• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

UK - Jobseekers who reject help for alcohol and drug addiction face benefits cut

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Guardian

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 May 2012 20.00 BST

With reader comments

Unemployed people suspected of suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction will have their benefits cut if they refuse treatment for their condition, the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, will signal on Wednesday.

In a sign of the government's new benefits regime, which lies at the heart of Duncan Smith's cost-cutting welfare changes, staff in Jobcentre Plus offices will be encouraged to cut the jobseeker's allowance of claimants who reject treatment for addiction.

The new rules will come into place next April when the universal credit, which is designed to wrap benefits into one payment, is introduced.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/22/jobseekers-alcohol-drug-addiction-benefits-cut
 
As harsh as it is, about fucking time! I Know plenty of people on benefits who are happy enough spending it on getting fucked up.

It pisses me off that I work a shitty job I hate, just so a portion of my wages goes onto funding these assholes, if they wanna get high thats fine. But spend your own fucking money.

I Can imagine the uproar now - thousands of single mums and lazy ass dads kicking off because they can't unwind form their stressfull lives with a spliff and bottle of stella...fuckers.
 
GOOD!

It makes me infuriated to see my tax dollars going to these lazy people who refuse to get or look for employment. I'm not saying everyone on unemployment is a horrible person, things happen, im talking about those people who crank out kid after kid and use and abuse the system.

If they want to use drugs to get high, go for it. But they shouldn't be using hard working people's money that's for damn sure.

Just my $0.02...
 
how about getting treatment for their spawning addiction, that costs us all far more
 
how about getting treatment for their spawning addiction, that costs us all far more


That is the point.. people will now not be able to *refuse* to get treatment while receiving free money from the government. I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

I believe everyone has the right to put whatever they want in their own body; they don't however have the right for the government to subsidize their habits.
 
No fucking thanks. They want to keep EVEN better tabs on drugs user's eh?
And possibly fuck up their record with an official job centre dunce hat style "DRUG USER" moniker, that you'll have to take with you to every fucking interview for the rest of your life, potentially.
 
What if the treatment doesnt work? the success rates are under 10 percent for the best places.
 
^ Then they can try bringing in their own cash to pay for their own addiction. Instead of having the government constantly hand out bags of cash that if were totally honest - is just gonna be spent on keeping that addiction alive and strong.

if that's too harsh for them, well fuck 'em.
 
I believe everyone has the right to put whatever they want in their own body; they don't however have the right for the government to subsidize their habits.
how about someone's habit of taking medicine?

how can you tell these people that they are using the wrong medicines/drugs for their particular brains/experience?

if some of them don't feel capable of a 9-5 work day, does it really help anyone to push them to get a job when more financial burden could simply worsen their addiction?
It makes me infuriated to see my tax dollars going to these lazy people who refuse to get or look for employment.
how are you so sure that they "choose" to not work?
I Know plenty of people on benefits who are happy enough spending it on getting fucked up.
i think most people at this point are not really getting high. they're getting rid of dopesickness, and barely getting by existentially. they're usually in agony.

a subculture on the streets has totally split off from the rest of us who have money, and not because they wanted to. nobody really knows what to do about it. so with irrational jealousy (of their supposed "highs"), we give them less and less money and we wonder why, when we reduce financial benefits to the most vulnerable, their bootstraps start disappearing.
 
how are you so sure that they "choose" to not work?

You're right, I'm not sure.

Illness and unforeseen circumstances befall everyone. The point I was trying to make was that if people who do not have a serious medical condition want to use drugs, that's fine, to each their own. Just don't do it on the tax payers dime.

If they TRULY want help to recover from their addiction, then IMHO using tax dollars for these programs is okay. Someone shouldn't be penalized for wanting to treat an illness. I would rather see someone get rehabilitated using government money than seeing them fall deeper into their addiction because the resources were not available.

There's a difference between chronic pain patients who need drugs such as opiates and become addicted against their own will, these are potent drugs, and someone who abuses the system.

My post may sound contradictory but I think I got my point across lol. Hope I didn't offend anyone, but I assume we're all mature enough on here to respect differences of opinion.
 
You people act like the tax dollars are literally being taken out of your pocket and handed to them, just pretend your dollars are going towards building schools and hospitals, while those of your enemies are going towards addicts, or more than likely your money is being used up by wasteful bureaucracy.

Not to mention the fact that the total amount of money being spent this way is like a grain of sand on the beach of the government's budget.
 
