07-13-2015, 09:36 PM
I remember reading that of the small percentage of users who visit foodbanks more than once, a high percentage of those that do have addiction problems, gambling, alcohol, tobacco and drugs etc.
07-13-2015, 09:36 PM
I remember reading that of the small percentage of users who visit foodbanks more than once, a high percentage of those that do have addiction problems, gambling, alcohol, tobacco and drugs etc.
07-13-2015, 09:48 PM
It's not a massive leap to think that people with addictions would use such a service. Other needs would come first, and this is where the little cash they have would go.
07-13-2015, 10:28 PM
Poverty is cyclical. You know when your bonus comes in and you book that holiday you can't quite afford, which leaves you a wee bit short at the end of the month? That is poor people with nice TVs one rung up the ladder. The difference is that while you maybe have to tighten your belt a bit, they literally can't afford food if they decide to do something nice for themselves or their families. Those monsters.
Addiction rates are high in poor areas as an indirect consequence of poverty. It isn't about people being poor because they spend all their money on drugs; it's about a lack of hope or visible prospects leading people who are already poor into drug addiction (although I doubt junkies make up a significant proportion of food bank users anyway). With smoking and alcohol, middle class people with the same issues have a safety net that the poor don't. It's as simple as that. What stops the middle classes from paying for their children's piano lessons stops the poor from buying their children food. I'm not going to get into a massive debate about this, but it's a sad state of affairs if we're replacing state benefits with charity and then still stigmatising the poor for using it to survive.
07-13-2015, 11:12 PM
(07-13-2015, 09:48 PM)Drederick Tatum Wrote: It's not a massive leap to think that people with addictions would use such a service. Other needs would come first, and this is where the little cash they have would go. This is pretty much what I was saying in my first post on foodbanks, whilst it's entirely understandable for an addict to view it that way and something that they obviously need help with, it is undeniably a failing of that individual for continuing the cycle.
07-13-2015, 11:57 PM
(07-13-2015, 10:30 PM)S.J. Wrote: Mate dinny, bit close to the bone for Dank, that. To me they are one and the same. Lack of hope or visible prospects because of your limited income and no clear way to achieve the kind of money you'd need to change your circumstances, and being poor because you spend your limited amount of money self-medicating and can delay your worries by doing this.
07-14-2015, 12:07 AM
'I've been there. After dropping out of Loretto I too spent my allowance on drugs rather than food.'
07-14-2015, 12:14 AM
07-14-2015, 12:18 AM
Someone I know mate.
'It is the poor's fault that society gives them so few options that they do things that make them a bit more poor'.
07-14-2015, 12:39 AM
Is that you still channeling him? Must've got his life back on track if he's able to formulate such a solid argument.
What's your own view on low incomes and addiction issues, friend?
07-14-2015, 01:01 AM
(07-14-2015, 12:18 AM)Makween Wrote: Someone I know mate. Or at least, a third of them. Around a third of those in the poorest areas smoke and around a third in the poorest areas (of men, at least) exhibit signs of possible dependence on alcohol or a problematic relationship with alcohol. So again, it's very important not to generalise because that leads to the types of lazy and unhelpful stereotypes we saw Drederick "satirise" earlier. Scotland actually does have an inequality between the most deprived and least deprived areas when it comes to the risk of exhibiting signs of problem drinking, but the binge drinking rates of those in the least and most deprived areas were virtually identical in a study carried out in Wales a couple of years ago - in fact, they found that the rates of both alcohol use and alcohol abuse positively correlated with socioeconomic status, and these findings matched those from other countries. I know what you're thinking, we know that poor people drink more. Actually, the study found the opposite - those in the least deprived areas had much higher rates of alcohol use, and slightly higher rates of binging. Yet discharges from hospitals on alcohol related illnesses were much higher amongst those in the most deprived areas. Scotland shares that part of the study - you're 6 times more likely to be admitted to hospital with an alcohol related illness if you are from the most deprived quintile than the least. You're not 6 times more likely to be a binge drinker or even drink on a regular basis. Lots of reasons for this, one of which being the Biology Of Poverty, which is something worth raising as a point to those who would advocate individual responsibility as the key factor. If you are born into poverty, your immune system is actually weaker than someone not. That starts in the womb and is regardless of whether your mother smokes or drinks or whatever. Two otherwise identical men, one born into poverty and one middle class, can abuse alcohol to the exact same extent and the poor man's chances of suffering from an alcohol-related disease are far greater. It's not nearly as simple as "their lives are shit so they drink and that's their fault/that's society's fault". Not directing that comment at anyone, and not saying people do have such a simplified view, but it's important to point it out.
