Should they be forced to seek help?

So on the news they are saying that our government is going to pass a bill in which Alcoholics and Drug Addicts will be forced to seek help and then look for work or they will lose their benefits!..

I am wondering if this can actually be right and where does it stop, will it extend to people who eat too much binge drink = binge eating...

Are people being punished for being addicts or do they deserve to be forced to get help?

It already happens with drug addicts.  Cynically, I think the proposed extension to alcoholics was more a vain attempt to cover up for the e-mail debacle.

Whatever happens we end up paying, of course.   Whether it's via the benefits system or the NHS.  I don't think we should cut addicts off without a bean.... that would only lead to more crime as they attempt to finance their habits in other ways.  But, when someone's life is being 100% supported by the state,  encouragement to seek treatment and become productive members of society has to be part of the deal. 

Original Post by gi-jane:

  But, when someone's life is being 100% supported by the state,  encouragement to seek treatment and become productive members of society has to be part of the deal. 

 Bingo!!!

Maybe they aren't going to be ready for a job right away...I can handle that.  But if you are incapable of working because of an addiction that CAN be fixed, I think people should at least be required to try.  ie, treatment or group therapy or something.

The problem is that, as we all know, treatment only works for those that want it.

Right...but shouldn't we at least try?  Addiction is on the rise...drugs, alcohol, etc.  I just don't feel comfortable doing nothing about it.  Especially when tax dollars are going for more and more people like this every year.  It's getting worse and not better.

Agree that the state should offer treatment - just don't see how it could be mandated as a requirement in order to receive aid.

in edit: in the US at any rate.

Original Post by kathygator:

The problem is that, as we all know, treatment only works for those that want it.

what about brainwashing?

have we tried that?

i heard on the radio yesterday that marijuana use is declining among teens -- they think it's because teens are going out less/staying home more but I think it's because they've seen enough adults doing it that its losing some of its "coolness factor" -- anything you've seen a balding, pot-bellied 45-year-old man do is probably not going to be thought of as 'cool'

While rates varied widely among countries, prevalence was highest both years in Canada, where 30 percent of boys and almost 28 percent of girls used marijuana in 2006. That was down 13 percent among boys and almost 10 percent among girls.

The United States ranked third in 2006, with 24 percent of boys and girls each reporting marijuana use. That was down almost 12 percent among boys and 2 percent among girls, echoing previous reports of declining pot use among U.S. teens.

To answer the OP, I think if brainwashing is part of the therapy, it has more chance of success.

Original Post by kathygator:

Agree that the state should offer treatment - just don't see how it could be mandated as a requirement in order to receive aid.

totally agree.  there's nothing cut-and-dried about what constitutes addiction (not to mention recovery), so deciding who gets forced in and whether they're successful recovery becomes a set-up for discrimination and abuse.

besides, most of the people we think of as addicts have concurrent disorders, and until we're prepared to provide appropriate services for mental health issues--including housing, medical, dental, and front-line support--addictions treatment isn't going to accomplish anything.

This is a serious and expensive problem for not only the person but for the communities that deal with it.  Problem is this will probably be another unfunded mandate and even if a person wanted treatment it probably would not be available without a long wait.  Either way we pay for these people.  Maybe prevention is where our focus should be....

Original Post by kathygator:

Agree that the state should offer treatment - just don't see how it could be mandated as a requirement in order to receive aid.

in edit: in the US at any rate.

 

 Why couldn't it?  If the state is offering free money to these people, shouldn't we require them to at least TRY to help themselves?  I mean, yeah ultimately it's they who will have to make the effort to quit, but don't you think the success rate would be higher than it currently is if they were at least required to attend meetings or something as opposed to sitting at home, shooting up, and collecting their money?

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

i heard on the radio yesterday that marijuana use is declining among teens -- they think it's because teens are going out less/staying home more but I think it's because they've seen enough adults doing it that its losing some of its "coolness factor" -- anything you've seen a balding, pot-bellied 45-year-old man do is probably not going to be thought of as 'cool'

While rates varied widely among countries, prevalence was highest both years in Canada, where 30 percent of boys and almost 28 percent of girls used marijuana in 2006. That was down 13 percent among boys and almost 10 percent among girls.

nomo, i'm suspicious of those canadian numbers.  the macreary report was released yesterday, so i heard this on the radio, too.  problem with macreary is that it's a large-scale study conducted every second year (i think) with kids in schools; the kids who have already dropped out are missed entirely, and of those who are in school, you can guess which ones are likely to be in the parking lot when the survey is administered ;)

Original Post by pgeorgian:

 and of those who are in school, you can guess which ones are likely to be in the parking lot when the survey is administered ;)

 Hehe!

Original Post by peaches0405:

Original Post by kathygator:

Agree that the state should offer treatment - just don't see how it could be mandated as a requirement in order to receive aid.

in edit: in the US at any rate.

 

 Why couldn't it?  If the state is offering free money to these people, shouldn't we require them to at least TRY to help themselves?  I mean, yeah ultimately it's they who will have to make the effort to quit, but don't you think the success rate would be higher than it currently is if they were at least required to attend meetings or something as opposed to sitting at home, shooting up, and collecting their money?

 Most would simply refuse the treatment, give up the aid and take to the streets. Become criminals and stats.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

i heard on the radio yesterday that marijuana use is declining among teens -- they think it's because teens are going out less/staying home more but I think it's because they've seen enough adults doing it that its losing some of its "coolness factor" -- anything you've seen a balding, pot-bellied 45-year-old man do is probably not going to be thought of as 'cool'

While rates varied widely among countries, prevalence was highest both years in Canada, where 30 percent of boys and almost 28 percent of girls used marijuana in 2006. That was down 13 percent among boys and almost 10 percent among girls.

nomo, i'm suspicious of those canadian numbers.  the macreary report was released yesterday, so i heard this on the radio, too.  problem with macreary is that it's a large-scale study conducted every second year (i think) with kids in schools; the kids who have already dropped out are missed entirely, and of those who are in school, you can guess which ones are likely to be in the parking lot when the survey is administered ;)

so why weren't they in the parking lot during the previous survey?  a 13% drop would presumably be among the same demographic population as was surveyed previously.

no?

I think people are going to be surprised by the generation that is in high school, middle school and elementary school right now.  I think they're going to be the next greatest generation. Very idealistic - very civic minded - very responsible (compared to those who preceded them).

I might be biased on account of how awesome my daughter and her friends are. 

Had the same experience with my kids, nomo. Their friends have been good kids, not prone to wasting too much time on bad behavior.

lol it's stupid.

It would be a great idea if the government took mental illness as seriously as they do physical illness.  The problem is that Mental health policy is being writen by people who think that it's the patient's fault their sick.  Untill we start taking the underlying mental illness that causes the addiction seriously, we don't stand a chance in fixing the problem. 

The proposal is in the UK and you have to remember that there is already not only a reasonably respectable financial/housing benefits system for those incapable or unable to work but that health-care is freely available to all via the NHS. So their whole lives are essentially paid for by the state, whether they're in treatment or whether they're not.

A relative of my ex-husband was an alcoholic.  She had a flat that was paid for by the state & she received a weekly allowance from the state.  I think the bills were constantly in the red.  She didn't appear to buy food ever.  Instead the weekly allowance was immediately taken to the local pub who operated a kind of small-scale banking system for the locals i.e. they ran up a tab behind the bar which they paid off with next week's giro (dole cheque).   I went out with her once and it was an eye-opener just how much booze 'penniless' people can get through (I had a job and I couldn't afford to drink the way they did).   The publican explained that he was happy to lend out the cash because he knew he'd get it all back when the cheques arrived.  The locals were such good customers that he'd even organise them taxis (paid for by him) to take them home after each evening's drinking.

She was offered treatment on many occasions... all free, of course.  But she tended to walk out on it after one or two sessions.  Maybe some kind of conditional arrangement would have kept her going back?

Original Post by peaches0405:

 Why couldn't it?  If the state is offering free money to these people, shouldn't we require them to at least TRY to help themselves?  I mean, yeah ultimately it's they who will have to make the effort to quit, but don't you think the success rate would be higher than it currently is if they were at least required to attend meetings or something as opposed to sitting at home, shooting up, and collecting their money?

this assumes that they aren't already trying to help themselves.  it's also woefully true to the stereotypes of "the addict."

the idea that "treatment" is the answer is inherently flawed.  conventional treatment works for a small proportion of people; most people who recover do so largely on their own, and they do so because they have a lot to lose.

and conventional treatment does little to address concurrent disorders.

i agree that many addicts have other mental health issues that they would still have if you took away the substance

but i'm not sure that mental illness "causes" substance abuse/addiction

if so, what is the mental illness that nicotine addicts suffer from?

edit to add: i think that in cases where a person has a mental health problem, it is not uncommon for said person to try to "self-medicate" to avoid their mental health and consequent other problems and then become addicted to the self-medicating -- but there are also mentally ill people who do not abuse substances, so it seems wrong to state causation.

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

so why weren't they in the parking lot during the previous survey?  a 13% drop would presumably be among the same demographic population as was surveyed previously.

no?

I think people are going to be surprised by the generation that is in high school, middle school and elementary school right now.  I think they're going to be the next greatest generation. Very idealistic - very civic minded - very responsible (compared to those who preceded them).

I might be biased on account of how awesome my daughter and her friends are. 

naw, there are plenty of good kids out there; most of the ones who are doing drugs are good kids.

i just don't think a large-scale survey can ever get a truly accurate picture of what's going on, especially when administered in an institutional setting.