This is all well and good. But, I can't really take this seriously. Obviously someone's just fishing for votes from the gullible. So many here agree that the government needs to keep an eye on what drugs people take. But, what about the 400 pound obese people eating 10 meals a day? They don't NEED that. They only feel like having it. Hardly something to be spending other peoples money on. The government needs to be looking into what foods these people are eating so they don't waste the money we're giving them. Triple ply toilet paper? Who needs it! Going to a movie? Not on my dime! Driving a car? Sell it! Taking the bus would be cheaper than paying it off. Not to mention gas, repairs, and so on. Single? Get rid of your Fancy one bedroom apartment and get a bachelor!

Benefits are given to people who wouldn't be able to sustain what's considered a reasonable lifestyle without them. How they choose to spend the money should be up to them. Not to mention that evidence of drug addiction will most likely be nothing more than evidence of having ever taken drugs ever. If a person doesn't qualify for benefits that's all well and good. However, to say "such and such a person qualifies for them but can you believe what they choose to spend the money they are given on!" is utterly ridiculous.
 
we3ll this is an interesting thread. the word "suspected\2 ids very suspect. civil servant "i suspect you of having an addiction. i therefore refer you to a n addiction agency"
claimant"but idont have an addiction"
civil servant" no more money for you then"

and also how would they "suspect" aperson of addiction? its just ids chatting shit agian. he's a wanker and he doesnt want to cross me!
 
Good point Pinkpapaver, how is a job centre employee going to be able to know who is an alcoholic or who is addicted to drugs?
Addicts don't walk around with 'ADDICT' stamped onto their forehead.
What about morbidly obese people are they going to be forced to go to boot camp so they can lose weight. Some folk I've seen are literally so overweight that the only the jobs they would be able to do would be one where they could sit down all day.
Can't see this idea working at all.
 
There was something like this in the media about one of the Australia states doing something similar recently.
 
NZ - Benefit cuts for drug users defended by PM

The Prime Minister has defended the latest round of welfare reforms cutting the benefits of people who fail or refuse to take a drug test.

The National-led Government says there are now no consequences for drug-takers who opt out of job applications when faced with a drug test.

The details on new rules targeting beneficiaries who take drugs were being finalised by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett but could take effect in 2013.

National's pre-election policy document said beneficiaries who did not apply for a job because a prospective employer asked them to take a drug test would have their benefit cancelled.

Under new rules, a beneficiary that takes a drug test and fails it will also be sanctioned.

Prime Minister John Key said on TVNZ's Breakfast today that tax payers should not be supporting drug-users who refuse jobs that involve drug testing.

"If we're paying you a benefit; your responsibility is to be work ready, and to be work ready means that you can go along and actually pass that drugs test.


Otherwise we're sending completely that wrong message - we're actually condoning illegal behaviour.''

Mr Key said this morning people would turn down jobs because they knew they would not pass a drug test.

"The young person will often say there's no point in sending me along. I know they drug test at those organisations; I will fail the test because I smoked marijuana on Saturday night. We're all meant to sit back and say 'well that's fine, we'll just carry on paying your benefit and everything is fine.'

"Well I don't think that's acceptable to hard working Kiwis who are paying for that benefit,'' he said.

"Choosing to take drugs and expecting not to be work tested solely for that reason alone is unacceptable.''

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/drug-abuse/news/article.cfm?c_id=181&objectid=10816842
 
NZ - Fail a drugs test and lose your benefit, job seekers warned

Beneficiaries who refuse or fail drug tests while applying for jobs will have their welfare cut from mid-2013 under the Government's next round of welfare reforms.

The National-led Government says there are now no consequences for drug-takers who opted out of job applications when faced with a drug test.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett told the Herald the new Welfare Reform Bill would have new requirements for drug testing, but the finer details were still being finalised.

National's pre-election policy document said beneficiaries who did not apply for a job because a prospective employer asked them to take a drug test would have their benefit cancelled.

If they took the drug test and failed it, they would also be sanctioned.

Mrs Bennett said the requirements would be introduced to Parliament later this year and were expected to be implemented in July 2013. She expected the rules to apply to anyone on the new Job Seekers benefit.


The job-seeker category was made up of 135,000 beneficiaries who the Government expected to be able to work, unless they had serious illness or injury.

Mrs Bennett has previously said that the drug-testing issue was a problem in the forestry industry and also in some regions, such as Northland.

The drug-testing policy was first introduced as part of National's election campaign but was re-emphasised at the weekend by Finance Minister Bill English.

Mr English told TVNZ's Q&A that people who were meant to be available for work should be able to pass drug tests.

"In my electorate, a lot of the jobs available to younger people are in forestry and in the meat-processing industry. I'm told by those employers they often can't employ our own locally unemployed young people because they can't pass a drug test."

He cited a Work and Income job seminar in Ashburton, which found 18 per cent of 74 job-seekers would fail a drug test if asked to take one.

