Tough love, or welfare fraud?

[TimG]

Addicts do eat and sleep.

I am sure the addict's family would be happy to pay the cost of room and board in a treatment center. What they don't want to do is piss away good money on the addict's drug of choice,

You think it's ok to steal control of an addict's OWN money and not use a little bit of it to feed and house them somewhere?

As I said: room and board inside a treatment center is an available option. Why should the family do anything to help an addict that won't help themselves? Edited November 6, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

So you're saying the family has a legal right to withhold an addict's own money while he starves and freezes in the street?

You really think that's the 'right' thing for them to do ... With HIS money?

[eyeball]

Why should the family do anything to help an addict that won't help themselves?

For the same reason Jesus would.

You don't even have to be Christian to figure that out.

Edited November 6, 2012 by eyeball

[TimG]

So you're saying the family has a legal right to withhold an addict's own money while he starves and freezes in the street?

So tell me - do you agree that homeless shelters should kick people out onto the street if they do not abide by the rules of the shelter? If homeless shelters can place conditions on help then why can't families?

[jacee]

Ya what eyeball said, if that's your thing.

And that's why I started this thread ... Because there are people who think denying addicts food and shelter is the 'right' thing to do.

I think that's way beyond 'not enabling'.

I think it's criminal.

[jacee]

@ TimG

Because it's HIS money.

[TimG]

For the same reason Jesus would.

Anyone who enables an addict is committing murder. Last time I checked 'thou shalt not kill' was a pretty important commandment.

Because it's HIS money.

So what? Give an addict money and he will piss it away. To put it simply you are condoning murder, You rant and rave about actions you consider "criminal' when the truly criminal actions are the ones you advocate. Edited November 6, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Addicts do need food and shelter.

Denying them that is criminal.

No court would allow a family to withhold food and shelter funds.

Unfortunately, addicts cut off from their own money aren't able to pursue justice, so some families do get away with murder, and stealing the money.

Some of you are so blinded by the 'not enabling' dogma you would excuse such criminal behaviour.

No judge would agree with you.

[TimG]

Some of you are so blinded by the 'not enabling' dogma you would excuse such criminal behaviour.

Yet you are condoning murder with your enabling behavoir. You are quite the hypocrite.

The fact is the family is likely placing conditions on access to that money - conditions which are in the best interest of the person involved. I cannot imagine a judge would disagree with a family if the family made it clear that money for the addict to stay is a treatment center is available.

[eyeball]

Anyone who enables an addict is committing murder.

Like a government liquor store for example?

[TimG]

Like a government liquor store for example?

No different than a drug dealer pushing crack cocaine. Hey I didn't start the "criminal metaphors" in this thread. I am just playing a long. Edited November 6, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

No judge would allow a family to steal an addict's money with no ongoing provision for his/her basic needs.

That's just theft... Or worse.

You can deny an addict YOUR money, but not his own.

Do you see the difference TimG?

Because what you're proposing is a scenario where the family leaves him to die in the streets (as fast as possible) so they can steal his money.

[TimG]

Because what you're proposing is a scenario where the family leaves him to die in the streets (as fast as possible) so they can steal his money.

That will only happen if the addict chooses that outcome. If the addict goes into treatment then the addict will get the money back. It is not theft is the money is kept safe until the addict recovers. Edited November 6, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

There are families who would steal an addict's money and let him die starving in the streets.

In my opinion, and I think the courts would agree, that's criminal behaviour.

Pretending it's for his own good, 'not enabling' an addict ... is just an excuse for theft.

[jacee]

Tim you don't have the legal right to deny a human being use of some of his/her OWN money for basic needs, whether he/she chooses to live by YOUR rules or not.

[TimG]

Tim you don't have the legal right to deny a human being use of some of his/her OWN money for basic needs, whether he/she chooses to live by YOUR rules or not.

So you are suddenly an libertarian? Shall we test that by looking at your support for various "nanny state" regulations designed to protect people from themselves?

[Guest Derek L]

Tim you don't have the legal right to deny a human being use of some of his/her OWN money for basic needs, whether he/she chooses to live by YOUR rules or not.

Beautiful……..Agreed 1000%

Now just define "some"........What we talking here in terms of percent?

[jacee]

I would say at least an amount equivalent to what a person on welfare can receive.

If I was trustee, I'd arrange direct payment for a room and a restaurant.

Some families do that all the time.

Others leave people to die in the streets so they can steal his/her money, and they use 'not enabling' as an excuse ... But it isn't legal.

[guyser]

@ cybercoma

Addicts do eat and sleep.

You think it's ok to steal control of an addict's OWN money and not use a little bit of it to feed and house them somewhere?

I say families don't have that right.

I say it's criminal.

They are not stealing, the Court has to appoint a trustee so it isnt criminal either.

[jacee]

Read the thread first guyser.

[guyser]

Read the thread first guyser.

I did.

The trustee has control, ergo no stealing of funds.

Perhaps you could read your own words again?

Cus stealing ones funds and court appointed trustee are not mutual.....unless someone has an agenda. <cough cough>......just sayin'

[Guest American Woman]

REHAB!!

That's the answer.

[jacee]

@ guyser ...

It's a power of attorney document, not court appointed, not legal incompetence, and without ANY provision for use of any of his own money for food and shelter.

[cybercoma]

He can get food and shelter in rehab.

[jacee]

Who's paying?

For how long?

It's HIS money cc.

I think you're off base suggesting that someone be denied food and shelter.

We put people in jail for doing that to animals.

It's cruelty.

How's a person supposed to pull himself up?

Even if he quits drinking, he's still hungry and cold.

In this and other cases, I think it has more to do with greed for his money than any concern for him.