'Addicts have to give up or lose benefits'

[1066gull]

Before I rant on, can I just say how I believe it is unnappropiate to have Theresa May as minisiter for Equalities and Home Secatary.

And I presume this is all addictions?

I think it would be much more appropiate to remove those sickening loan sharks from deprived high street corners, my most local waste hole, Sidley has one right next door to a bookies.

All addictions are the same, doesnt matter if the person drinks, smokes, takes drugs or gamble, if you notice someone excalating a problem they all do it for the same thing. They get hold of a buzz, and it eats away at them, pushing them on, go on go on go on, pressing them on for another hit. Most addicts will find it patrionising, most of them know they have a problem but can't get rid of it because the chemical is in their system.

I actually believe it wont make a blind bit of difference, it would only increase crime and prostitution as they resort to crime to fund their lifestyle.

In fact, why don't we just let people do what they want? Than how much money would the Government save then?

 

[bhaexpress]

Before I rant on, can I just say how I believe it is unnappropiate to have Theresa May as minisiter for Equalities and Home Secatary.

And I presume this is all addictions?

I think it would be much more appropiate to remove those sickening loan sharks from deprived high street corners, my most local waste hole, Sidley has one right next door to a bookies.

All addictions are the same, doesnt matter if the person drinks, smokes, takes drugs or gamble, if you notice someone excalating a problem they all do it for the same thing. They get hold of a buzz, and it eats away at them, pushing them on, go on go on go on, pressing them on for another hit. Most addicts will find it patrionising, most of them know they have a problem but can't get rid of it because the chemical is in their system.

I actually believe it wont make a blind bit of difference, it would only increase crime and prostitution as they resort to crime to fund their lifestyle.

In fact, why don't we just let people do what they want? Than how much money would the Government save then?

What they actually said is that if addicts don't get treatment then they will have the benefits reduced. Frankly if they are offered help and refuse it why should they get benefits ? The line that 'they will turn to crime' is probably true but even so no addict can support his habit on benefit payments anyway so they are already up to something to support their habit.

 

[Arthur]

I actually believe it wont make a blind bit of difference, it would only increase crime and prostitution as they resort to crime to fund their lifestyle

I thought you were a fan of the crack whores?

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

I don't think that addicts should be given benefits. My taxes should be going to people who are genuinely in trouble, not just ones that want to spend their easily claimed money on crack.

At work, I'll be looking after at least one addict every week, and it's a nightmare. We are often subjected to physical or verbal aggression from these low-lifes, and it just feels like a waste of my time and can often be terrifying for other patients and their relatives. Needless to say they often have to come in with police escorts, wasting their time as well, and then it turns out that they're getting paid benefits on top of it all! It's ridiculous.

Rant over! *Prepares to get flamed*

 

[clippedgull]

Probably a bit radical, but dealers should be executed or imprisoned for a minimum of 50 years.

Addicts should be hospitalized under lock and key until full recovery has taken place.

Probably too simplistic, but just nannying around isn't going to solve anything.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

I don't think that addicts should be given benefits. My taxes should be going to people who are genuinely in trouble, not just ones that want to spend their easily claimed money on crack.

At work, I'll be looking after at least one addict every week, and it's a nightmare. We are often subjected to physical or verbal aggression from these low-lifes, and it just feels like a waste of my time and can often be terrifying for other patients and their relatives. Needless to say they often have to come in with police escorts, wasting their time as well, and then it turns out that they're getting paid benefits on top of it all! It's ridiculous.

Rant over! *Prepares to get flamed*

I think you'll find they are "genuinely in trouble".

 

[keaton]

I think you'll find they are "genuinely in trouble".

Yeah, i'd imagine it was the genuinely being in trouble part that makes a lot of people addicts

 

[Gritt23]

Benefits should be given to junkies to buy their drugs and keep them away from crime.

So you believe that we should be paying people to stop them causing more crime? That's sounds like some sort of state funded protection racket.

 

[¤DãŃn¥ §êãGüLL¤]

I like to put cold teabags on my scrotum.

 

[Gritt23]

Should we be providing free prostitutes to rapists, to stop them going out and re-offending?

Bollocks, we are far too soft on people in this country, and just throw benefits at everyone. It's ridiculous, and has to stop. Our kids are missing out of some spanking new facilities that have been shelved because the country has run out of money, but we still pay benefits to drug addled scroungers. This country has it's priorities f***ed!


Rant over.

 

[Mr Everyone]

I don't think that addicts should be given benefits. My taxes should be going to people who are genuinely in trouble, not just ones that want to spend their easily claimed money on crack.

At work, I'll be looking after at least one addict every week, and it's a nightmare. We are often subjected to physical or verbal aggression from these low-lifes, and it just feels like a waste of my time and can often be terrifying for other patients and their relatives. Needless to say they often have to come in with police escorts, wasting their time as well, and then it turns out that they're getting paid benefits on top of it all! It's ridiculous.

Rant over! *Prepares to get flamed*

Goodness me, take a breath!!

I've underlined the parts of your text that I feel need challenging.

If you take their benefit away, what will that achieve? Do you think it will solve the problems that our country has with narcotics? Would it not increase the amount of crime caused by drug-dependency?

Secondly, you said your taxes should be going to people who are genuinely in trouble. Are drug-dependent-individuals not one of the most vulnerable, needy and troubled persons in today's society?

Thirdly, you described drug-addicts as people who 'wanted' to spend their money on drugs!!! Do you really believe that drug-dependent-addicts rationally decide where their finances go?

Please, please reread your NMC code of conduct.

 

[bhaexpress]

So you believe that we should be paying people to stop them causing more crime? That's sounds like some sort of state funded protection racket.

