Four out of five drug addicts on welfare

Jennie

No doubt, the remaining one-fifth are the affluent coke-snorters who have no need to claim State benefits.

Is a drug-dependent lifestyle acceptable so long as the taxpayer isn't helping to fund it?

Chuck Unsworth

Fraser,

"this means the welfare state bankrolls four out of five drug addictions in the UK"

Care to elaborate on that interesting concept?

Silent Hunter

And that statistic alone may well win Glasgow East for New Labour.

A case of Cold Turkeys voting for Christmas.

London Calling

The report you are unable to download is the one that states how much crime pays for drug addiction, also prostitution and the wider use of drugs in our society as Jennie states above.

The most expensive drug on the streets is cocaine, and as we all know this drug is widely used by those who are not on welfare, an addiction of which per person is £500 - £1000 per week, the average cost for a user. The average person on welfare gets around £50 per week, its not hard to work out that those on welfare contribute a small amount to their drug addiction, than those who can afford to pay more

If the issue here is simply to point out that tax payers money is being spent on drugs, then we must also consider the money earned by taxpayers that ends up funding the drugs mafia in many parts of the world which doesn’t go back into our economy, of which millions of pounds goes out the back door and into the pockets of terrorists to fund arms. Its a vicious cycle of which all drug users in our society is part of, and not just those on welfare, and it is this report we have yet to discuss here, the bigger picture and the truth we have not yet faced up to, that drugs have no social barrier, which is evident in our society as a whole.

Verity

The moronic indulgence of this government and its army of self-perpetuating social workers turns the stomach.

Drug addiction isn't something that gets hold of a person and ruins their life. It's a lifestyle choice.

Some famous rock guitarist - can't remember the name, but it was Pete something, celebrated ex-druggie, said it is much easier to give up drugs than to give up smoking. He should know. He's done both. Other, less famous, individuals have said the same thing.

It's in the interest of the social workers to pretend that these people are in the grip of something bigger than themselves. Swells the "client" list and presents an argument for ever-larger budgets.

To get their welfare cheque, they should have to undergo a drug test. If there are drugs in their system, sorry, no money this week.

So ... they will, I hear you suggest, go out and commit a robbery or burglary. Will they? When not emboldened by drugs, these individuals are weak-willed and lazy and their stupidity and lack of ability to plan infinite.

Marian C

Verity; here, here, your absolutely correct.

Fraser Nelson

Chuck, by "bankroll" I simply rephrase the words of the Green Paper - that welfare ends up "supporting a drug-dependent lifestyle".

Fraser Nelson

London Calling, the street price is £30 a gram - a line of coke is cheaper than a pint of cider nowadays. Verity, Purnell is considering making attending a drugs rehabilitation unit a condition of welfare. Hilariously, they're also wondering whether to ask "do you take drugs" in the welfare application form.

Verity

Fraser - Thanks. I hate all this "helpful, caring" social fiddling this group of very unpleasant people - the government - indulge in.

No need for "drug rehabilitation", for God's sake! The way you rehabilitate a druggie on welfare is write on the form: "Stay clear of drugs to continue receiving your welfare money. You will be tested. This week's money will NOT be banked for you until you get clean. You use - you lose. This is not a joke. Over to you, Bozo."

Sally S

Well put Fraser,
Certainly certain parts are very compelling, as you say “There is something fundamentally immoral about a system that has paved the way for a wretched life of drug addiction for a more than quarter of a million British people”.
Though, when young minds are increasingly indoctrinated by an assortment of techniques, in the media, I hardly blame those children from broken lifestyles from indulging, because this brain washing does “very much get a hold of a person”.
Though, with certain parts of the comments displayed I will agree, for what sickens me is that the powers that be let certain life style being glamorized. I read an article in the Times a while back stating that traces of cocaine were found in the House of Commons rest rooms, albeit, that these were in “traces of cocaine in lavatories at the House of Commons press gallery”, it still seemed ominous enough (then again it may be looked upon as performance enhancing).
Personally, of course, I don’t blame all social workers, there are always some inefficient workers in all walks of life, though I wouldn’t stretch as far as saying all of them, god knows the vast majority of them do a great job but have their hands tied (the poor souls are largely making the best out of a bad situation which has been forced on them).
Adopting an alternative slant, though I’m not from Glasgow-East (and from the picture you painted it does not seem like the sort of place I’ll be visiting on my time off from work). In many an estate I have been to you can’t blame the young ones from taking drugs, to begin with. Unfortunately, for some it’s not a lifestyle choice of their own volition, when you face potential violence from gang members for not indulging, it would certainly seem like “social protection”, though the manner in which you document this terms use is interesting and very much questionable. Though I would agree in so much as if the benefits are being given out wrongly on many an occasion.

cuffleyburgers

Jennie

Yes actually, if someone wishes to take drugs that is entirely their affair.

