According to David Cameron on the local election campaign trail today, most people don't think that is fair to pay Incapacity Benefit to people that are obese, on drugs, or alcoholic. According his quotes it is unfair to pay benefit to people that are not working due to circumstances which are their own fault
This attitude is typical of his various comments which are designed to play to the gallery or the populist vote regardless of whether the comment is valid or properly thought through. It almost seems that he will find things that a lot of people think, which appear to be superficially logical, but.when examined closely are ill thought out twaddle.
So why are these comments so lacking in compassion, empathy, and entirely unfeeling? Simply, people do not choose to be fat alcoholic drug takers. In most cases overeating, drinking or drug addiction are a reaction by a very unhappy individual to a life of self loathing. Comfort eating, or getting drunk or getting high on illegal drugs are acts of escapism.
There may be some individuals who try recreational drugs for the feel good factor. Because they take drugs for kicks they usually do not become so dependent on them, simply because they do not need a kick to escape from an unhappy existence. So the individuals that choose drugs, drink or food are not those who are likely to become dependent on them such that they are unable to work and need incapacity benefit.
My child abuse clients typically are abused sexually by a male care worker in childhood, then take drugs in order to anaesthetise themselves from the constant bad memories of being abused, which take the form, often of daytime flashbacks. They stay hooked on usually heroin because it completely numbs all feeling, and places the individual in state of unfeeling, insulated from the mental effects of abuse. Life can become so difficult that attempts at suicide are not uncommon.
Inevitably the victims of abuse do not choose to become addicted. They arguably do not have a choice. Even if they attempt to go back to work, and many do so, their employment usually does not last long due to lack of trust, and arguments with anyone in a position of authority. After all the first authority figure they trusted abused them.
So why attack the most vulnerable members of society and invite people to pillory them? I suppose that because they are the oppressed who have been abused before they are an easy target, and less likely to fight back.
So what does Cameron with his half baked thinking consider that we ought to do with these dreadful individuals? I suppose that if they don't deserve benefit we ought to starve them to death. At least the overweight would shed a few pounds before the worst happened to them. Alcoholics do not eat anyway. If one took away their benefit, I suppose we would be encouraging them to turn to crime instead. Then one would have to put them in prison or mental health care, which costs even more than benefit.
Yes.....I am beginning to see Mr Cameron's logic.....