Tough love, or welfare fraud?

[Guest American Woman]

There is no provision for that, just a time limit for review in a few years, if he's still alive by then.

If you truly care if this family member is still alive by then, you'll quit focusing on the withholding of his money and start focusing on getting him into rehab. EOS. I don't expect you to acknowledge that, which is really quite telling.

[jacee]

If you truly care if this family member is still alive by then, you'll quit focusing on the withholding of his money and start focusing on getting him into rehab. EOS. I don't expect you to acknowledge that, which is really quite telling.

I'm not involved, just aware of the situation.

[jacee]

So he earned his money and placed into a trust which he cannot access? How is this possible without his consent? If the family did this without his approval then a court must have ruled that he is incompetent - a ruling which does not sound unreasonable given the fact that he is practicing addict with no intention of cleaning up.

If he wants to get the money back then all he has to do is show the court he is competent by going to treatment center and cleaning up his life. Why is this so difficult?

You'd have to ask someone wbo's been there.

[jacee]

So you are saying the trust is locked up and the trustee can't do anything about it?

I said yes but that's not right.

Trustee won't do anything.

[TimG]

Trustee won't do anything.

Why not?

[jacee]

Why not?

'Tough love'

'Not enabling'

[TimG]

'Not enabling'

Okay. So you really have no basis for your complaint. The trustee has obviously had to deal with the addict's lies and deceptions for years and has had enough. The response also suggests that if the addict would offer to go to a treatment center then there would likely be money available to cover the cost.

Bottom line: if your addict friend finds himself without food and shelter it is *entirely* his choice.

It is really no different than governments who cut people off welfare if they don't follow the rules.

Welfare is not an absolute right which must be provided with no questions asked.

Edited November 13, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

Okay. So you really have no basis for your complaint. The trustee has obviously had to deal with the addict's lies and deceptions for years and has had enough. The response also suggests that if the addict would offer to go to a treatment center then there would likely be money available to cover the cost.

Bottom line: if your addict friend finds himself without food and shelter it is *entirely* his choice.

It is really no different than governments who cut people off welfare if they don't follow the rules.

Welfare is not an absolute right which must be provided with no questions asked.

No human being can legally be denied access to HIS OWN EARNINGS for food and shelter.

But it happens, because addicts aren't able to fight it legally.

It isn't 'tough love' to refuse food and shelter: It's cruelty.

Edited November 13, 2012 by jacee

[cybercoma]

No human being can legally be denied access to HIS OWN EARNINGS for food and shelter.

But it happens, because addicts aren't able to fight it legally.

It isn't 'tough love' to refuse food and shelter: It's cruelty.

Does the addict have the option of going to rehab?

[TimG]

No human being can legally be denied access to HIS OWN EARNINGS for food and shelter.

You have provided no evidence that the trustee is doing anything illegal. But you are not making a legal argument - you are trying to make a moral one. As far as the moral argument goes: the most humane way to treat an addict is to put as much pressure on them as possible until they hit bottom and go into recovery. If the prospect of starving on the street is not enough to get your addict friend to clean up then he may be a lost a cause.

One of the things that addicts do to avoid facing up to their problems is to create a persecution complex. i.e. they convince themselves that others are making their life miserable and its not their fault. You have clearly bought into his persecution complex and are probably enabling him by sympathizing with him. You are killing him with your kindness. What your addict friend needs are people that care enough about him to call him on his BS and tell him that he has no one to blame but himself and he can change if he chooses to and (most importantly) there are many people willing to help him with that change - *if* he makes the choice.

Edited November 13, 2012 by TimG

[jacee]

If the prospect of starving on the street is not enough to get your addict friend to clean up then he may be a lost a cause.

And as a "lost cause" an addict doesn't 'deserve' food and shelter?

[TimG]

And as a "lost cause" an addict doesn't 'deserve' food and shelter?

Because he deserves better and enablers like you seek to prevent him from finding it.

[jacee]

Because he deserves better and enablers like you seek to prevent him from finding it.

Solutions aren't easy ... but now you want to blame me?

I'm not involved, just aware.

Can you answer the question TimG ... ?

Does a "lost cause" addict not 'deserve' food and shelter?

That question is what this thread is all about.

Can anyone here say that unreformed addicts should be denied food and shelter to 'smarten them up'?

Edited November 14, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

Does a "lost cause" addict not 'deserve' food and shelter?

Society never has and never will provide food and shelter to people that are not willing to accept the rules of the people providing it. For example, most homeless shelters will kick people onto the street if they are drinking or drugging. If this is OK for homeless shelters why isn't it ok for relatives of an addict?

[cybercoma]

Does a "lost cause" addict not 'deserve' food and shelter?

Does he have the option of entering rehab?

[jacee]

Society never has and never will provide food and shelter to people that are not willing to accept the rules of the people providing it. For example, most homeless shelters will kick people onto the street if they are drinking or drugging. If this is OK for homeless shelters why isn't it ok for relatives of an addict?

