Benefits to be tied to treatment compliance

[admin]

Is it me, or is this really worrying?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/27/drugsandalcohol

[simon]

I wonder who cobbled that together?

[Wolves]

Very worrying, especially coupled with some of the other stuff they are talking about. (see my post on this under the Conference Thread)

Prob should have started a new topic on it opps soz!

[admin]

Sorry - hadn't read the conference thread at that point - saw the headline on the Guardian site and raced here to start a thread after briefly checking that no-one else had. 
 
I don't know who's responsible for this one, but it's another leap towards dividing those on benefits into the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.  And it looks like its implementation will be down to services reporting back on who turns up, which is the bit that really scares me.  There are some excellent services in this country which would be happy to accept that sometimes people miss an appointment by accident and that it's not necessarily a sign of non-compliance.  There are also some awful bastards out there who would delight in getting someone's benefits taken off them for a fortnight because they missed a single appointment.  It's going to make things even more of a postcode lottery than they are now, and it's going to worsen relationships between clients and services.
 
I forsee rather a lot more advocacy work coming out of this...

[znagemq]

I saw it as a national news piece and I could not believe my eye's! Apart from what you have all stated, this will drive some people towards crime which they may never have become involved with! The  negative implications/consequences of this action are endless. 
The marginalised will become even more peripheral, the chaotic even more chaotic and the hard to reach, well what can I say!

[mcdermott]

Gerry called me just before Daren did to tell me to listen to the Today programme on Radio 4's Listen Again. She said it was very good on the issue, and that I'd love it. Peter Hitchens vs. Matthew Taylor, apparently. However, I haven't listened yet, so I don't know if she was being sarcastic or not.

Anyway, here's our formal response to The Guardian:

Sir,

The decision to link availability of benefits to treatment take up, as outlined in your article, Get treatment or lose benefits, users told, is the sort of political posturing that we had hoped this government had finally abandoned.

As a national charity that provides advocacy on behalf of people who are struggling to access drug treatment within a reasonable time frame, or those who have had their treatment involuntarily terminated, our experience is that there is no shortage of demand for drug treatment. Whats more, the vast majority of people who are seeking benefits as a consequence of their drug problem will inevitably be receiving treatment, whether from their own GP, or from a specialist service.

If the government is serious about improving take up and increasing the efficacy of the treatment system, then rather than introducing an unwanted and unnecessary element of compulsion, it might be more helpful to start looking at some of the barriers that stop people from successfully accessing drug treatment and returning to meaningful work. Despite its reputation as the home of the drug war, people accessing drug treatment in the United States benefit from the protection of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a consequence, they are entitled to enhanced benefits, but more importantly, they are protected against discrimination when they attempt to reenter the workplace. That act seeks to reduce stigma, rather than simply pandering to it. While not everybody with a drug problem can be considered disabled, people with drug problems are explicitly excluded from the protections of the UK's Disability Discrimination Act.

The decision to enter treatment has consequences that will be ongoing for the rest of someone's life. Insurers may either deny cover, or make it so costly as to be effectively impossible to justify. No insurance cover might effectively mean no job, no mortgage, no ability to legally drive a car. If our aim is to successfully reintegrate people with drug problems into productive society, we have to address these problems before seeking to compel people to act against their perceived and often very real interest.

Then there is the issue of increased offending by those who may actually have benefits denied. In the main, we're talking about a population that doesn't have large reserves of savings that they can draw on. For most, twenty six weeks without benefits will mean twenty six weeks of fairly intensive acquisitive crime, accompanied by a strong possibility of either homelessness or prison or both.

Finally, one wonders what impact this is likely to have on the needs of the estimated 250,000 to 300,000 children of parents who are living with a drug problem? Perhaps the government plans on going the whole hog and stopping Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit for these families as well?

Yours faithfully,
Peter McDermott,
Policy Officer
The Alliance
http://www.m-alliance.org.uk/

[Maddy]

once again penalising those in the worst situation. I agree with everything in this thread. Can I just add one thing, a bit of a red herring maybe but what exactly are the government doing to make it easier (practically, morally and possibly with a view to avoiding discrimination) for people who are in full time employment to enter treatment. People who are petrified of losing their job if they are found to be in treatment, people who can't always make appointments and people who cant go everyday for titration and can't pick up daily. I personally think that this group probably makes up a significant proportion of those that are now being termed "treatment naive"....they're not naive, they know all about it but choose not to do it for  a multitude of reasons. In my experience professionally its the minority of services that arec getting this area right!