As I said earlier, they couldn't support their habit on benefits in any case so they're very likely to be committing crimes to finance it hence that's a rather spurious argument.

 

[bhaexpress]

I don't think that addicts should be given benefits. My taxes should be going to people who are genuinely in trouble, not just ones that want to spend their easily claimed money on crack.

At work, I'll be looking after at least one addict every week, and it's a nightmare. We are often subjected to physical or verbal aggression from these low-lifes, and it just feels like a waste of my time and can often be terrifying for other patients and their relatives. Needless to say they often have to come in with police escorts, wasting their time as well, and then it turns out that they're getting paid benefits on top of it all! It's ridiculous.

Rant over! *Prepares to get flamed*

Perfectly fair comment from somebody who is so often a victim of drug users herself. If a user won't accept help then yes they shouldn't get benefits as they are making no attempt to pay their way. As I keep saying there's no way an addict can support their habit on benefit payments alone so they have to commit crime to pay for it.

These people may be the dregs but if they get help fair enough, if they won't then it's very hard to have any sympathy.

 

[Ludensian Gull]

Probably a bit radical, but dealers should be executed or imprisoned for a minimum of 50 years.

Addicts should be hospitalized under lock and key until full recovery has taken place.

Probably too simplistic, but just nannying around isn't going to solve anything.

Is the correct answer

 

[bhaexpress]

Is the correct answer

Problem is they'd waste a fortune in Legal Aid having their rights protected.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I actually believe it wont make a blind bit of difference, it would only increase crime and prostitution as they resort to crime to fund their lifestyle.

What, you mean you don't think they do anyway?

When I used to work in Brighton, I'd estimate (very unscientifically, and based only on experience) that 80-90% of the shoplifters I'd be nicking were heroin addicts. And before anyone thinks "oh well, it's only shops, it's a victimless crime", you'll probably find it's the same with bag thieves, people who break into cars, and burglars. Nearly always drug-driven.

If there was a magic wand that could be waved to get these people off the gear and into some kind of normal existence it would have been done long ago. But (1) it would cost a fortune that the country can't afford and (2) several of the potential solutions are political suicide, therefore no Government will ever implement them for fear of signing their own death warrant.

 

[Mr Everyone]

What, you mean you don't think they do anyway?

When I used to work in Brighton, I'd estimate (very unscientifically, and based only on experience) that 80-90% of the shoplifters I'd be nicking were heroin addicts. And before anyone thinks "oh well, it's only shops, it's a victimless crime", you'll probably find it's the same with bag thieves, people who break into cars, and burglars. Nearly always drug-driven.

If there was a magic wand that could be waved to get these people off the gear and into some kind of normal existence it would have been done long ago. But (1) it would cost a fortune that the country can't afford and (2) several of the potential solutions are political suicide, therefore no Government will ever implement them for fear of signing their own death warrant.

Indeed, drugs will never go away.

 

[Gwylan]

If there was a magic wand that could be waved to get these people off the gear and into some kind of normal existence it would have been done long ago. But (1) it would cost a fortune that the country can't afford and (2) several of the potential solutions are political suicide, therefore no Government will ever implement them for fear of signing their own death warrant.

Prior to the early 60s, heroin wasn't illegal and addicts could, legitimately get their fix from Boots. The number of addicts was probably in the 100s then, now after a protracted "war against drugs" it's in the 1000s - nice work.

You say it would cost a fortune but supplying all the addicts with heroin would cost less than the cost of imprisoning addicts and drug smuggler - let alone the costs of their court appearances, police time nicking them and the loss of goods themselves.

As Edna says, any government that looks to be soft on drugs thinks that it will be hit in the ballot box. I'm not so convinced that's true - the Mail and the Express will rant but I do think that more people are starting to question why we're spending billions of pounds locking up addicts when these actions are clearly doing nothing to stop their addiction.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Indeed, drugs will never go away.

I know entire families in Brighton who are all on the gear. Even when one of them dies, which is not uncommon, it doesn't make them stop.

They get caught shoplifting regularly, they go to court, and even when it's their 50th conviction, their solicitor puts on their most sincere face and tells the bench (with fingers crossed behind his back I presume) "Your worships, my client is extremely remorseful for his/her crime and is desperate to seek treatment for his/her addiction". The magistrates then smile benevolently and give them a token £50 fine, a drug treatment & testing order which is rarely enforced, and say "Don't do it again, you little tyke or we'll REALLY come down hard". Then the offender goes back out, steals something else to pay the fine and score more gear, and the circle begins again.

The drug treatment facilities are underfunded in any case, and even those who actually want to go through it don't necessarily get much support. Then when they actually get clean and get out, they're straight back out into the same part of society from whence they came, and the temptations are right back in front of them.

A lot of heroin addicts will die from an unintentional overdose long before they make the decision to get clean.

 

[Hotchilidog]

What, you mean you don't think they do anyway?

When I used to work in Brighton, I'd estimate (very unscientifically, and based only on experience) that 80-90% of the shoplifters I'd be nicking were heroin addicts. And before anyone thinks "oh well, it's only shops, it's a victimless crime", you'll probably find it's the same with bag thieves, people who break into cars, and burglars. Nearly always drug-driven.

For most people, this is the real drug problem. Prohibition makes this type of crime inevitable, and it seems crazy that there is no rational debate in this country or indeed many others about how to to take the crime out of drug taking.

From the organized violence of the gangs and dealers down to the violent robberies of the user getting the money for their fix and the abuse of women in prostitution, prohibition has just been a monumental failure in both human and financial terms. Time for a rethink.