New Year, NHS rationing, should drunks be charged for admissions?

misskool

blueboy43 wrote: »

because in many city centre drinking bars, they are as culpable as their patrons. The analogy that comes to mind is drug dealers and users.
In 28 years of going out, I have never seen anyone refused to be served because they are drunk.

Does that mean the patrons have no willpower or no self thought that they are just herded into getting so drunk they need to be admitted to a&e?

I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Drug dealers exist because there are drug users. Bars exist because there are alcoholic users. It's a whole chicken and egg situation, who do you want to blame?

Emy1501

misskool wrote: »

That's their job, to sell you alcohol. it's called upselling. it's like the argos man asking you if you want an extended warranty for the £4.99 toaster that you're about to buy. You can say no. They should be able to sell you single shots.

Of course I've been drunk. However, I've not drunk so much as to requiring a&e, I've never been so drunk that I've failed to see where I was walking and therefore causing an accident. I'm personally responsible for getting to my state of mind. I don't see why the bar that is selling me alcohol footing the bill to pay for a&e.

Can you explain why bars are more culpable than the patrons?

I deal with claims with injuries to pedestrian caused in car accident everyday. The vast majority are not drunk and many of the accidents were caused by the pedestrian no looking or paying attention. You do not need to be drunk to be hit by a car you also do not also need to be drunk to trip up on the pavement. Many people drink and drive many will argue like you that they have never been drunk enough to cause an accident and I suspect many wont be involved in accidents but thats more to do with luck than judgement. I have never had to go to AE due to drink in 20 years of drinking. Actually I have only had to go to AE once in my life.

You may believe that you are not capable of making a mistake in your life but many may not be so fortunate. Why should I pay £500+ for visiting AE because I had a bit too much to drink and fell over or got hit by a car something that may have happened when I was sober especially when I have only ever been to AE once in my life before?

As for your other point bars and clubs make a fortune out of people getting drunk and therefore they have to take some of the responsibility of people getting drunk and ending up in AE.

As far as I'm concerned if its such a problem add some more tax on the price of drink and some more tax on the profits of places who sell drink to cover the costs.

misskool

Emy1501 wrote: »

I deal with claims with injuries to pedestrian caused in car accident everyday. The vast majority are not drunk and many of the accidents were caused by the pedestrian no looking or paying attention. You do not need to be drunk to be hit by a car you also do not also need to be drunk to trip up on the pavement. Many people drink and drive many will argue like you that they have never been drunk enough to cause an accident and I suspect many wont be involved in accidents but thats more to do with luck than judgement. I have never had to go to AE due to drink in 20 years of drinking. Actually I have only had to go to AE once in my life.

You may believe that you are not capable of making a mistake in your life but many may not be so fortunate. Why should I pay £500+ for visiting AE because I had a bit too much to drink and fell over or got hit by a car something that may have happened when I was sober especially when I have only ever been to AE once in my life before?

As for your other point bars and clubs make a fortune out of people getting drunk and therefore they have to take some of the responsibility of people getting drunk and ending up in AE.

As far as I'm concerned if its such a problem add some more tax on the price of drink and some more tax on the profits of places who sell drink to cover the costs.

I'm not disputing that accidents happen due to no fault of your own. However, the point of this discussion is whether those who have drunk too much be charged for a&e due to their stupor.

I merely disagreed with the point you made that establishments serving alcohol should have to pay for accidents caused by people who drink there and cause accidents due to their drunkenness. People who drink should have the willpower to stop drinking before they are admitted due to alcohol poisoning, they should have the sense to stop before they drink so much they can't see straight and cause an accident.

I've never said I don't make mistakes, I'm always happy to admit when proven wrong. However, I have the sense of mind to not drink so much as to cause public disorder. And if someone doesn't have the sense to stop drinking before they become harmful to themselves or to the public, then yes, why shouldn't they be charged for it? No one forced you to drink so much that you should be admitted to the hospital for drunkenness.

Pubs and clubs exist to make a profit, they are not a public service or a charity. If they do not make a profit, they cease to exist. I have no problems with people making a profit if they can find a business that works for them. In fact, more pubs close each day now and it's difficult to make a profit from running them.

Emy1501

misskool wrote: »

I'm not disputing that accidents happen due to no fault of your own. However, the point of this discussion is whether those who have drunk too much be charged for a&e due to their stupor.

I merely disagreed with the point you made that establishments serving alcohol should have to pay for accidents caused by people who drink there and cause accidents due to their drunkenness. People who drink should have the willpower to stop drinking before they are admitted due to alcohol poisoning, they should have the sense to stop before they drink so much they can't see straight and cause an accident.

I've never said I don't make mistakes, I'm always happy to admit when proven wrong. However, I have the sense of mind to not drink so much as to cause public disorder. And if someone doesn't have the sense to stop drinking before they become harmful to themselves or to the public, then yes, why shouldn't they be charged for it? No one forced you to drink so much that you should be admitted to the hospital for drunkenness.

