Oh dear. Even when I agree with you, the red mist descends... I could just FFS, but I'll try to explain.
No, Nick. What you said was contradictory and not cogent. I highlighted what you said and pointed out what I saw as the contradictions. It wasn't clear on which side of the issue you fell.
If people could be motivated by the threat to their benefits, then they would slim down, their health would improve, they would be better and healthier in all sorts of ways, and therefore more likely to get a job. That is how it would work. The problem with that scenario, is that they are (to be very general about it) suffering from obesity precisely because they are most unlikely to be motivated by such things. And surely addiction and (very often) obesity is itself the evidence that the afflicted have not responded, and are therefore unlikely to respond to, the promise of a better life "if only they try", or some such thing. What other conclusion would you draw?
There are just far too many assumptions and prejudices in that. But because that David 'call me Dave' Cameron hasn't provided any evidence that such sanctions would have the desired effect, I think we are right to not support it until he does and I hope that is what you are saying.
However, I think what is clear is that if this was implemented and someone who was obese or who was an addict had their benefits withdrawn because they refused to consent to treatment, what could happen to them? Has Cameron thought this through?
Of course, with obesity and addiction come all sorts of co-morbidities, so stopping their ESA, could lead some into even deeper problems - up to and including depression and suicide. Well, at least that would solve the problem and get the scroungers off the DWP's books...
It looks like yet another wizzo idea that Cameron and his cronies have dreamt up over a bottle of claret that they have been incapable of thinking through.