Should the drunk be charged for their healthcare?

[Infinite Chaos]

Northamptonshire Chief Constable Adrian Lee, who leads on the issue of problem drinking for Acpo in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, told the BBC that police cells were not the best places for people who got so drunk they were "incapable of looking after themselves".Preferring the term "welfare centres" for the so-called drunk tanks, Mr Lee said the taxpayer should not have to pick up the bill for people's drunkenness.
"Why don't we take them to a drunk cell owned by a commercial company and get the commercial company to look after them during the night until they are sober?" he said.
"When that is over, we will issue them with a fixed penalty and the company will be able to charge them for their care, which would be at quite significant cost and that might be a significant deterrent."
He said police were not "experts on health", so it could be hard to decide whether people should be in a police station or a hospital - and drunk people should not be "clogging up" A&E departments. Link.

I think "drunk tanks" are a great idea, but I also think the taxes that have hiked the cost of alcohol in the UK should be lowered to more reasonable levels. Many people like a drink but governments in England and Scotland have successively raised the price with the supposed aim of tackling alcohol abuse where the reality is that it adds to government revenue.

The effect is that all legal-age drinkers are paying extra because of a blunt tool to tackle excessive drinking. "Drunk tanks" would levy the costs on those who abuse alcohol - which in the UK, we all as tax-payers pay for.

There are problems with binge drink and Friday night city-centres in the UK - violence and clogged up Accident and Emergency centres are struggling to cope but this is where drunk tanks and penalty charges on those responsible should be part of the answer.

 

[eph210]

I think "drunk tanks" are a great idea, but I also think the taxes that have hiked the cost of alcohol in the UK should be lowered to more reasonable levels. Many people like a drink but governments in England and Scotland have successively raised the price with the supposed aim of tackling alcohol abuse where the reality is that it adds to government revenue.

The effect is that all legal-age drinkers are paying extra because of a blunt tool to tackle excessive drinking. "Drunk tanks" would levy the costs on those who abuse alcohol - which in the UK, we all as tax-payers pay for.

There are problems with binge drink and Friday night city-centres in the UK - violence and clogged up Accident and Emergency centres are struggling to cope but this is where drunk tanks and penalty charges on those responsible should be part of the answer.

Drunk tanks sound like a good way of "stemming the bleeding" and "fixing the symptoms" but I prefer a more radical approach. Now I understand people like a drink, but I've been doing my research. I'm afraid I don't have direct statistics but I'm sure you would agree that alcohol is the cause of increased teenage pregnancies, car accidents, pedestrian accidents, rape, violence, abuse, a HUGE list of medical problems and the major issue of horrific dancing in public. As a result of all this we can hardly say "oh well" to drinking as a problem. Now the supposed "benefits" of alcohol are really so minimal as compared to the negatives that it can't be seen as a reason to drink. Of course, other drugs (and alcohol is classified as a depressant) are banned because of all the above reasons and are used in very small, controlled capacity for their limited medicinal purposes and I think the the enforced banning of such drugs is extremely positive to society. So why don't we attack the problem at the base? I know banning alcohol is very extreme and I don't expect it would ever occur but I push for it in the hope at least some limimation is one day applied to alcohol distribution and consumption.

 

[zimmer]

I think "drunk tanks" are a great idea, but I also think the taxes that have hiked the cost of alcohol in the UK should be lowered to more reasonable levels. Many people like a drink but governments in England and Scotland have successively raised the price with the supposed aim of tackling alcohol abuse where the reality is that it adds to government revenue.

The effect is that all legal-age drinkers are paying extra because of a blunt tool to tackle excessive drinking. "Drunk tanks" would levy the costs on those who abuse alcohol - which in the UK, we all as tax-payers pay for.

There are problems with binge drink and Friday night city-centres in the UK - violence and clogged up Accident and Emergency centres are struggling to cope but this is where drunk tanks and penalty charges on those responsible should be part of the answer.

Not a bad idea, and at the same time lower the taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. They're legal substances, and it only harms those who can least afford it. If adults want to smoke and drink... that's their concern.

If they get too bombed and need "attention", a bill for 150 quid would surely get the attention of the drunkard when they sobered up. The problem is with repeat offenders who do not pay and are on the dole. Who do you collect from, and what do you do with such folks? Let them swim in their own vomit night after night?

Another problem is when it's commercial, what happens if they don't get enough customers? They close down. What then?

 

[Artevelde]

I think law enforcement should remain a task for the police. But I do agree that people who cause certain costs through their criminal behavior (for example disorderly drunks who need to be arrested until they sober up) should be made to pay all the costs for that and be fined on top of that.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Another problem is when it's commercial, what happens if they don't get enough customers? They close down. What then?

That's not a problem in the UK right now, we spend £2.7 billion a year in the NHS universal healthcare system because of alcohol abuse.

