SNP block UK attempt to strip drug users of their benefits

[Blagsta]

I'd happily see drug abusers be offered a loan for a treatment place, to repaid once they are clean and in gainful employment. If they are to be made destitute without a place being available, I agree the policy is asinine.

If they don't want to get clean, they must be made to want it. The threat of having you benefits removed is a good incentive, is it not?

Now, I'd like to see heroin legalised, but that isn't going to be happeneing any time soon, and even if it happened tomorrow, I wouldn't want to see a penny of taxpayers' money used to fund a drug habit.

clueless

 

[CyberRose]

Ah, but in America prisons are often privatized and run for profit, so there is an incentive to get as many people inside as possible. Cutting their benefits forces them to turn to crime et voila! I'm sure that's the kind of thing this guy has in mind for the UK.

Run for profit!? How's that work, they charge the inmates rent or summat?!

 

[Blagsta]

Dan U, you know there is a view, widely held by a lot of our fellow citizens who pay the taxes and NI contributions that underpin the benefits system, that drug misusers claiming benefits and not seeking treatment to free themselves of a dependency are not the most "vulnerable" in society.

It is a view not supported by any evidence. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[DotCommunist]

the issue comes up here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00h6v3q

on 'the big question'

I sought it out cause one of the panelists is Ken Mcloed the arnacho-syndicalist sci fi author.

was fucking furious at the idea and the audience people give it a trashing too

 

[Fullyplumped]

It won't work though. All the evidence on drug treatment says that a directive approach when people aren't ready is counter-productive.

You may be right, although you haven't actually cited evidence. Funny you should mention evidence, though, when this thread is all about the refusal of the SNP administration to release information to researchers at the University of Glasgow who could establish what the evidence really has to tell us.

 

[Fedayn]

Their benefits won't be stopped if they co-operate with local services which aim to help them address their drug misuse.

You really are clueless aren't you? Do you understand the chaotic nature of drug users lives? We already stop peoples benefits for less. I suggest you actually know what you're talking about before you talk nonsense. Now I deal with Red Towers, Castle Craig and West Street Rehab almost daily, I suggest you actually find out about the chaotic nature of peoples lives before glibly trotting out your rather cliche ridden mantra.

 

[Blagsta]

Good Lord, that report is depressing.

Descriptions like those really do get my out in tub-tumping Tory mode.

It was the torys that created these conditions.

 

[Blagsta]

Their benefits won't be stopped if they co-operate with local services which aim to help them address their drug misuse.

What does "co-operate" mean? I can tell you for nowt, most drug workers aren't going to be happy policing this shit.

 

[Fedayn]

Dan U, you know there is a view, widely held by a lot of our fellow citizens who pay the taxes and NI contributions that underpin the benefits system, that drug misusers claiming benefits and not seeking treatment to free themselves of a dependency are not the most "vulnerable" in society.

Can you provide any statistically credible evidence for this please?

 

[Azrael]

It was the torys that created these conditions.

Quite possibly. I'm no tribal supporter of the modern Conservative Party, and have been very rude about Baroness Thatcher's idea of "conservatism" on here before.

If a carrot and stick approach to dope fiends isn't going to work, what alternative do you suggest?

 

[Fullyplumped]

What does "co-operate" mean? I can tell you for nowt, most drug workers aren't going to be happy policing this shit.

I don't see how DWP would be able to make drugs agencies engage directly if they didn't want to. It will be interesting to see how the DWP would establish that a claimant was co-operating.

 

[Blagsta]

Quite possibly. I'm no tribal supporter of the modern Conservative Party, and have been very rude about Baroness Thatcher's idea of "conservatism" on here before.

If a carrot and stick approach to dope fiends isn't going to work, what alternative do you suggest?

Outreach, engagement, motivational interviewing, contingency management - stuff that has some evidence behind it!

 

[Blagsta]

I don't see how DWP would be able to make drugs agencies engage directly if they didn't want to. It will be interesting to see how the DWP would establish that a claimant was co-operating.

We've been made to police the "Tough Choices" programme. It depends on what the commisioners put in the SLA.

 

[Fedayn]

I don't see how DWP would be able to make drugs agencies engage directly if they didn't want to.

Which begs the question what is the point? Or more likely it's yet another wee gimmick to make the govt look tough when in reality it's a complete PR stunt thet's a lie and useless.

It will be interesting to see how the DWP would establish that a claimant was co-operating.

Quite, especially as most drugs workers have a confidentiality code with their clients. So again what does that point to?

 

[Azrael]

Outreach, engagement, motivational interviewing, contingency management - stuff that has some evidence behind it!

Very good, but what about those junkies who drop out and resume their thieving and robbery? What's to be done with them?

Come to think of it, is it a requirement that they're crime-free while they're on the programme you described?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Can you provide any statistically credible evidence for this please?

Statistically credible? Not a chance. I'm sitting here half watching the Daily Show and munching on Bombay Mix, and I wouldn't know where to look for it at this time in the evening. But I'm quite old and I know a lot of people and I'm pretty sure that most of my fellow citizens are at least as ignorant and uncaring about drug misusers as I am.

 

[Blagsta]

Very good, but what about those junkies who drop out and resume their thieving and robbery? What's to be done with them?

