Compulsory Treatment for Addicts

[Phil D. Rolls]

The government (flying in the face of most sane thinking on the subject) has decided that those receiving DLA for alcohol or narcotic addiction must undergo treatment to keep their benefit.

Does anyone think we are going down a dangerous road here, in that other "self inflicted" conditions might also be given the same treatment. Obese people might have to go on diets, for example.

Or is it just another manifestation of the nanny state, dressed up as a political gimmick?

[Leicester Fan]

Sane thinking doesn't seem to have achieved much so far.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sane thinking doesn't seem to have achieved much so far.

It's achieved more than this approach will. If it was a simple case of forcing people to give up their addictions then we would have tried it years ago.

It's a headline grabber, it satisfies an angry public, and the money spent on treating those who haven't decided to change, would be as well being buried in a hole.

Time will tell, but I'll wager there are no fewer addicts this time next year.

[Leicester Fan]

It's strange how the Tories are characterised one minute as first uncaring, then vindictive and now nanny staters.

I don't see this as a nanny state approach, more like tough love, if you prefer. No one is saying that you must give up your addictions (which are illegal btw) but if you don't you won't get any money from the govt to carry on as normal.
i.e. Give up the drugs or give up the handouts.

It's my honest conviction that the only way to make people to change their destructive behavior is to make them suffer the consequences of their actions. While junkies can make a living out of their selfish hedonistic lifestyle then they have no incentive to stop.

[CropleyWasGod]

Haven't read the proposals in detail, but do they include the State taking over the supply of heroin?

IMO, that has to be step 1 in "treatment".

[Jack]

You might also ask why should society subsidise those who do not wish to be part of that society?

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's strange how the Tories are characterised one minute as first uncaring, then vindictive and now nanny staters.

I don't see this as a nanny state approach, more like tough love, if you prefer. No one is saying that you must give up your addictions (which are illegal btw) but if you don't you won't get any money from the govt to carry on as normal.
i.e. Give up the drugs or give up the handouts.

It's my honest conviction that the only way to make people to change their destructive behavior is to make them suffer the consequences of their actions. While junkies can make a living out of their selfish hedonistic lifestyle then they have no incentive to stop.

The nanny state thing was just me being ironic. It's interesting though, that for a party that has made such a big deal of state interference, they are still prepared to control people's lives - albeit a section of society that is detested by most people.

I honestly dont think junkies have a great lifestyle. In all honesty, it seems like a pretty pathetic existence to me. I do respect your opinion on changing them, but - just like the last lot - this government seems to be prepared to ignore informed thought from people who have worked in the field.

I honestly think they will be wasting money imposing compulsory treatment programmes. Once again the "war on drugs" sucks out more public money. Maybe one day, people will actually think through what they are trying to achieve.

[Borders Hibby]

It's strange how the Tories are characterised one minute as first uncaring, then vindictive and now nanny staters.

I don't see this as a nanny state approach, more like tough love, if you prefer. No one is saying that you must give up your addictions (which are illegal btw) but if you don't you won't get any money from the govt to carry on as normal.
i.e. Give up the drugs or give up the handouts.

It's my honest conviction that the only way to make people to change their destructive behavior is to make them suffer the consequences of their actions. While junkies can make a living out of their selfish hedonistic lifestyle then they have no incentive to stop.

What about people who take drugs, alcohol etc because of trauma in their life. Would it not be better loking at more pro active services to help people improve their mental health so that they do not want to destroy themselves. Give them a choice of this type of programme or no benefits.

[Borders Hibby]

The government (flying in the face of most sane thinking on the subject) has decided that those receiving DLA for alcohol or narcotic addiction must undergo treatment to keep their benefit.

Does anyone think we are going down a dangerous road here, in that other "self inflicted" conditions might also be given the same treatment. Obese people might have to go on diets, for example.

Or is it just another manifestation of the nanny state, dressed up as a political gimmick?

That will be Alex Salmond then.:wink:

[Leicester Fan]

[/B]

What about people who take drugs, alcohol etc because of trauma in their life. Would it not be better loking at more pro active services to help people improve their mental health so that they do not want to destroy themselves. Give them a choice of this type of programme or no benefits.

Like compulsory treatment you mean?

[Borders Hibby]

Like compulsory treatment you mean?

I dont think we have the same idea on what treatment means. Do you know how long it takes to get talking treaytments in this country, or that 5 million prescriptions are written for anti depressives each year.

[Leicester Fan]

Nothing worth doing is ever easy and you'll never eradicate this problem completely but when you see the crime, illness and misery caused by drugs then it has to be a priority.

[CropleyWasGod]

I dont think we have the same idea on what treatment means. Do you know how long it takes to get talking treaytments in this country, or that 5 million prescriptions are written for anti depressives each year.

Agreed.