Anyway, tangent over....feel free to return to the original rant!!

Maddy x

[sturitchie]

I think this is just the thin edge of the wedge and it is bad enough , i am very glad the alliance will be challenging this its utter madness.

 Once this is in place and with the concerns about so few people becoming drug free when will treatment out comes be tied to benifits , I can see the day when you will have to provide a sample to get signed on.

 How can you effectivly tackle the stigma of addiction when the government sets out to alienate those people brave enough to try to sort there lives out.

 What happened to your rights to confidential treatment, why should those seeking help be further hindered this will surely adversly  effect those who now have to weigh up the consequenses of seeking treatment.

 Anything I can do to help lobby against this I will put me to work  

[Tony.B.]

    'Drug Addicts who refuse treatment or don't kick the habit will lose their benefits'

That's how ITV news at l/time led on this story.
God help us all.
'Too much stick and not enought carrot' cay campaigners
I say stick your Ten yr Strategy if this is a taste of what's to come.
That is a real rant, sorry.
TonyB

[Tony.B.]

Forgive me but i have just read the Guardian article.
Three strikes and your'e out system. What's that a bird in jail is worth 3 on the streets ( Bush ).
That is not a system it is a farce at best and so fundamentally unfair.
Advocacy and miracles methinks admin.
TonyB

[sturitchie]

just a thought will they be doing the same to heart patients that continue to smoke, cancer patients that refuse treatment , obese patients that wont loose weight, diabetics that dont improove their sugar control, alchoholics , schosphrenics that dont take their meds , bi polar disorder sufferes that dont .. etc etc etc.   

[simon]

Sorry - hadn't read the conference thread at that point - saw the headline on the Guardian site and raced here to start a thread after briefly checking that no-one else had. 
 
I don't know who's responsible for this one, but it's another leap towards dividing those on benefits into the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.  And it looks like its implementation will be down to services reporting back on who turns up, which is the bit that really scares me.  There are some excellent services in this country which would be happy to accept that sometimes people miss an appointment by accident and that it's not necessarily a sign of non-compliance.  There are also some awful bastards out there who would delight in getting someone's benefits taken off them for a fortnight because they missed a single appointment.  It's going to make things even more of a postcode lottery than they are now, and it's going to worsen relationships between clients and services.
 
I forsee rather a lot more advocacy work coming out of this...

They are not getting any such information from me I don't care what they say and who is they?

[Tony.B.]

Good on you Simon.
Exactly what we need.
Bless you
TonyB
ps They may prove very interesting

[mikee3333]

 :)did any of u watch "the wright stuff" this morning.had that kay adams(loose women)david grant(singing dude)and matt wright.they had their say and concluded that the govt plan is pretty crap.they did suggest incentivising treatment ,eg if u r clean u get a top up on your benifit.heard some bits on the radio,seems some of the public can c through this govt initative.what next,making u homeless if u leave treatment.
is a successful outcome someone leaving treatment free of opiates but still having a bit of puff(probably not).even though they entered treatment for their opiate use and had never considered puff a prob?
lke the pun toney.b

[Tinfoil John]

Sorry - hadn't read the conference thread at that point - saw the headline on the Guardian site and raced here to start a thread after briefly checking that no-one else had. 
 
I don't know who's responsible for this one, but it's another leap towards dividing those on benefits into the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.  And it looks like its implementation will be down to services reporting back on who turns up, which is the bit that really scares me.  There are some excellent services in this country which would be happy to accept that sometimes people miss an appointment by accident and that it's not necessarily a sign of non-compliance.  There are also some awful bastards out there who would delight in getting someone's benefits taken off them for a fortnight because they missed a single appointment.  It's going to make things even more of a postcode lottery than they are now, and it's going to worsen relationships between clients and services.
 
I forsee rather a lot more advocacy work coming out of this...

It is the NEW Labour Party that is trying to implement it, create more them and us, police state monitoring where and what we are doing, and as anyone with any knowledge about coming off drugs etc knows it's only when you want to stop that any help may work, if it's forced on you, it will be a waste of resourses, and will sreate more resentment towards the STATE we live in.