people to seek is actually there.

[PilchardPrincess]

The idea that people with drugs, alcohol, mental health or eating disorders are all in the care of professionals who are keeping an eye on them and trying to treat them is ridiculous!

Do you know how ill you need to be to get assistance with this type of stuff? The money isn't there. The treatment often isn't there.

That's fantasy not reality.

[PilchardPrincess]

So you get someone with mental health problems and substance abuse issues.

You tell them that they have to do xyz or you will stop their money.

They are unable, or feel they are unable, to do xyz for a reason that makes perfect sense to them.

They panic. Then what.

Taking unstable people and threatening them is not the way forward IMO.

[Samcro]

who next?
first disabled people and sick people.
now this.....
who will they target next.
I do hope people don't vote them in again

[MalibuStacy]

I don't understand why people with addictions (drugs, alcohol, food) get more benefits than people without those problems. It doesn't make any sense...

[AddToBasket]

My aunt is a good case in point. She receives a lot of govt support for her ME. Her Dr thinks she could use CBT or another type of talking therapy to help her get out and about. She refuses. We all think it's waste of public money. If she won't help herself why are we all supporting her?

Sound harsh? You, lovely tax payers, have been keeping a woman in cleaners and carers and lovely paid for cottage for 15 years. No need.

[expatinscotland]

Not a word about tax avoiders, though. Lloyd's boss and his £7m taxpayer-funded bonus. Tory auction for rich donors.

[Shesparkles]

I can't wait to see the kind of "help" put in place....when I know what is not currently available for those with alcohol problems.....and where the hell are all these mythical jobs the government want to "help" people into?

[HyperThread]

Typical. Not a word about the extremely wealthy tax avoiders

[AddToBasket]

'Typical, and not a word about rich donors.'

No, nor Syrian refugees nor the plight of the oceans, nor the Ebola crisis.

He is addressing the welfare budget, hence, y'know, addressing the welfare budget.

[expatinscotland]

Biggest slice of that welfare budget - pensions. He rarely addresses those. Funny, that .

[PilchardPrincess]

He's talking about the economy and so to raise the fact he talks about one method of saving/raising money (which won't affect people like him) and doesn't mention another method of saving/raising money (which would affect people like him) is perfectly reasonable.

In fact I'd go so far as to say it's vital to do so, to draw attention to what a vile bunch of venal self serving arseholes the current govt is