When they get arrested, they are tested for heroin and cocaine. If they test +ve, they see a drug worker in the police station and at a local drug service. Often they are signed up to DIP. They may be given a ROB or a DRR.

Come to think of it, is it a requirement that they're crime-free while they're on the programme you described?

Which programme?

 

[phildwyer]

Run for profit!? How's that work, they charge the inmates rent or summat?!

The inmates work, for very little or even no money, and the company that owns the prison then sells the products at a massive profit.

I bet it won't be long before the Labour Party introduces a similar system in the UK.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Often they are signed up to DIP. They may be given a ROB or a DRR.

Or worse, they might be given a TLA.

 

[Blagsta]

DIP = Drug Intervention Programme
ROB = Restriction on Bail
DRR = Drug Rehabiliatation Requirement

 

[Azrael]

When they get arrested, the are tested for heroin and cocaine. If they test +ve, they see a drug worker in the police station and at a local drug service. Often they are signed up to DIP. They may be given a ROB or a DRR.

Translation of acroymns, please.

Ah, you've post it up a page back. Thanks.

Which programme?

"Outreach, engagement, motivational interviewing, contingency management - stuff that has some evidence behind it!"

That's not part of a programme?

 

[Fedayn]

Statistically credible? Not a chance. I'm sitting here half watching the Daily Show and munching on Bombay Mix, and I wouldn't know where to look for it at this time in the evening. But I'm quite old and I know a lot of people and I'm pretty sure that most of my fellow citizens are at least as ignorant and uncaring about drug misusers as I am.

So what you're saying is that we should base drugs policies on the views of those you think are "are at least as ignorant and uncaring about drug misusers as I am"? I salute you......

 

[Fullyplumped]

You really are clueless aren't you? Do you understand the chaotic nature of drug users lives? We already stop peoples benefits for less. I suggest you actually know what you're talking about before you talk nonsense. Now I deal with Red Towers, Castle Craig and West Street Rehab almost daily, I suggest you actually find out about the chaotic nature of peoples lives before glibly trotting out your rather cliche ridden mantra.

Hold on. If people get themselves admitted to these facilities they have gone through a lot of assessment which involves co-perating with treatment. I do know Castle Craig and Red Towers. Very, very expensive to the taxpayer. People admitted there will not be deemed to be failing to co-operate!

 

[CyberRose]

The inmates work, for very little or even no money, and the company that owns the prison then sells the products at a massive profit.

Ah so a gulag then?

 

[Azrael]

The programmes Blagsta listed seem to carry penalties if you don't abide by their terms -- a restriction on bail certainly would -- so I don't see what makes them massively different from the threat of removing benefits.

If it's the loss of money, I'm sure some other penalty could be devised, but if the only requirement is to "co-operate" with whatever treatment is offered, the current scheme doesn't seem too onerous.

 

[Fedayn]

Hold on. If people get themselves admitted to these facilities they have gone through a lot of assessment which involves co-perating with treatment. I do know Castle Craig and Red Towers. Very, very expensive to the taxpayer. People admitted there will not be deemed to be failing to co-operate!

Oh but they do, they often leave because they are unable to cope. That would be deemed unable to co-operate. That they are on the sick, either on Long Term Incapacity Benefit ie having an opened ended med cert not needing to visit their docs to renew their medical certificates or Short term IB/IB credits and med certs regularly updated by their GP. Their med cert is their condition of entitlement NOT whether they co-operate with drug workers. The idea that we put even more obstacles to claiming benefit to people already vulnerable, with vulnerable dependents, is frankly ridiculous. Not only ludicrous but borne of a nasty desire to attack those least able to defend themselves and saving comparitively miniscule amounts of money and sadly very little to do with real help to re-integrate them into 'society' and the possible return to work.

 

[Fullyplumped]

So what you're saying is that we should base drugs policies on the views of those you think are "are at least as ignorant and uncaring about drug misusers as I am"? I salute you......

Well it might be worse - all I want is for drug misusers to make some moves to stop misusing drugs in return for getting taxpayers money. You wouldn't like my dad to be in charge - he's quite hard line about these things.

 

[Fedayn]

Well it might be worse - all I want is for drug misusers to make some moves to stop misusing drugs in return for getting taxpayers money. You wouldn't like my dad to be in charge - he's quite hard line about these things.

And you do that by making their lives even more vulnerable and in turn making the lives of their dependents ie children even more vulnerable by taking their benefits off them?

So would my dad, but like your dad he's clueless about the reality and as such should not be in charge.

 

[Azrael]

This issue always gets polarised between those who take the line of Fedayn and Blagsta, that drug abusers are victims who need help, and those who take the line of myself and (possibly, please excuse me if I've mischaracterised your view) Fullyplumped, that drug abusers are criminals with mitigating circumstances.

Try as I might to see it from the other POV, the two views are so diametrically opposed it's hard to find any common ground between them.

 

[Fullyplumped]

And you do that by making their lives even more vulnerable and in turn making the lives of their dependents ie children even more vulnerable by taking their benefits off them?

So would my dad, but like your dad he's clueless about the reality and as such should not be in charge.

Relax - my dad isn't in charge, and neither am I. Mr Purnell is, but he's a bit of a liberal, I think - more tham my dad or me.