to think that those who object to alcoholics and drug addicts getting benefits, abu?

[StuckinTheMiddlewithYou]

Alcoholism and drug addiction is not an endless Saturday night out, so much as a slow, painful decline into undignified misery and self-loathing. Most people who get into that situation are actually self-medicating an undiagnosed mental health problem.

If anything, the number of addicts in the country is a dreadful stain on the provision of mental health services.

"I agree that we have a duty to house and feed them so benefit payed directly to ha/landlord and food stamps to feed themselves."

Um, but that's not what is being proposed.

"Yes they will go out and commit crime to sustain their habit but that is what they are doing now anyway so whats the difference?."

That is a gross generalisation and extremely offensive to the many, many people addicted to alcohol and drugs who do not commit crimes. Not all do. There are many people in receipt of benefit for problems including alcoholism, for example, who have never committed a crime to get a drink.

Also, for those addicts who do commit crimes, if the government saved xmillion in not giving any of those people benefits (as some have suggested here) then surely you can see that money to feed their habits has got to come from somewhere? That would mean more crime, which can be devastating to the victims of that crime (possibly you and me), of course it would make a difference.

Do you really have such a small imagination you can't see that if loads of addicts were chucked off benefits, besides the awful position they would be in, it might actually have a negative impact on your life? (e.g. more crime, more people begging in the streets, larger strain on the NHS etc etc)

Please do not try and bully me off this thread ilovesooty with snidey comments about myself or my dh abilities at his job. Its pathetic. This is aibu- I am as much entitled to my opinion and you to yours. I am not asking you to agree with me or like what I have to say but please respect my right to express it.

maryz for ffs! stop patronising us with the nonsense that all addicts are mentally ill-its not true and the fact that you keep banging on about it does not make it true!. I am not advocating stopping benefits for those who are genuinely ill(be it physically or mentally) but junkies are perpetuating their own condition-its not rocket science!. Why am I wasting my breath....
Enjoy the rest of your debate ladies. Lets hope noone else comes along who disagrees with you.....

pink4ever Mon 25-Apr-11 17:32:39

Please do not try and bully me off this thread ilovesooty with snidey comments about myself or my dh abilities at his job. Its pathetic. This is aibu- I am as much entitled to my opinion and you to yours. I am not asking you to agree with me or like what I have to say but please respect my right to express it.

Am I the only one who thinks that when someone resorts to accusations of bullying and rabbiting on about their right to an opinion, that they've probably lost the argument? It's sort of like godwins law..

Please do not try and bully me off this thread ilovesooty

I wasn't. Grow up.

Addicts aren't actually purpetuating anything so much as their own deaths.

"Junkies can smoke/drink/stick needles in their arms to their hearts content but I simply do not want to pay for them."

I'm sorry but the harsh fact is you do pay for them, one way or another.

If they are made ill from impure drugs causing infections, or the chaotic way they are living, then you pay for that in taxes as the NHS has to treat them (something that could be addressed with the decriminalisation for drugs,incidentally).

You pay for them when you insure you car / house / whatever against crime.

You pay for them in your council tax (money to the police to fight the war on drugs - something else that would be cheaper if drugs were criminalised)

You pay for them through taxes in money to prisons to lock them up when they have been caught with drugs (this cost could be avoided if addiction was seen as an illness rather than a crime) and also when they have been caught committing crimes to get those drugs (again avoidable if the drugs were decriminalised, and available like a medicine for addicts).

You may for them every time you buy something from the high street, as a small price of the items will cover those that are shop lifted.

etc etc etc I could go on.

The cost to society of having so many addicts is huge, and I'm afraid if you chuck them off benefits it's likely to get higher.

But until it's treated as an illness, rather than a crime we are unlikely to get anywhere!

If you simply want to talk money, by far the cheapest thing all round would be to decriminalise drugs, and make a clean supply available to addicts, along with treatment available. Overnight much of the crime problem disappears, the police are freed up to concentrate on other crimes. It would be a much nicer society for all of us to live in too!

Much of the pain and suffering to addict and their families would also be lessened if supply and purity were not an issue.

Our society (along with many others) has been part of an experiment to see if you can eradicate something by banning it. It's obvious that in fact the opposite is true - drugs have been banned for ages, and far from stopping supply, demand and supply have grown exponentially.

When you ban something you hand it over to criminals to exploit. To hand such dangerously addictive substances to criminal gangs is the biggest crime of all I think.

So, in answer to an earlier question (sorry I forget who said it), I do blame the government for the addicts and the situation we're in actually. I blame them, and the last one too, for not having the guts to have an adult conversation about this. But then that's not they;re style at all is it

The war on drugs is unwinnable, but they are too gutless to face up to it, and this government are using it cynically for their advantage by stirring up the likes of pink4ever who sadly can't see what a disaster for our society treating people in this way will be.

This whole thing is a distraction.

The MP knows that there are thousands of families living in fear of having their disability benefits removed.

This bit of 'we are doing this to stop the scrounging scum buying smack with YOUR taxes' is designed to deflect attention for all the people getting that brown envelope containing a letter saying 'your IB was stopped as off [insert date two weeks previously]'

DLA and ESA/IB are already incredibly high profile benefits considering the low rate of fraud. Keep stoking those fires and before you know it even people who dont read the Daily Mail will believe the only people who get it are people who shut their doors, climb out of their wheelchairs and do a jig in front of their 88" plasma screens.

And children who have made up disabilities like ADHD & ASD.

And drug addicts and drinkers.

And single mothers with bad backs.

And someone who somone knows who says they cant walk but somone saw them once and they were breakdancing.

I think the only good thing that might possibly come out of the various wars we are engaged in, is that ex service personal, disabled in combat are not going to take this bollocks. And the wankers at the Daily Fail are going to spontaniously combust as they try to marry up their predjudice against benefit claimants with their jingoist pride in 'our brave boys and girls'

Phew - that'd been building up for a while.

Exactly MrsDV.

But my friend who is an ex service man is currently without DLA as someone maliciously claimed he was fraudulently claiming it (he has PTSD and bullets lodged in his spine). We know who, but can do nothing. it's been going on months, by the time it goes through he will hit 65 and it will be too late anyway.

I just think people like to think if they don't acknowledge the disabled then it can't happen to them. And some people do genuinely think ASD etc is amde up- BIl told me Sunday that if I didn;t want to ahve to worry about DS3 I should tell him to cut the crap and sort it out but I am too lazy and like the benefits too much (ds3 has moderate - severe asd, attends SNU, is 7 and unlikely to ever be independent).

You can't deal with muppets like that; they buy their opinions on direct download from Tat Press Is Us i think.

That is awful peachy

I think that there will be so many, more than since WW2 that they will be a force to be reckoned with. I hope so (although I wish of course that there were no casulaties!). They might be listened to.

My oh is ex-services. He was dumped on his arse after GW1. I am not sure they are going to be able to do it this time.

Anyway thats another thread I suppose.

This whole 'stop the druggies getting DLA' thing is a red herring. There is this image of them living the high life, laughing at the decent people, raking in the money.
Is this true?

'It amazes me the number of people who boast about getting drunk on a night out - as if it is a marker of how much fun was had. '

Yup. Even on MN. Read how many 'I went out and got paralytic on Friday/Saturday night' threads there are. As if it's a badge of honour. It's not. It's undignified and silly. And dangerous.

I cant believe the argument that addicts get paid more than lone parents is still going on.

Once again, to clarify, they do not.

And the argument of an alcoholic father doesnt count for much either, I too had a "functioning alcoholic" father, didnt sap all my compassion for the rest of the world though.

Darth, it is the classic divide and rule.

Distracting us all from noticing that actually, we are all being taken for mugs by the few rich at the top, and overthrowing them.

"The issue is that they are another vulnerable section of society who are just too easy to dismiss ...."

No, another bunch of useless wasters the rest of us have to support!

higgle it must be so nice being perfect, yes?

"I cant believe the argument that addicts get paid more than lone parents is still going on.

Once again, to clarify, they do not."

Except they do, The figures I linked to given by DWP are for people claiming where the main medical condition is alcoholism.

You can claim disability benefits because of the direct effect of alcoholism. It is more money than a lone parent receives from Income Support. It also entitles you to all the same other benefits, so they are indeed getting more money.

"Darth, it is the classic divide and rule.

Distracting us all from noticing that actually, we are all being taken for mugs by the few rich at the top, and overthrowing them."

Yup. It's just so depressing

Ok, tabulahrasa.....and the rest.....do you work at DWP? Yes or no?

I shall take that as a no. And try, calmly to explain why you are wrong.

When claimaints are signed off, it can be multifactorial, and the Dr choses which one to put on the form. For example, when I was signed off for Mental health issues, I later became pregnant. They then signed my forms with "pregnancy" instead of MH. Do you see now?

Just because the most common may be alcohol, that does not mean that alcoholics get paid shit loads of money.

Lastly, I know how much is given because -

1. I have been an addict. 2)I have suffered with mental health issues (seperate to addiction)
2. I have been a lone parent.

At all of these times I have been eligable for benefits. So I absolutely KNOW that you do not get more for being an addict. Do not believe everything you read in the Daily Fail.
Rant over