ALCOHOLISM:

[PocketRocket]

Well, it seems that our tax dollars going to SOME welfare recipients who are simply too lazy to work, or spend all their money on booze, is not enough.

(Please note the capitalized word "some". I have no problem with welfare when it is given to someone who genuinely needs it)

Now, Ontario Disability Benefits can be doled out on the basis of ADDICTION as a disability.

This decision is truly disgusting.

Two guys in Sudbury have won a case wherein they will be given Disability benefits.

Their disability??? Alcoholism.

Plain and simple. They are "unemployable" because of this "disability".

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v06/n507/a07.html

It has always been my impression that a "disability" is a physical or mental problem which cannot be corrected, and causes a person to be unable to work for a living.

Well, I guess booze and/or drug addiction now falls under that category.

This is a bad, not to mention stupid, precedent.

So, I guess if I go to work smelling like booze, stumble all over the place, get fired, then fail several dozen job interviews because I show up for them drunk, I can eventually get on disability. Not a huge income, but hey, it's a living, with no work involved.

Qeue up at the liquor store, folks. Get drunk and take an early retirement. :angry:

[geoffrey]

That truly is ridiculous. If the government was paying for rehab or something, I'd see the point. But giving welfare money to drunks because they would rather drink than work is just ridiculous.

Is the health care money we are wasting on them not enough?

[Riverwind]

That truly is ridiculous. If the government was paying for rehab or something, I'd see the point. But giving welfare money to drunks because they would rather drink than work is just ridiculous.

Can someone confirm that this is the case? The artical was not clear on this point. Providing short term disability benefits while alcoholics seek treatment is perfectly justified. Granting long term disability benefits to alcoholics that refuse treatment is not only wrong - it is counter productive. The only way to get a alcholic to sober up is to give them an ultimatum: go to treatment, learn to live sober or suffer the consequences.

[PocketRocket]

That truly is ridiculous. If the government was paying for rehab or something, I'd see the point.

I would have no problem with the government funding rehabilitation of addicts. It would allow said addicts to turn their lives around and become useful citizens who actually contribute to society.

But giving welfare money to drunks because they would rather drink than work is just ridiculous.

This goes well beyond welfare. Disability benefits are about double what a welfare recipient would receive.

Is the health care money we are wasting on them not enough?

Evidently not.

[PocketRocket]

That truly is ridiculous. If the government was paying for rehab or something, I'd see the point. But giving welfare money to drunks because they would rather drink than work is just ridiculous.

Can someone confirm that this is the case?

Yup. I first heard of this a couple weeks ago on a local CBC radio broadcast. They were interviewing one of the lawyers on the case.

The main point of the case was that addiction is recognized as a disability under the law, but not under the Disability Benefits Act (or whatever it is called).

The tacic used by the lawyers for the addicted was to argue that these two men were being disciminated against. And, under Canadian law, no group may be denied benefits because of gender, age, race, or handicap.

Evidently, because the law recognizes addiction as a disability, the argument was that the discrimination was based on the "handicaps" if these two men, ie; their alcoholism.

They won, so we, the taxpayers, all lose.

The artical was not clear on this point. Providing short term disability benefits while alcoholics seek treatment is perfectly justified. Granting long term disability benefits to alcoholics that refuse treatment is not only wrong - it is counter productive.

This is not short-term. This is full-blown, diability benefits. Cash for life. And you and I get to foot the bill.

Isn't it a wonderful world???

The only way to get a alcholic to sober up is to give them an ultimatum: go to treatment, learn to live sober or suffer the consequences.

Here, here.

I agree in full measure.

BTW, I Googled these words..."sudbury.....alcoholism.....disability"....and got several entries. I just grabbed one to post here.

There are several others if you want to look into it further.

[sahara]

CHEERS....Shall we all Quit working and drink? They need treatment not disability benefits.

Whats NEXT????????

[RB]

I was working at a company a few years back and ran into alcohol dependency with one of the workers. The worker was suspended for 2 weeks without pay for drinking on the job and on the premises but also because being alcoholic is considered a disease, the company paid for treatment/counselling for this person until we were comfortable that it was safe for him to return to his job, also we had to accommodate him during the period of treatment sort a baby-sit. It is very hard to substantiate firing an alcoholic unless you have assisted them to the point of failing profits of the company.

