UK - Drug users risk benefit cuts

[Lunar Loops]

The mind boggles. You can sort of see what they are trying to achieve, but this has so many holes in it you could drive a bus through it and of course it has raises the old "cannabis addiction" chestnut again. At the moment there is no mention of DHSS drug tests for all applicants (they are only talking about information being passed on from the police), but it would not be a massive leap (no drug test.....no giro). This article from the observer (article link):

Drug users risk benefit cuts

Jobcentre staff will be able to withhold cash and force claimants to attend treatment programmes

Gaby Hinsliff, political editor
The Observer,
Sunday July 20, 2008

The unemployed will be forced to declare drug or heavy drinking habits when they apply for benefits and will have payments cut if they give misleading answers, under government proposals which were announced yesterday.

Probation officers, prison staff and the police will also be asked to share with Jobcentres any information they have about individuals' habits so that those deemed to have problem habits can be identified and compelled to seek treatment if necessary. Those who conceal drug use, or refuse to co-operate with treatment, face benefit cuts.

A leaked copy of the green paper to be published tomorrow by James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, suggests that the scheme could start with heroin and crack cocaine users before extending it to 'those dependent on cannabis and alcohol'.

But critics said the plans, which emerged just days ahead of the by-election in Glasgow East, could catch vast numbers of recreational drugs users whose habits were not a problem, while addicts whose benefits were cut would simply turn to petty crime. They also raised concerns about confidentiality.

'It does look as though government departments will swap information in order to ensure that sanctions are more rigorously applied, and we should all be worried by this,' said Adam Sampson, a director of the UK Drugs Commission. 'If you look at the research about who has taken drugs, that includes, statistically, you, me and most of the Cabinet. Once you open up these powers they could be applied to anybody.

'And who defines "problem" in this context? The pragmatic behaviour on the part of drug users will be to conceal, to evade and to lie.'

The proposals also risk a backlash from traditional Labour voters, three days before the by-election in a seat containing high proportions of benefit claimants and families on low incomes. However Purnell, who obtained clearance from the Labour campaign team before publishing it, is said to believe it will be popular among poorer voters who often have more draconian views on welfare cheats than the liberal middle classes.

The paper admits there are potential 'drawbacks' to the plan and its impact would need to be studied, since only half a per cent of those applying for the job seekers allowance every year were thought to be problem drug users.

But it says that 'making declaring drug use and taking steps [to conquer it] a condition of benefit is consistent with the obligations on those in receipt of welfare help', and would show the government recognised the link between addiction and unemployment.

It estimates there are up to 240,000 people in England on out of work benefits who are problem drug users, and that up to 7 per cent of incapacity benefit and job seekers allowance claimants are on drugs, although only just over 2 per cent are registered with Jobcentres as having drug problems.

The paper proposes legislation to require information from police drug tests to be passed on to Jobcentres - individuals arrested for certain offences in 23 police authorities may be tested for heroin, crack or cocaine use - along with information from courts about people on drug programmes and information from jails about prison leavers with drug habits. This could amount to up to 150,000 people.

Harry Fletcher, of the National Association of Probation Officers, said that forcing probation officers to disclose information about clients' drug use posed serious ethical dilemmas: 'The relationship between an offender and the probation officer would be based on trust, so that people would not give information if they think it's going to be passed on. And the notion of sanctioning benefits for chaotic users means they will just steal more.'

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said sanctions would be 'the last resort', and Jobcentres would have advisers to decide the difference between problem and recreational users. The information would not be passed on to potential employers, she added.

[humdroid]

No word of a lie, but only short while ago SWIM considered this as a possible additional over-the-top draconian policy for the unemployed.
The tabloid media has brainwashed people and many of the comments in the papers (mentioned online, not read by SWIM) are spectacularly ignorant of what it is really like to be unemployed.
SWIM never considered his consideration, in the first sentence of this post, would get in the news, at the time, it was just an overly cynical and pessimistic idea in SWIMS head.