What is wrong and unacceptable is the criminality which accompanies it and which is caused by the misguided attempt to outlaw drug use.

Be clear about this; the harm to society is mostly a result of government policy (as with most things).

The point is that welfare is acceptable insofar as it is about helping people through mishaps. It must never be allowed to become a lifestyle choice. Where it has done, you have the ghetto, and misery and hopelessness on a vast scale (not to mention the billions of tax payers money p!ssed up against the wall by an administration without the guts, the imagination, the basic managerial competence or the honesty to do the right thing)

Sally S

Though I’ll never be convinced that certain drugs should be legalized, it’s interesting that the most prolific legalized drug isn’t mentioned by the DWP (the vast amount of PDUs must be alcoholics).

Jennie

cuffleyburgers, I refer you to Sally S's point above. Consider all the harm caused by excessive use of a perfectly legal drug. If other, at present illegal, highly-inoxicating substances were legalised, imagine the explosion of harmful social consequences.

Hugh

Fraser can you put some better numbers to this problem than £ 80 pw each equates to £ 1.1 bn pa

Verity

Sally S writes: "Personally, of course, I don’t blame all social workers, there are always some inefficient workers in all walks of life."

Give me an inefficient and lazy social worker any day over a interfering busy bee discovering urgent needs for "additional funding".

Social workers, outreach workers, coordinators and whatever the new term du jour is, are a plague. There may be a few talented ones, but most of them embed whatever problems they're working on ever-deeper in society. The British taxpayer should not be handing out free money to fund anyone's chosen lifestyle. They shouldn't be handing out the employed sector's money at all.

The answer is what the Americans have been doing for decades now (because it works best): food stamps.

This work used to be done by churches and synagogues and kindly individuals interested in giving people a hand to rejoin the mainstream. Then "social work" got "professionalised" and it was Katy-bar-the-door.

Giving free money for people to enjoy the small luxuries of the employed without contributing anything to society in return is nuts.

Food stamps pay for food. End of story. They can't be exchanged for beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets or plasma screens. The American attitude to independence is best: We'll help you out during the rough times by making sure you don't starve while you're LOOKING FOR WORK.

(Except the genuinely disabled i.e., not those who are able-bodied and have been placed on the "disability" rolls to make the unemployed figures look better. Everyone else: no cash.

Sally S

Though personally I won’t be referring to social workers in such terms, I am in agreeably disposed with a lot of what you has been said Verity. I have to concur with certain points as regards unemployment, when I wasn’t employed I didn’t ask for any money at all and neither did I want it, because it was great to have some well earned time off. None the less I do feel there are times when money should be handed out. But as regards those funding more dubious revelry, shall we say, yes, I am agreed (but I’m not for food stamps myself, though a fair point).

Verity

Sally S - Thank you for your comment.

You say, "None the less I do feel there are times when money should be handed out". But you don't tell us what those "times" are. NOt for medical care,surely, when the NHS is provider to the world?

Money (earned by taxpayers and taken from them) should be "handed out"? Why? It's their money. In what circumstances should it be "handed out"?

Why money instead of food tickets?

How can you justify "giving out" money from the productive sector of society to the non-productive? Why should the non-productive sector be perpetuated with hand-outs? I'd like to hear your argument.

Food, obviously, keeps people alive until they can find a way of funding themselves. I think none of us could argue that giving food to people with no means of buying it is what society would want.

But giving actual money earned by people getting up in the morning (or evening if they're on the night shift), getting themselves to work, applying themselves to their job for eight hours, and often more, to finance scratch cards, lottery tickets, money for beer and dope and drive-by pizzas for the non-productive segment?

No.

The American system, tried and true for at least four generations is, give tickets for food. After that, you're on your own. Funny how people manage to find their way back into work when they can't pay their electricity bills.

Sorry, the state is not the guardian of your tiny assets.