Nobody should live with an addict, imo.

But shouldn't HIS OWN MONEY pay for a room and food?

[TimG]

But shouldn't HIS OWN MONEY pay for a room and food?

The law has decided that it is not his own money any more. Why don't you answer cybercoma's question? Why doesn't he go into rehab? Edited November 14, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

The law has decided that it is not his own money any more. Why don't you answer cybercoma's question? Why doesn't he go into rehab?

Because of course he has the option of going into rehab. Everyone has that option. He would have food and shelter there for the duration of the program, most often paid for through donations and charity for someone living on the street. And that's the point. He chooses not to enter rehab and the family chooses not to give him access to his money until he gets clean. It's pretty simple. He is being given a choice. Keep using drugs and die in the streets or get clean and have shelter/food in rehab.

[jacee]

The law has decided that it is not his own money any more. Why don't you answer cybercoma's question? Why doesn't he go into rehab?

The law decided nothing.

His family decided.

Rehab ... you'd have to ask him.

And you haven't answered the real question.

Do unreformed addicts not deserve food and shelter?

[jacee]

Because of course he has the option of going into rehab. Everyone has that option. He would have food and shelter there for the duration of the program, most often paid for through donations and charity for someone living on the street. And that's the point. He chooses not to enter rehab and the family chooses not to give him access to his money until he gets clean. It's pretty simple. He is being given a choice. Keep using drugs and die in the streets or get clean and have shelter/food in rehab.

In this case it's alcohol, but you haven't answered the question:

Should food and shelter be withheld from unreformed alcoholics/addicts?

Just to clarify ... people die without food and shelter, so it's basically a death sentence.

Is that acceptable? Is it the 'right' thing for a family to do?

OR

Are they trying to kill him (faster) to steal his money?

You seee, they do stand to benefit by withholding his money, and by his death.

How do you tell the difference?

If an addict 'should' be denied use of his own earnings for food and shelter, as it appears some people here think, he becomes a burden on the taxpayer until he dies, and his family inherits the money they refused to release to him.

Are you getting the full picture now?

How many families are taking control of an addict's money so they can inherit it when he dies, and refusing him food and shelter funds so he'll die faster?

Because that's what it looks like to me ... a crime.

[TimG]

The law decided nothing. His family decided.

Not true. If they set up a trust they must have followed a legal process.

Rehab ... you'd have to ask him.

You got to be kidding. You make post after post about whinging about how unfair it is for this guy to be denied access to money and you have never discussed rehab with him? Your priorities are truly screwed up.

And you haven't answered the real question.

But I did.You ignored it:

Society never has and never will provide food and shelter to people that are not willing to accept the rules of the people providing it. For example, most homeless shelters will kick people onto the street if they are drinking or drugging. If this is OK for homeless shelters why isn't it ok for relatives of an addict?

Edited November 14, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

Not true. If they set up a trust they must have followed a legal process.

There is no legal process. He signed it of his own free will and Ontario has no record kept of PoA's . There is nothing registered but what the PoA person has signed on paper.

[guyser]

Should food and shelter be withheld from unreformed alcoholics/addicts?

Yes.

Anything else enables the person to keep on keepin' on......until the money runs out.

Just to clarify ... people die without food and shelter, so it's basically a death sentence.

Is that acceptable? Is it the 'right' thing for a family to do?

No, but they didnt sentence the person to death, he did on his own accord.

OR

Are they trying to kill him (faster) to steal his money?

You seee, they do stand to benefit by withholding his money, and by his death.

Or....

They know he has dependants that will use that money once inherited . Either way, the PoA has a job to do and provide the best options to the diseased person.

How many families are taking control of an addict's money so they can inherit it when he dies, and refusing him food and shelter funds so he'll die faster?

Because that's what it looks like to me ... a crime.

Its not a crime.

Kind of shitty I grant you but if the person wants to live drunk on the street, social services are there to pick up the detritus.

[cybercoma]

jacee, you don't want to admit that rehab is his option for food and shelter. It's not withheld. It's contingent. He chooses not to get help.

[jacee]

jacee, you don't want to admit that rehab is his option for food and shelter. It's not withheld. It's contingent. He chooses not to get help.

Apparently so ... at this time.

But there is no contingency in this 'agreement'. You've created that scenario to justify your stance ... but it isn't the reality in this case.

So ... he doesn't 'deserve' food and shelter?

He 'deserves' to be starved and frozen because he's an alcoholic?

If we were apprehended leaving a dog to starve and freeze we'd face charges, possibly go to jail.

If the dog had a trust fund for his care and someone starved and froze him to keep the money ... what would we think of such a person? Would/should such a person go to jail?

If a man had a trust fund and trustee refused to provide any money for his food and shelter so he starved and froze and they kept all his money ... would we say they're doing the right thing?

Edited November 15, 2012 by jacee