BBC show on council housing now - 21:00 4th May

[Deleted User]

ninky wrote: »

really? smokers / overeaters etc etc....

heroin addiction also has a strong genetic element.

all illness / behaviour has the same determining pattern. the interaction between genes and environment.

I'd rather pay more for additional policing or have the law changed to allow people to actively defend their homes rather than continue to fund the addicts and their dealers directly.

Legalising the drugs would be even better for the following reasons:

It would be more expensive for new druggies to try but much cheaper for long term users as cost would not be individually tailored by dealers to create addiction or exploit those already addicted.

It could be taxed and the tax used to fund drugs education and rehabilitation.

It would take a source of income away from criminals.

It would save a fortune in benefits claims (under the existing system).

It would save another fortune in insurance and policing, and the rest of the criminal justice system. Probably why it has never happened.

It would help the users who want to give up by not having their dealer turning up with freebies or other enticements.

I don't agree with it being an illness BTW, its just stupidity.

ninky_2

[quote=[Deleted User];43478958]
I don't agree with it being an illness BTW, its just stupidity.[/QUOTE]

oh right. years of scientific research must take a back seat to your moral kneejerk reaction.

stupidity plays a large part in a lot of human behaviour /reactions. you only have to look in the mirror

your signature btw - nice sentiment. doesn't really stack up though.

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43462386]lol, moving 50 miles to keep their all expenses paid lifestyle seems like a good deal to me. Plenty of people work 50 miles+ from home to support their families why should workshy scroungers be any different? If they disagree they could always get a job.


They are likely to be more limited as to the work they can do and require services that take time to setup.


You would be swapping people about between council houses not just dumping them in one place so the scenario you describe would not happen. There would only be a a very slow shift towards areas of higher work as people found work there otherwise they would be moved on again.


Moving from one free home provided for them to another free one somewhere else is hardly the end of the world. Their existing support and 'community' obviously isn't helping them anyway, quite possibly holding them back.


There would be no 'flood' see above comment. People would only be staying somewhere if they got a job otherwise they would be moved on again after 6 months. Therefore any net influx would only be gradual and would benefit the area as they would be working there and actually contributing to the local economy instead of being a burden upon it.



The fact that you would be rotating them through the existing stock of council houses means the additional costs wouldn't be so great. If as a result only 10% of these parasites got a job so they could settle somewhere it would save tax payers a fortune.



The only families affected would be those that didn't work. Maybe it would be incentive enough to get a job. If they genuinely can't find work where they are it is better for everyone if they are moved on. If they are adults and are not disabled then they don't need a 'support network' other than what they get of the state anyway.


Yes, suggest an alternative or would you rather we just let people scrounge in peace?[/QUOTE]

You clearly have given very little thought to the MASSIVE cost implications.

As for suggesting an alternative, I already have. Do catch up.

Wee_Willy_Harris

[quote=[Deleted User];43478958]
Legalising the drugs would be even better for the following reasons:[/QUOTE]

Now that's quite a good idea.

[quote=[Deleted User];43478958]
It would be more expensive for new druggies to try but much cheaper for long term users as cost would not be individually tailored by dealers to create addiction or exploit those already addicted.

It could be taxed and the tax used to fund drugs education and rehabilitation.
[/QUOTE]

D'oh!

The only way legalising drugs would return the benefits you want would be if they were made FREELY available at NO CHARGE.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

So you are in favour of giving heroin addicts more benefits to buy more heroin, things would get very bad for the country if that happened, you see the more heroin they use then their tolerance becomes higher so therefore have to buy more and more heroin so would receive more and more benefits.

I don't really want the benefit system to start giving heroin addicts a £100 a day, waste of money that.

Then make heroin FREE!

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Why would i put my name down at the housing if i dont want a council property, im saving a deposit for a house of my own.

If i had put my name down for a council flat then i would have been taking away that flat from someone who genuinely needed it, im a single working man who works away from home for most of the year and when i am home i stay at my parents. If i had been given a flat then that flat is no longer available to a single working person who needs it ie somebody who needs cheap housing because they have not got the option of staying with parents.

I know of 2 lads who i went to school with who have to private rent because the council will not house them, so as you can guess it is taking a very long time for them to save up a house deposit, there are plenty of one bed flats in my area that theses 2 lads could live in if the system didnt reward scroungers as a lot of these flats have been given to lads i went to school with who have still yet to do a days work in their lives.

Whatever way you look at it the system needs to be changed you ignorant fool.

Jimmy, I think we already know you are talking rubbish.

Jimmy_31

ninky wrote: »

who said give them unlimited benefits? however dealing with a person with an illness and out of work (heroin addiction) is likely to cost more than dealing with a person who is well and out of work. if some of that involves paying out more to help the addict so they are less likely to commit crime to fuel their habit so be it. as i understand it heroin addicts aren't just given more cash to go out and buy heroin. they are likely to be given methadone or prescribed heroin which will cost the taxpayer money - just as treating someone with heart disease would.

I think you have gone off on one a bit, we are responding to these 2 posts........

I reckon if you google for 'how much crime in the UK is associated with addiction' you'll find the answer to that.

I don't know the figures, but would assume that it costs the taxpayer more to solve, punish and compensate for crime related to addiction, than to pay out higher benefits such as DLA to them ? ....................

No, just an extra couple of quid on their benefits so they can buy their booze, drugs or whatever.. rather than nicking something to get it.

I am assuming this is why the benefits are doled out.


We are disagreeing with what the poster said, well i am anyway.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Jimmy, I think we already know you are talking rubbish.

Doesnt look like im the only one now your here.


By the way how do you make heroin free or was that an attempt at a joke, if it was your jokes need a lot of work.

ILW

All this cobblers about addiction being an illness is just a way of ducking responsibility for ones own actions.

Its a choice one makes, either stick the needle in or not, either open the bottle or not, either keep eating or not, either buy the fags or not.

And actually paying people extra money to fund this behaviour is pure madness, not to mention totally unfair on the ones that have to pay.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Doesnt look like im the only one now your here.


By the way how do you make heroin free or was that an attempt at a joke, if it was your jokes need a lot of work.

Perfectly serious. Making anything free is quite straightforward. Prescription would seem the obvious answer in this case.