On the other hand companies can test for drug or alcohol dependency and would fall into a category of "medical examination". Of course you must qualify that this testing is essential to the job duty.

The bad news is there are very limited jobs that can be legitimize for people to take drug test - which gives lots of leverages for lawyers exploit.

[Leafless]

Pocket Rocket

You wrote- " Qeue up at the liquer store, folks. Get drunk and take an early retirement."

Actually I think this is really a problem.

The whole situation is really a problem of all society.

Binge eaters who suffer heart attacks, smolkers who come down with cancer, gamblers who put there family out on the street, even any kind of risk taking activities involving sports.

All of these can put people out of commission and dependent on the system.

Most of us I think, can handle activities that require self control and moderation.

But obviously many can't, in many areas, and that is really no ones fault but the system itself.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

even any kind of risk taking activities involving sports.

This is one where I must take exception. Sports activities are often healthier activities than sitting on the couch, injuries be damned. I have cracked a couple of ribs while playing hockey, andf broken an arm playing softball, but in total only missed about 5 days of work over the last 15 or so years, all money lost out of my own pocket. (I even got billed for the cast on my arm, as it was before health care agreed to cover the fibreglass casts). I believe I am healthier and happier because of taking some risks such as playing sports.

The rest, though, such as addictions being a 'disbility', are outrageous. If a company wishes to voluntarily consider it, and offer rehab, good for them. Job performance should be the only thing they should be legally bound to consider, though.

[PocketRocket]

Pocket Rocket

Howdy, Leafless.

Most of us I think, can handle activities that require self control and moderation.

But obviously many can't, in many areas, and that is really no ones fault but the system itself.

The fact that someone "cannot handle" something that requires moderation is no one's fault, not even "the systems" (whatever that means).

The fact that those individuals who cannot handle something refuse to recognize the fact that they cannot handle it is the problem.

And the fault belongs to no one but themselves.

Fortunately, there are organizations out there to help individuals with just about any addiction problem you can possibly name.

If an individual refuses to take advantage of any of these, then he has no one to blame but himself.

My beef is the that the government is recognizing an addiction as a long-term disability, and rewarding individuals for doing nothing to treat their addictions.

[crazymf]

I don't have an opinion on this except to remember a poster I saw at work years ago:

SHOW UP FOR WORK EVERY DAY.

MILLIONS ON WELFARE DEPEND ON YOU.

[Minimus Maximus]

So what about people addicted to pornography? or people addicted to big block chevy engines? If they can't keep a job because they spend all of their time trolling the internet for pornographic images and aluminum heads for a 327ci should we also support them?

I happen to be an audiophile, I'm addicted to high quality sound equipment. If I had lost my job due to the fact that I just had to keep an eye on various E-Bay auctions to appease my addiction would I be eligable for long term disability?

[BubberMiley]

Pretty much every response appears to be clueless as to what alcohol addiction is all about. To compare it to an appreciate of fine stereo equipment is totally ridiculous. I don't drink at all, but I've seen people who are physically addicted to substances, and they are truly in a state where they are completely unemployable. You can let them die or you can try to help them. Part of helping them is making sure they get fed and sheltered. It all depends on what kind of society you want.

[Minimus Maximus]

Pretty much every response appears to be clueless as to what alcohol addiction is all about. To compare it to an appreciate of fine stereo equipment is totally ridiculous. I don't drink at all, but I've seen people who are physically addicted to substances, and they are truly in a state where they are completely unemployable. You can let them die or you can try to help them. Part of helping them is making sure they get fed and sheltered. It all depends on what kind of society you want.

My best friend from childhood is an alcoholic, I've taken him to A.A. meetings and fed and sheltered his family due to his addiction so I do understand what it is to be an alcoholic.

My mother's ex-husband was addicted to VLT's, it wasn't a substance but the effect was the same. He lost everything due to this addiction so he should also be eligable for disability...after all he couldn't control himself.

I agree with treatment although some people will never give up their addictions so I don't see how pandering to them in the form of disability pay would help in the least.

[Riverwind]

I don't drink at all, but I've seen people who are physically addicted to substances, and they are truly in a state where they are completely unemployable.

People who are addicted to substances live in denial and will avoid stopping as long as they think they can get away with it. Addicts depend on enablers that clean up the messes created by their addictions and allow them to continue with their destructive lifestyles.

