Should addicts who do not work have benefits removed?

My answer on this is yes and no.

I am not for cutting benefits for those with addictions but unless they are engaging with treatment I see no reason for the health system to sign them off work.  Put it this way, you would not give a suicidal patient the paracetamol to top themselves with, so why should an addict be funded to engage in the addiction?  Of course things would be easier if the same government that proposed this acted on a fat tax and took more action on cheap alcohol.  And things would be even better if narcotics were legalised & REGULATED as the war on these drugs that ruin so many lives is being lost.  

So, yes I am in favour of addicts who fail to engage not being signed off due to medical reasons, but I think it is far more important to act on alcohol pricing and bringing in a fat tax to aid healthy eating.