[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I think that is the point. There is support. They are offered support. They refuse it.

At that point it is suggested that they should lose their benefits. Why should the tax payer continue to fund their habits?

If thry accept the help and support to get off the drugs then by all means continue paying their benefits but if they refuse to accept help to get off the drugs that is their choice but surely they must see that it's a stupid one. Do addicts really want to continue to be addicted? In that case I agree with Grannyclaret that they should not be in charge of children. They want to mess their own lives up then fine, let them. If they have been offered help and refuse to accept it that is up to them. But they should not be financially supported in their habit by the general public out of our taxes and they certainly should not be left to ruin the lives of their children.

Perhaps more to the point is that we give people the option to take or refuse support.

Perhaps that option should be revoked. The fact is that drug addicts and alcoholics have mental issues associated with their addictions. They don’t think rationally and have lost the ability to reason, therefore, remove the option. Not sure what we would do with the working alcoholics and drug addicts, some do hold down jobs, but that wasn’t the question.

I don’t think taking their benefits alone would solve anything at all. They still have to be housed and eat. Maybe we need to have rehabilitation courses whereby living expenses are met, vouchers or something, who knows. Vouchers isn’t the answer I know, but neither is just removing benefits.

We’re closing the door after the horse has bolted. More need to be done to stop people ever using drugs.