Food, I will give you and even then, (save pensioners and the genuinely disabled, obviously), I would limit it to the essentials. As the Americans have for four generations, and it works.

Verity

Why are you not for food tickets, Sally S.? What do you find unjust about this system of taking money from producers to support parasites to get daily nourishment until they FIND A JOB?

I await hearing.

The Happy Carbon Footprint

"Four out of five drug addicts on welfare."

Then make "welfare" aka blackmail, unavailable. Who cares?

Steve

Fraser i don't know where you are getting your cocaine from but if your paying £30 a gram for it your more likely to get an addiction to teething powder because there will be very little cocaine in your gram for that price.
Verity if you had ever known a heroin addict you would realise that they rarely in a fit state to commit crimes whilst under the influence it's more the desperation for a fix that drives them to do the things they do not bravado brought on by being high.

guy herbert

There's a problem with the statistic. It's a circularity built into it by the definition of 'Problem Drug User'. You are won't be considered a PDU until or unless your drug use brings you to the attention of the state, and you are calling on its services to deal with your identified habit. Of course people in such a position are mostly on benefit, because the PDU definition depends on dependency on the state more than on dependency on drugs. Drug addicts who can currently handle or afford their drugs from their own resources mostly won't be counted.

Next week: "4 out of 5 homeless in state-funded hostels".

Sally S

Hey Verity as I said before hand I agree with a lot of what you have said, thus with regards to what circumstances, well, you detailed one of them your self in the conclusive paragraph (@1:24) with regards to those that are disabled.

Also I have no qualms with the way things work, if a person who has been working and contributing finds him or herself in a position where he or she would like to spend some money on clothes, bills, or bus fares whilst they are looking for work it is fine by me (as long as it isn’t illegal drugs), though on the condition that the person has a history of contributing to the system and has found themselves in an unfortunate state of affairs and are looking for work. Though to call all people on welfare parasites is a bit much for me.

Furthermore, in hope of remaining objective, as likely as many won’t agree this is why I quite like the idea that you put forward i.e. “To get their welfare cheque, they should have to undergo a drug test. If there are drugs in their system, sorry, no money this week”, though this in itself would cost.

With regards to the food stamps idea, I’m not on board because a lot of people are responsible in spending their money correctly. If you have a lot of kids and an elderly person to look after, you may have to spend some money on things other then food.

Also say if say I have vegetables enough in my greenhouse to survive on I would have no use for food stamps though welfare payments will allow me to pay bills and aid me in looking for a job, when you find yourself unemployed and were you to have no savings I can understand why you may want to spend money on bus fares etc (to the extent simple job seekers allowance wont facilitate for when you take in to account bills). If you suddenly find yourself on welfare due to some upheaval then past financial obligations may need to be facilitated for, if a person has always been a contributing member of society then I have no qualms about that person getting a handout on the condition that they have to get a job. I vaguely remember being told about 3 years ago when I needed job seekers allowance (which was nowhere near enough to sustain my relatively moderate manner of living) that within 3 weeks if you don’t get a job within a sector you wish to work in you take anything we give you or you get cut off, which made sense, now I don’t know if you actually get cut off for luckily I found a job within a week but that seemed rational.

If I were to find myself in a scenario where I needed welfare then money would provide added flexibility as opposed to food stamps and would thus do no harm, it wholly reasonable to me in comparison to say food stamps which are good but are not for me. Though there is a point I agree with you on in that if that individual is not looking for work then there must be a cut of point, not even food stamps for if you do nothing you get nothing other then health care, for even when I am working and I see someone hurt and they may have been a piece of scum most their lives and done nothing I would rather see that they get some medical aid.

Though with regards to healthcare I have no problem abiding that a person is contributing, they may come from all over the world, but so do allot of the people that work for the healthcare system. As long as they pay their dues I have no problem.

Water

Have you guessed what it is yet?

Matt B

For the uneducated:
Addiction:
Psychological and bodily dependence on a substance or practice which is beyond voluntary control.

Anybody who thinks that this is a lifestyle choice or is weak willed has not got a clue.

I was a drug addict for many years. I have lived it. I never had tax payers money to fund over the counter painkiller addiction. I could not just stop however and have a long history of success in education and sports which required much more willpower, dedication and committment than most people I have met.

Lets remember that alcohol has the worst of all social effects in our society. It isn't all about those nasty drug addicts Verity, is it?