Pubs and clubs exist to make a profit, they are not a public service or a charity. If they do not make a profit, they cease to exist. I have no problems with people making a profit if they can find a business that works for them. In fact, more pubs close each day now and it's difficult to make a profit from running them.

Ok so you go out with your mates one day. You have a few drink and are drunk, not out of your head but drunk. You slip over and break your leg. You could have done it drunk or sober. You attend A&E and you get a bill for £500+ are you going to be happy with that? How you going to decide who is too drunk?

As for the pubs and clubs etc how far do you take it? Why should they bother checking for ID. Pepole know right from wrong from the age of 10 therefore if kids go out and get drunk why not just fine them and their parent. What about the tragic incident the other day where it seems the kid got drunk and fell into a river,
if he had not of died should his parents have been fined for the wasted time of the police looking for him?

I dont have a problem with dealing with people who get drunk on a regular basis and end up in A&E all the time but there needs to be a warning system first maybe 3 strikes etc or as I say th easiest way would be to increase tax on drink to cover the problem.

StevieJ

Ironically the most dangerous drunks on the street are those that don't drink much


Especially lethal after a day at the races or during the month before Christmas :eek:

blueboy43

misskool wrote: »

Does that mean the patrons have no willpower or no self thought that they are just herded into getting so drunk they need to be admitted to a&e?

of course not, that would be ridiculous.

misskool wrote: »

I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Drug dealers exist because there are drug users. Bars exist because there are alcoholic users.

It's naive in the extreme to think that sellers of addictive products simply exist to service a demand. In fact they will do everything possible to stimulate that demand.
The idea that supply creates its own demand has been around for over 200 years.

As many city centre "vertical drinking establishments" flout the law on under age drinking and serve people who are patently drunk, I don't see why they should contribute to the social costs that results.

Somewhat ironic that the only business deregulation that Labour has fostered is in drinking, gambling and lap dancers.

blueboy43

misskool wrote: »

Also, the new licensing laws mean that bars and pubs/clubs get a large fine if they continue to serve someone they know are drunk.

Between the new act in 2005, and March 2008 just one licensee was prosecuted for serving a drunk.

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

Ironically the most dangerous drunks on the street are those that don't drink much


Especially lethal after a day at the races or during the month before Christmas :eek:

There is a different view from a lot of people of my parents generation than mine I think. And possibly a difference of opinion along a sex divide, though not so sure on that though. e.g. today at lunch we drank, not much, but a pre lunch drink, a glass of wine for me, a couple (?) for DH. After lunch we walked to the field carrying a ouple of buckets of feed soaked in the house (because of the temperatures). This lead to a conversation when we got back over why we had walked not driven...its not far, but we had the buckets, and who around the table might have driven.

I think generally my dad is ''safer'' after a few drinks than my DH would be. My father is a far heavier drinker....

howver, the law applies to all and for a reason. I personally think I would have had no problem driving the short distance today, and I would have had,in all likely hood, the road to myself. But the law says no, so I comply. For me, in such a scenario its not worth any other decision.

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

howver, the law applies to all and for a reason. I personally think I would have had no problem driving the short distance today, and I would have had,in all likely hood, the road to myself. But the law says no, so I comply. For me, in such a scenario its not worth any other decision.

The big issue for me when I was in my 20s that kept me from driving around after having a few was that the police would mount regular road blocks and stop you. There's nothing worse than the thought of losing your licence for a year (and possibly your job to boot) to keep you on the straight and narrow. I never see the road blocks now, though this may be because I no longer regularly frequent the streets at 2am.

misskool

Emy1501 wrote: »

Ok so you go out with your mates one day. You have a few drink and are drunk, not out of your head but drunk. You slip over and break your leg. You could have done it drunk or sober. You attend A&E and you get a bill for £500+ are you going to be happy with that? How you going to decide who is too drunk?

As for the pubs and clubs etc how far do you take it? Why should they bother checking for ID. Pepole know right from wrong from the age of 10 therefore if kids go out and get drunk why not just fine them and their parent. What about the tragic incident the other day where it seems the kid got drunk and fell into a river,
if he had not of died should his parents have been fined for the wasted time of the police looking for him?

I dont have a problem with dealing with people who get drunk on a regular basis and end up in A&E all the time but there needs to be a warning system first maybe 3 strikes etc or as I say th easiest way would be to increase tax on drink to cover the problem.

Why is the easiest way to increase taxes for the general public? Increase drink prices for everyone because binge drinking to the point of being admitted to a&e belong to the select few.

As for being drunk, slipping over and breaking your leg, yes that would be an accident. I'm not one to decide how drunk people should be before there be a charge.

Yes, a pair of parents have been charged for wasting police time to search for their child that wasn't lost (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8427548.stm)

Perhaps a traffic light/warning system should exist. But there should be some element of personal responsibility, why is society now entirely happy for the blame to lie with anyone bar themselves?