Welfare: Is is fair that an alcoholic/drug addict is considered disabled?

Question

and thus can claim a whole host of additional benefits to those available to the unemployed seeking work?

Answer 1

No.

Answer 2

nope

Answer 3

No its not. They drink and drug by choice.

Answer 4

Two different programs, and an alcoholic and drug addict is disabled.

Since we don't fund rehab for them, unless they do other illegal things, and leaving people with poor judgment abilities loose on the streets, poor and needing a fix, would lead to an incomparable crime wave, you could say its a form of hush money.  Just hush up and take it and leave us alone. After all, its not like most of them are in any way employable.

Unemployment is an insurance program that employed people pay into, and when they need it they can use it.

Its usually short term and ends when the person finds employment again.  

Answer 5

No.   Those are just bad choices.

There was a time when we expected grown-ups to, you know, grow up.

Answer 6

Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, drug addicts and alcoholics are NOT considered "disabled" within the scope of the law if they are still using; however, if past use has caused other physical impairments which have a negative effect on current "major life functions", they may be considered "disabled".

From the website:  http://www.eeoc.gov/types/ada.html

Drug and Alcohol Abuse

Employees and applicants currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs are not covered by the ADA when an employer acts on the basis of such use. Tests for illegal drugs are not subject to the ADA's restrictions on medical examinations. Employers may hold illegal drug users and alcoholics to the same performance standards as other employees.

So that kinda blows your whole premise out of the water, doesn't it?

EDIT:  Oh, you're in the UK.  Then I agree...it's not fair at all.  I would support providing those people rehab at public expense (once only), but not disability or unemployment protections.

Answer 7

In my opinion,no one should be able to collect welfare for an addiction.It is not a disability if one is responsible for their own affliction.Why pay for drug addiction and alchoholism when all they do is spend our tax dollars on more of the same.I'm disabled and my wife works hard at her job,and her tax dollars help pay into the welfare system,but when her hours got cut we had to go through a guantlant just to get a handfull of foodstamps which averaged out to about 20 dollars a week.We didn't go back.I'm in the U.S. and me thinks the same.

Answer 8

No its not fair. I feel welfare should be available to everyone at any given time in there life for a maximum of two years total no matter what there income level is. That would help people who have lost there job, medical issues, going to school, etc. The only catch would be you would have had to work and pay into the system to gain that benefit. And there isn't any extensions or excuses. Now that would be fair, because then the middle class who work hard could finally participate in a program that they pay for, and it would force people to be responsible because there isn't a free ride.

Answer 9

No, it's not. Disabled is something that no one chose. Using drugs and alcohol is a choice. They should live with the consequences or seek help, but the rest of us shouldn't have to support them. Not only do they qualify for welfare, but drug addicts qualify for disability, too. (A neighbor I had years ago was on disability because of a drug habit.)

Answer 10

Unless you're unemplyed why do you care? Your money is already been spent to bail out multi billion dollar corporations and trust me that is costing more than your State's welfare system.