Labour's social development spokeswoman, Jacinda Ardern, said the move went against New Zealand Drug Foundation advice, which said cutting support for drug users would reduce their chances of rehabilitation.

"All of the evidence suggests that responding in the way National has suggested doesn't work. What we need to do is make sure we're working with drug and alcohol programmes to ensure that person is able to be employed."

She said the problem of drug use should be addressed through increased drug counselling and support services.

Asked whether cutting support for drug users could deter people from applying for jobs, Mrs Bennett said: "It is not unreasonable that if an employer has a requirement that a prospective employee passes a drug test, then those on benefits be able to pass the test."

National's policy document said if there was doubt about whether a person was a recreational drug user or suffering from addiction, professional medical advice would be sought.

The Government's reforms also proposed cutting welfare to people on the run from police. Beneficiaries wanted by police would have seven days to turn themselves in and prove to Work and Income they had done so, or they would lose their benefit.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/drug-abuse/news/article.cfm?c_id=181&objectid=10816778
 
how about someone's habit of taking medicine?

how can you tell these people that they are using the wrong medicines/drugs for their particular brains/experience?

if some of them don't feel capable of a 9-5 work day, does it really help anyone to push them to get a job when more financial burden could simply worsen their addiction?

1. This isn't about medicine, it's about alcohol and recreational drugs. Anything prescribed by a doctor i'm sure won't stop you getting benefits so that points moot.

2.) they can use whatever the hell drugs they wan't. I don't care. But they should pay for it themselves, if they don't wanna work then fine but they should get enough cash to get by and that's it.

3.) If someone doesn't feel capable of doing a 9-5 work day, then why should the government pay for these addictions the people inflicted upon themselves?

Find me any other country where I could turn round and say, well i'm addicted to heroin & don't really wanna work a 9-5. Then they'll just pay for everything for me?
 
Job seekers on benefits are the black sheep of the society. Used to distract the hate of depressed working people from the government...
 
The National-led Government says there are now no consequences for drug-takers who opted out of job applications when faced with a drug test.
"i'm not paranoid. i got a pass. they can't arrest me because i turned down that job application when faced with a drug test. government is in a lose lose. they can't look like they're lying."
1. This isn't about medicine, it's about alcohol and recreational drugs. Anything prescribed by a doctor i'm sure won't stop you getting benefits so that points moot.
doctors often make wrong decisions. different specialists recommend different approaches based on their angles. the individual needs the ultimate right to control his or her medicine.

also, the government doesn't only use violence on drug users to force them to switch medicines, dance/party tools, or sacraments. the govt uses threat of prison on doctors, too. and some doctors have gone to jail.
2.) they can use whatever the hell drugs they wan't. I don't care. But they should pay for it themselves, if they don't wanna work then fine but they should get enough cash to get by and that's it.
3.) If someone doesn't feel capable of doing a 9-5 work day, then why should the government pay for these addictions the people inflicted upon themselves?
because it
A) reduces costs on e.g. health care and law enforcement and court systems,
B) improves their health (addiction is a health problem) and productivity output (more addicts are "functioning" addicts with a harm reduction health approach, versus a prohibition approach),
C) decreases use (e.g. heroin clinics in switzerland, which are just like our methadone clinics, make the use of opiates less glamorous. when the dependent person is on several medications due to abuse, it isn't glamorous, it is plainly a health problem, and culture recognizes and adjusts to this paradigm about "recreational drugs". neither maintenance clinics nor decriminalization increase use to a huge degree (there is an initial slight increase after decriminalization, probably because of media attention)
D) decreases violence (compare to alcohol prohibition)

in short, drug users and non drug users are less likely to be victims of violent crimes, and less likely to use irresponsibly, and less likely to pay too much taxes, if we simply let individuals and their doctors make their own choices about medicine, and even give the medicines "for free."
3.) If someone doesn't feel capable of doing a 9-5 work day, then why should the government pay for these addictions the people inflicted upon themselves?
because they didn't inflict it on themselves. they meant to either A) alleviate symptoms of an illness or B) have a responsible good time. a proportion of opiate users do slip into irresponsible use, but a bigger proportion of alcohol users do. during prohibition, even more alcohol users slipped into even more dangerous addiction, and people went blind from the poisons laced into alcohol because there were no sensible regulations.

here's one more reason: a person should be able to acquire his basic psychiatric medication regardless of his income. it's just a nice thing to do, it shows trust in the addict (which has been shown to help them to quit or at least use more responsibly), and we easily have the resources... in the context of prohibition, these medicines are scarce and expensive, but outside the context of prohibition, morphine and similar compounds can reach as low as a couple pennies a dose.
Job seekers on benefits are the black sheep of the society. Used to distract the hate of depressed working people from the government...
i think misguided jealousy might play a part.
 
Last edited:
Top