07-14-2015, 03:44 AM
(07-14-2015, 01:01 AM)Francis Begbie Wrote: Or at least, a third of them. Around a third of those in the poorest areas smoke and around a third in the poorest areas (of men, at least) exhibit signs of possible dependence on alcohol or a problematic relationship with alcohol. So again, it's very important not to generalise because that leads to the types of lazy and unhelpful stereotypes we saw Drederick "satirise" earlier. Well I didn't say individual responsiblity was the key factor, I said that it's something that is often not raised or mentioned. I find the idea that these people are powerless to resist because of their background to be far more offensive than anything I've said in this discussion. Is that true about the immune system, where did you see that? I was told that it was the opposite, that genetically those from a line of low socioeconomic families actually have a stronger immune response to bugs and viruses as a result of generations of higher than average exposure, it is infact the body's response that eventually takes it's toll on organs. Glad that's not directed at anyone, because it's far from what I was saying. The cycle of addiction is pretty easy to understand, I wouldn't and haven't tried to say that this is solely down to the individual, but that society's response must include an acknowledgement of that. I've seen it attempted and the discussion is always toxic and always jumped upon, progress won't be made as long as we always think society and government programmes can solve every issue. Any substance abuse programme will require the subject to acknowledge their issue and take ownership of it, there's a lot of people out there (regardless of class, neighbourhood or occupation) who maybe aren't that far along but are in complete denial about either their problem or their own will power to do anything to change it.
07-14-2015, 07:17 AM
Of course substance abuse programmes should (and do) acknowledge individual responsibility. What they shouldn't do is uncritically blur the lines between substance abuse and poverty based upon a correlation that isn't there: they should be tackled separately like the separate issues that they are. Pontificating over 'how many food bank users are smoking 60 a day' only serves to demonise the majority of poor people for whom substance addiction isn't an issue (or is no more of an issue than it is for those better off than them, suggesting that it isn't the decisive factor in their poverty).
To clarify my earlier posts: I wasn't suggesting that the poor are more likely to fall into addiction than anyone else, but that those poor people who fall into addiction do so whilst already poor. Addiction shouldn't be a part of the conversation on poverty.
07-14-2015, 09:32 AM
What else can be done to alleviate poverty? What are the main factors? Will increasing peoples income make a difference? I'm sceptical tbh. The main thing (other than fags, bev (:begbie and drugs) that folk spent their cash on is food and energy. Energy companies seem to have a free reign to do what they want, the metres they stick in folks houses are a disgusting tax on the poor. I get that some cant be trusted to pay their d/d's but to charge the prices they do for the usage is ridic. Supermarkets are constantly price fixing with each other and barely get a slap on the wrist ever time they get caught. After the financial crash, they hiked up prices for groceries by 30% ffs , they were buying the stuff in cheaper than before too. Strict rent controls should be brought in with rent caps across the board. Surely takling those three things alone would make a huge difference. If you upped JSA and the NMW etc, all you would see is living costs increasing at the same rate.Â
07-14-2015, 09:33 AM
(Edited 07-14-2015, 09:33 AM by PHOODLE-OUt.)
07-14-2015, 09:43 AM
No, hunger is a reason people are using food banks. Addiction is a separate issue which affects people across the social spectrum.
07-14-2015, 09:52 AM
(07-14-2015, 09:43 AM)Makween Wrote: No, hunger is a reason people are using food banks. Â Addiction is a separate issue which affects people across the social spectrum. I fail to see how people with addictions unable to by food because they have no money left can be a separate issue. Why do you think people are hungry then if it's not because they have to spend their money on other things?
07-14-2015, 10:05 AM
(07-14-2015, 09:52 AM)Vlad-Stupid Wrote: I fail to see how people with addictions unable to by food because they have no money left can be a separate issue. Why do you think people are hungry then if it's not because they have to spend their money on other things? I'm sure if they were giving drugs out for free they'd spend their cash on food instead.
07-14-2015, 10:11 AM
Because addiction isn't caused by poverty and poverty isn't caused by addiction. People who become addicts and are poor often do so due to factors linked to their poverty, but as Begbie has already demonstrated it isn't a simple case of addiction being caused by poverty. Addiction is a huge social problem in itself, affecting poor and non-poor people: it should be dealt with on its own merits, not used as a stick with which to beat people who use food banks. If addiction is made into a component of the conversation about poverty the two become discursively linked, creating an environment in which it becomes acceptable to blame the poor for poverty rather than considering the ways in which our society has failed.
07-14-2015, 10:18 AM
(07-14-2015, 10:11 AM)Makween Wrote: Because addiction isn't caused by poverty and poverty isn't caused by addiction. Â People who become addicts and are poor often do so due to factors linked to their poverty, but as Begbie has already demonstrated it isn't a simple case of addiction being caused by poverty. Â Addiction is a huge social problem in itself, affecting poor and non-poor people: it should be dealt with on its own merits, not used as a stick with which to beat people who use food banks. Â If addiction is made into a component of the conversation about poverty the two become discursively linked, creating an environment in which it becomes acceptable to blame the poor for poverty rather than considering the ways in which our society has failed. Good post. Too easy to say "they're only poor because they spend all their money on drugs" and washing your hands of the argument. |
|