SC proposes to cut funding for the disabled

[Bluesky]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

ASIDE
I'd like to point out Bluesky's Reaction to being misunderstood is commendable.
Instead of getting all pissy and personal, Bluesky further clarified his/her question/point.
Well played.

Thanks xoxoxoBruce, but I just don't know anyone here well enough to get pissy yet.

Originally Posted by SamIam

Sorry, sometimes I have mild brain blips. I didn't understand what you were asking. My understanding is that Colorado wil look at the big picture as long as your addiction occurred after you became disabled. They will treat people for dual diagnosis.

So SamIam, a teen does various drugs, turns 19 or 20 and that being a ripe age for schizophrenia, is seen as a drug addict with a secondary of schiz rather than a schiz with a secondary of drugs?

I like the system that looks at the bigger picture and sees that schizophrenia IS a physical brain disease not related to the drug use. And considers that young person disabled even though there was drug use from earlier in life. Would Colorado actually refuse to call someone like that disabled because of drug use before being diagnosed with schizophrenia?

I'm not even sure a meth addict shouldn't be considered mentally ill after enough brain tissue is destroyed. It's not growing back and even if that meth user gets clean, their brain may still be like swiss cheese causing disability.

I can support not giving out monies to someone while they are still using since that does not help solve their illness and often makes it much worse. Although what I've seen in Cali is that the mentally ill get disability, it's given out for 'board and care' and the person gets maybe $20-50 a month spending money and all the rest is given to a care home. (If the person is not hospitalized).

Not that it stops the drug use. Stealing and prostitution add to the money used for drug use.