There seems to be a perception that addicts can be "cured" very easily. Were that the case, such measures would have been taken years ago.

"Treatment" involves so many different things, such as maintenance of supply of the drug or a substitute, with support on a mental health level.... which, as you say, is not so readily available on the NHS.

[Borders Hibby]

Nothing worth doing is ever easy and you'll never eradicate this problem completely but when you see the crime, illness and misery caused by drugs then it has to be a priority.

Where will the resources come from?

[Leicester Fan]

Where will the resources come from?
The NHS, the prisons budget?

[Borders Hibby]

The NHS, the prisons budget?

"Normal" people cant get counselling, where is the supply going to come from for addicts.

[Leicester Fan]

Obviously some of the people doing non jobs in the NHS like five a day co-ordinators and anti smoking outreach workers should be retrained into doing something useful.

[Borders Hibby]

Obviously some of the people doing non jobs in the NHS like five a day co-ordinators and anti smoking outreach workers should be retrained into doing something useful.

I am all for it, but needs to be a change in approach to dealing with the causes of mental ill health andnot the symtoms.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I dont think we have the same idea on what treatment means. Do you know how long it takes to get talking treaytments in this country, or that 5 million prescriptions are written for anti depressives each year.

You will wait a year to see a psychologist in Fife, I expect its the same elsewhere.



Obviously some of the people doing non jobs in the NHS like five a day co-ordinators and anti smoking outreach workers should be retrained into doing something useful.

If they could do something useful, they wouldn't be in those jobs in the first place. :wink: :greengrin:

[Borders Hibby]

[QUOTE=Filled Rolls;2506128]You will wait a year to see a psychologist in Fife, I expect its the same elsewhere.



Imagine how long it would be if they were traeting drug addicts and alcoholics first!:agree:

[heretoday]

These people have such chaotic lives that it would be more trouble than it's worth to the social services to get them to regularly attend for treatment.

It's a headline for the Daily Mail.

[CropleyWasGod]

These people have such chaotic lives that it would be more trouble than it's worth to the social services to get them to regularly attend for treatment.

It's a headline for the Daily Mail.

Again, it depends on how treatment is defined.

A local drugs worker once said that, if he could guarantee a dependable supply at his clinic, he would have a queue of every addict in the town.

[Phil D. Rolls]

[QUOTE=Filled Rolls;2506128]You will wait a year to see a psychologist in Fife, I expect its the same elsewhere.



Imagine how long it would be if they were traeting drug addicts and alcoholics first!:agree:

I thought they already were. :greengrin


These people have such chaotic lives that it would be more trouble than it's worth to the social services to get them to regularly attend for treatment.

It's a headline for the Daily Mail.

It looks that way to me. :agree:

[EH6 Hibby]

Why are Alcoholics and Drug addicts getting DLA in the first place? Surely the last thing these people should be getting is more money to fund their addictions. :confused:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Why are Alcoholics and Drug addicts getting DLA in the first place? Surely the last thing these people should be getting is more money to fund their addictions. :confused:

I don't know about drugs, but if an alcoholic stops drinking in an unplanned manner, they can actually die from the withdrawal.

As for the benefits, I am unsure as to whether they get extra for their addiction, or if people are getting confused that they are getting the same as other people who have disabling illnesses.

Its such an awkward area, as a lot of these "diseases" affect some people worse than others. The same goes for the likes of depression and stress - and I am sure compulsory treatment for these will follow, with pretty much the same non existent results.

[RyeSloan]

The government (flying in the face of most sane thinking on the subject) has decided that those receiving DLA for alcohol or narcotic addiction must undergo treatment to keep their benefit.

Does anyone think we are going down a dangerous road here, in that other "self inflicted" conditions might also be given the same treatment. Obese people might have to go on diets, for example.

Or is it just another manifestation of the nanny state, dressed up as a political gimmick?

Have I missed something here??

This was proposed in 2009 by James Purnell then Labour Work and Pensions Secretary...it was roundly critisised at the time as 'loss of benefit' santions had been shown to be ineffective in areas like drug and re-offending reduction and for all of the resource implications stated on this thread ...I wasn't aware it was ever implemented.

Has the idea been revived and if so in what guise?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Have I missed something here??

This was proposed in 2009 by James Purnell then Labour Work and Pensions Secretary...it was roundly critisised at the time as 'loss of benefit' santions had been shown to be ineffective in areas like drug and re-offending reduction and for all of the resource implications stated on this thread ...I wasn't aware it was ever implemented.

Has the idea been revived and if so in what guise?

Oh dear, I'm having a bad weekend! You are absolutely right, and well,er, it's still a stupid idea likes, just in case the Tories ever think about doing it.

Where is the nearest hole in the ground?

[Hibbyradge]

selfish hedonistic lifestyle

As opposed to an ascetic one. :wink: