There is something decidedly sinister about the government’s latest plan to browbeat those with addiction problems into submission by withdrawing their benefits if they “refuse” treatment.

Back in February, David Cameron admitted that the Tories were considering reducing or ceasing benefit payments to those dependent on drugs or alcohol, alongside similar plans for those classed as obese.

These people, it was claimed, are all suffering from a self-inflicted state of worklessness and welfare dependency and “could do more to help themselves” and stop leaching off the taxpayer.

Dr Lawrence Buckman, GP committee chairman of the British Medical Association, was so stunned by the revelation that he assumed at first that it must be a joke. Given that the plan originally came to light during the same week in February that the Tories were heavily criticised for turning a blind eye to rich tax-avoiders, it did seem as if someone at Tory HQ had a particularly vile and perverse sense of humour.

Fast forward several months later to July and here we have the millionaire Prime Minister launching a “full-scale review” into the issue, evidently with the aim of not only punishing those suffering from the disease of substance dependence, but using rhetoric clearly designed to persuade those with no understanding of addiction to see the condition as a result of a personal failing, a weakness, a tendency towards selfishness and self-pity that we must either recoil at or point and sneer over from our lofty non-dependent heights.

The language used at the launch of the review was laced with economic and monetary terms, accented by the occasional use of the word “support” in an attempt to make it appear as though driven by a noble aim.

Yet the aim of the review is clear from the outset — to create an atmosphere of “us and them,” of scores of people around the country who have made a conscious decision to be propped up by the state while playing Russian roulette with their health.

The general public is being encouraged not to see addiction as an illness, which needs the appropriate treatment, but another aspect of the lifestyle choice of the lazy benefit claimant.

Such stereotyping finds its audience by playing to one of the most primal elements of human nature — that of fear.

Cameron announced that measures must be taken when “people simply say No and refuse help but expect taxpayers to carry on funding their benefits,” creating a picture whereby the Tories are extending the golden gift of “help” to someone who’d eschew it in favour of running off with half your pension.

The review, we are told, will “establish the role such treatable conditions play in causing worklessness and estimate the associated cost to the exchequer and the economy.” This highlights perhaps the most macabre element of the so-called review, as people are obviously seen simply as machines put on this earth to work and bolster the Exchequer, not as human beings in their own right.

Addiction must be stamped out, not to enrich the lives of those it affects, but so that these people can be freed from its grip to get on with the sole reason for being on this planet — to work and serve the “great British economy.”

This is deeply troubling. Many thought that Britain may have been at a turning point in its approach to alcoholism and addiction with the death of Charles Kennedy earlier this year. Tributes to the former MP came from across the political spectrum, and the issue of alcoholism was debated in sensible and realistic terms on TV programmes, on the radio and in the papers.

Commentators remarked that his legacy might even be to break the taboo surrounding addiction, to finally see the disease recognised not as a moral failing but as an illness that has the potential to affect anyone, no matter what their background.

Yet this new announcement drags the issue backwards, muddying morality with obligation and personal well-being with economic duty. Addiction is not brought about by a desire to avoid work and receive benefits, as Cameron seems to believe, but as a result of many complex matters including abuse, unemployment, depression and bereavement, to name only a few.

A cursory glance at any study into the nature of addiction will tell you that forcing people into treatment will not work — one of the first steps to recovery is the individual recognising their dependency and deciding for themselves whether or not to seek help. The government will not “cure” people of a substance dependency if that person has not made the decision to enter treatment on their own terms.

Addiction is not overcome by outside forces but from within and it is this aspect of the disease that should be focused upon so that those with substance dependencies can be supported to reach their own conclusions over the nature of their illness and if, when and which type of treatment path they feel most appropriate for their individual needs.

Supporters of the review will claim that judgement cannot be passed until the results have been published, however it is plainly obvious that it is not being undertaken to establish how best to support those with obesity or substance dependency issues.

If that were the case, the government would be commissioning a report which seeks to address the underlying causes of addiction, classified by the World Health Organisation as a disease — “dependency syndrome” — and from there provide the appropriate support and resources in the same way that any other medically classified disease would be treated.

Aside from the physical effects, substance dependency is a mental health issue — an illness — and should be handled as such, not by forcing people into treatment programmes through a fear of losing their income.

To get serious about addiction and recovery, the government may want to consider why mental health services amount to 23 per cent of NHS spending while receiving only 13 per cent of its funding — closing that 10 per cent gap would be a start.

This underfunding is having a serious effect on those requiring assistance and a properly funded mental health service would no doubt benefit the Exchequer and the economy in the long term.

If the government is serious about reducing addiction and its effect, the question of why 31 rehab centres were closed in the first two years of the Con-Dem coalition needs to be addressed. It’s no use forcing people into rehab and treatment facilities that no longer exist.

There is also a shortage of experienced addiction therapists in Britain — once again if the government truly wants to change the way addiction is dealt with, this is an area which has been neglected for too long.

A proper, comprehensive review of mental health services would be of far more benefit to those suffering the government’s “treatable” conditions than a review of the economics of addiction.