Granting long term disability to alcoholics is classic enabling behavior and more or less ensures that they will have no incentive to sober up. In other words, the gov't is putting the health of the alcoholic and society at risk by helping alcoholics in this way.

Personally, I think the province should revoke the driver's license of anyone claiming long term disability for alcoholism. If their addiction is so bad that they cannot work then they cannot be trusted to drive either.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Well, it seems that our tax dollars going to SOME welfare recipients who are simply too lazy to work, or spend all their money on booze, is not enough.

Now, Ontario Disability Benefits can be doled out on the basis of ADDICTION as a disability.

Two guys in Sudbury have won a case wherein they will be given Disability benefits.

Their disability??? Alcoholism.

Plain and simple. They are "unemployable" because of this "disability". :angry:

"Is that all there is, is that all there is

If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing

Let's break out the booze and have a ball

If that's all there is"

Most province's welfare lines are dwindling because drug, food, alcohol etc. etc. etc. addicts are being put on Disability Benefits (about an extra $250 a month).

No other addicting substance but alcohol has huge government "sin taxes" attached to it, so my only beef is that this tax wasn't taken off for these poor souls.

Soon, I hope!

[rogue state]

the money received for alcoholism are spent at Ontario liquor Board, so the state is happy.

seriously, i think solution is like in Germany: all govt payments (welfare, disability, pensions) are in the same amount.

Mahmoud Ghalehnoii

International English Student and Humanist

[Slavik44]

I have absolutely no problem with addicts getting fed and sheltered, what I do have a problem with is addicts getting fed and sheltered for free, what I mean by free is no requirements. The fact is addictiosn can be overcome, and any disability pay for addicts shoud come with atleast one requirement, the person must provide proof that they have and are continuing to seek help for thier addiction. A person in a wheel chair, or with a mental handicap cannot go and become rehabilititated, no matter how much they want to, no matter how much they try they will always be disabled (barring scientific break throughs). As long as the possibility exists that should be the requirement. It is often said that before a person can become rehabilitated, they must want to become rehabilitated, and I wonder if no strings attached monthly cheques may negate the persons willingness to become rehabilitated. This policy niether rehabilitates nor creates productive members of society, instead this policy ultimately fails both society and the individual. Because this policy doens't take alcoholics who don't work and make alcoholics who work, and it doens't take Alcoholics and make non-alcoholics, instead it may help to ensure alcoholics stay alcholics.

[PocketRocket]

A sticky point here seems to be food and shelter.

No problem. Give the addicts food, give them shelter.

In a rehab center.

If addictions are indeed "diseases", then cure the disease, or at least treat it.

My fear is that every drunken welfare bum currently walking around every downtown in the nation bumming loose change and cigarettes, is now going to go on disability, thereby increasing their personal income, and therefore the amount of booze they can afford to buy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

A sticky point here seems to be food and shelter.

No problem. Give the addicts food, give them shelter.

In a rehab center.

If addictions are indeed "diseases", then cure the disease, or at least treat it.

Absolutely correct, treatment should be mandatory before receiving any social aid. As it stand now, the Calgary Drop-in Centre, and other services, such as The Sally-Ann, have long been called 'the great enablers', for they basically help people continue addictions. The message has become "We'll give you food and shelter, so save your cash for drugs and alcohol".

Mind you, when you work 12-14 hrs a day, smack-dab in the middle of 'social service alley', you tend to become embittered. I have seen a lot, and while many argue that most of the 'unfortunates' on social services are victims of 'bad luck, circumstance, or mental illness', I can tell you that the vast majority (80-90%) are simply bad people. Scumbags who like to get wasted, get a kick out of giving, or seeing someone getting a curb-stomping (they all gather aroung to watch and cheer, and they try not to let passers-by interfere), and have nothing but contempt for 'suits', authority or morality.

[geoffrey]

We could easily ship them all to an abandoned warehouse with just food and water and beds, let them sit there for a few months, and they'd be clean.

The drop in centre and things like it pretty much encourage these people to live the way they do. They have advertising campaigns asking me to 'respect' the homeless people and things like that. It's truly unbelievable.

I'd much rather donate to organisations like AARC in Calgary with a long history of helping young teens kick the bottle before they get into that situation!