You seem to be conflating someone having traces of illegal substances in their body with being incapable of finding/doing work.Originally Posted by davidrodway
Were that the case, a couple of joints a year would seem likely to disqualify someone from doing anything.
It would seem to be easier to argue for a system where someone who repeatedly turned down offers of work, or repeatedly got themselves sacked from jobs by other than bad luck were treated less favourably than people unemployed despite their best efforts, whether the people involved indulged not at all, a little or excessively in either legal or illegal substances.
If I understand the history, one of the most practically successful ways of dealing with heroin addicts was to give access to clean heroin in controlled amounts, with an eye to eventual slow usage reduction.
However, despite being a relatively successful approach, it bumped up against people who had moral rather than practical objections to drugs, despite the basically normal lifestyles people being treated in that way could achieve, or the potential of the system to pull the rug from under dealers and lead to potential large reductions in certain types of crimes.
There is the moral argument that people shouldn't use illegal drugs, but that's pretty circular (bordering on vacuous) when a major reason for their illegality is people being morally judgemental.
Drug addiction is a disease. Are there any other diseases where such an approach might be considered viable.
What about people with back injuries maybe. Do you think that deprived of benfits they might cure themselves? O keepign wihtint the realm of mental illness how about depression? Do you think stripping them of welfare might help social services keep track of children at risk?
"What about people with back injuries maybe. Do you think that deprived of benfits they might cure themselves? "
Well yes, actually.
"O keepign wihtint the realm of mental illness how about depression? Do you think stripping them of welfare might help social services keep track of children at risk"
It's been shown that the best way to avoid depression is to keep in employment, social circulatiom, keep physically active. From what i have heard there are a lot of people out there who "cant work because they are depressed (or have "back problems" for that matter)
"Drug addiction is a disease". Does that cliche really mean anything.?
So what would you do to help someone who was suffering from clinical depression and out of work - just tell them they'd feel better if they had a job, or actually offer some useful advice?
I'm not sure which planet you are currently living on David?! I hope for your sake someone of your mindset is not in charge though! Because you may one day do your back in...or become depressed...or...
Well....I'll repeat the point I made earlier in the debate;
And your point was? Apart from "I don't like it"? Is yours an argument or just an emotional response?
My point was and is; That the measures you suggest would increase crime not reduce it. The effect of your measures would be counter productive. Would not "benefit society in any way". Would not solve anyone's addiction problem. Would not mend anyone's bad back. Would not help cure anyone's depression. But would lead to an increase in general misery, poverty and crime.
Benefit payments are paid to ensure unemployed people and their children do not go hungry, do not go without clothing, or heating...To ensure they (and their children) do not die! Withdrawing benefits from them would unacceptable to any 'civilised' society.
I suggest that if you had a bad back you would not be so dismissive of those that cannot work because of one. If you suffered from depression I suspect you would be more enlightened and sympathetic about the effects it may have.
I suspect that it is your ill thought out, callous attitude that is an "emotional response". My argument is perfectly sound.
Full marks for consistancy. Should we do away with disability benefit entirely or are there circumstances when it is appropriate?
If so what are the objective differences.
No, I'm saying there is a negative aspect to having people wandering around without any money. They have little choice but to either beg or turn to crime. People in such a state are highly unlikely to be able to get a job on their own.
It would be better to say that anyone on benefits who is on drugs must attend a treatment programme, rather than simply leaving them without money. There is an obvious upside for society with such an option.
Absolutely!
I can't quote an immediate study but I remember reading one on heroin addiction that tried to just give the heroin to a group, the crime rate plummeted in this area and most of them got off it, got back to work and started their life again.
A lot of people who end up on heroin are doing it to block out some bad event, what starts as a tempory solution then becomes a permanent problem so seeing them as people with a problem who need a solution, rather than scum who need exterminating is a far more mature way of solving this problem than casting out devils, how on earth can anyone see it any other way?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks