The main message readers can take from this report is that if you are on a benefit and using drugs, better to be addicted and you won't be pestered to find a job. Tell me I'm wrong. Inevitably pressure will go on doctors to certify more cases as addiction.
I wonder if any older readers can remember what happened in the fifties and sixties when Social Welfare operated under legislation that exempted people who caused their own incapacity, and were not of sober, moral character, from receiving benefits? Did they actually apply the legislation and were the streets full of drug and/or alcohol-addicted derelicts?
When a child is born
41 minutes ago
8 comments:
Trained circus seals
I think you are right - an increase of so-called addicts will be inevitable. While I agree with this kind of policy I dont think it goes far enough - for me welfare is a social contract and should be enforced as such; any kind of drug use & abuse should preclude all entitlement.
You just have to think of the CHCH Sickness Beneficiary that was apparently addicted to weed (a misnomer in my view) who bought a $60k Chrysler etc.
Welfare should be reserved for those faced with circumstances beyond their control - pregnancy & drugs including alcohol are choices!!!
Its difficult to compare the two eras because they were so different.
Back in the 50s and 60s there was indeed public drunkeness but because of near full employment the drunks weren't that many and were mainly tolerated unless they were a danger to themselves or the public. In fact, the boozebarns and 6pm closing were designed to get the drunks "contained" in the pubs till 6pm and then sent off home for a feed and to sleep it off.. nevermind the consequences to the family.
Back then the full employment meant that mainly manual workers were laid off and to collect the dole they had to agree to go scrubcutting and tree planting in the Govt forests. Nobody cared too much if they were drunk or on drugs back then.
The difference today is jobs are much more technical and require at least NCEA2 for literacy and some numerology.. and there's no more Govt employment programmes catering for low achievers in the downturns.
With more technology and thus more need for education comes more need to be drug and alcohol free at work to meet the needs of technology and safety. I could add of course, we are also much less tolerant of drunks and druggies at work, so education standards, health and safety standards and drug testing are fine ways to get rid of people from the workplace.
I'd also suggest that the explosion of women into the workplace from the 70s made it inevitable that drunks, druggies, the uneducated and the uncouth would be increasingly excluded from the workforce.. to improve the working environment for women.
JC
Will be great to be working in drug and alcohol...
Look at the good side - if there is an increase in addicts living on the streets then a good cold winter will solve a lot of problems.
During the 30 years I practised as a pharmacist I know of at least one guy who has been, and still is, on the methadone programme. To my knowledge he has never been in legal employment over this time. He was however a victim of a home invasion when his "mates" found out he had a stash of morphine he was selling. Murray
Hell of an incentive to be a life long beneficiary, become a junkie. Murray
Murray - I agree. In fact I would say most people, if they are honest, know of addicts who have never had a job in their lives.
I know a few - one started off more tragically: middle class white victim of child abuse, married an abuser who kicked her first unborn baby to death, got addicted to heroin, divorced, hooked up with another guy, had 2 kids - on & off heroin, then after they were finally taken off her in the 1980s for good & permanently fostered out to a decent couple (CYF can get it right sometimes!), went on to the methadone programme and has been on it since. She has been on the Sickness Benefit for umpteen years & never had a job in her life. Has now suffered a partial stroked at age 50 something so is guaranteed a life on the taxpayer.
While her life has been awful beyond imagination, there were plenty of times she could have made different/better choices - including for example, choosing her apparently much loved children over drugs instead of vice versa.
For every story you get like this you get several more that did make better choices. So I think the govt needs to remove the incentives to take the easy road - going on a benefit is far easier than facing up to your choices, responsibilities and your actions & becoming a contributing, self-managing member of society.
But we all know that things will never change and that all govts will continue to enable the 'victims'.
Post a Comment