I'm not arguing the NHS stop caring for alcoholics but the immediate cost of the Friday night/ Saturday morning clean-up is crippling the UK.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think "drunk tanks" are a great idea, but I also think the taxes that have hiked the cost of alcohol in the UK should be lowered to more reasonable levels. Many people like a drink but governments in England and Scotland have successively raised the price with the supposed aim of tackling alcohol abuse where the reality is that it adds to government revenue.

The effect is that all legal-age drinkers are paying extra because of a blunt tool to tackle excessive drinking. "Drunk tanks" would levy the costs on those who abuse alcohol - which in the UK, we all as tax-payers pay for.

There are problems with binge drink and Friday night city-centres in the UK - violence and clogged up Accident and Emergency centres are struggling to cope but this is where drunk tanks and penalty charges on those responsible should be part of the answer.

So long as you view excessive drinking (or any recreational drug abuse) as a public health problem rather than a crime you will continue to have problems. When the sentences for the crime of DUI/DWI exceed the severity of those for assault and property destruction while drunk (or drugged) then you have a system that needs repair. Being out of control, due to drug or alcohol (ab)use, is often treated as an aggravating factor while driving yet is often treated as a mitigating factor for other illegal acts - that makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[zimmer]

That's not a problem in the UK right now, we spend £2.7 billion a year in the NHS universal healthcare system because of alcohol abuse.

I'm not arguing the NHS stop caring for alcoholics but the immediate cost of the Friday night/ Saturday morning clean-up is crippling the UK.

OI! ... I'll drink to that!

 

[Jetboogieman]

Having worked night audit/night security at a hotel for almost 2 years I can attest that this is the route to go.

Young people feel they have a right to get as wasted as they want without any consequences, they think they can say whatever they want, damage whatever they want and they'll just be taken care of if they falter.

These idiots need to be taught a lesson, that "Oh I was drunk" is no longer good enough excuse for acting like a ****.

 

[Mycroft]

I think "drunk tanks" are a great idea, but I also think the taxes that have hiked the cost of alcohol in the UK should be lowered to more reasonable levels. Many people like a drink but governments in England and Scotland have successively raised the price with the supposed aim of tackling alcohol abuse where the reality is that it adds to government revenue.

The effect is that all legal-age drinkers are paying extra because of a blunt tool to tackle excessive drinking. "Drunk tanks" would levy the costs on those who abuse alcohol - which in the UK, we all as tax-payers pay for.

There are problems with binge drink and Friday night city-centres in the UK - violence and clogged up Accident and Emergency centres are struggling to cope but this is where drunk tanks and penalty charges on those responsible should be part of the answer.

Maybe y'all should follow the example of the U.S. Require everyone to buy "drunk insurance".

 

[Helix]

Drunk tanks sound like a good way of "stemming the bleeding" and "fixing the symptoms" but I prefer a more radical approach. Now I understand people like a drink, but I've been doing my research. I'm afraid I don't have direct statistics but I'm sure you would agree that alcohol is the cause of increased teenage pregnancies, car accidents, pedestrian accidents, rape, violence, abuse, a HUGE list of medical problems and the major issue of horrific dancing in public. As a result of all this we can hardly say "oh well" to drinking as a problem. Now the supposed "benefits" of alcohol are really so minimal as compared to the negatives that it can't be seen as a reason to drink. Of course, other drugs (and alcohol is classified as a depressant) are banned because of all the above reasons and are used in very small, controlled capacity for their limited medicinal purposes and I think the the enforced banning of such drugs is extremely positive to society. So why don't we attack the problem at the base? I know banning alcohol is very extreme and I don't expect it would ever occur but I push for it in the hope at least some limimation is one day applied to alcohol distribution and consumption.

prohibition has been tried, and it was a disaster.

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ikari]

I think "drunk tanks" are a great idea, but I also think the taxes that have hiked the cost of alcohol in the UK should be lowered to more reasonable levels. Many people like a drink but governments in England and Scotland have successively raised the price with the supposed aim of tackling alcohol abuse where the reality is that it adds to government revenue.

The effect is that all legal-age drinkers are paying extra because of a blunt tool to tackle excessive drinking. "Drunk tanks" would levy the costs on those who abuse alcohol - which in the UK, we all as tax-payers pay for.

There are problems with binge drink and Friday night city-centres in the UK - violence and clogged up Accident and Emergency centres are struggling to cope but this is where drunk tanks and penalty charges on those responsible should be part of the answer.

Isn't there already a fine that is associated with being picked up and thrown into jail for a night?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Drunk tanks sound like a good way of "stemming the bleeding" and "fixing the symptoms" but I prefer a more radical approach. Now I understand people like a drink, but I've been doing my research. I'm afraid I don't have direct statistics but I'm sure you would agree that alcohol is the cause of increased teenage pregnancies, car accidents, pedestrian accidents, rape, violence, abuse, a HUGE list of medical problems and the major issue of horrific dancing in public. As a result of all this we can hardly say "oh well" to drinking as a problem. Now the supposed "benefits" of alcohol are really so minimal as compared to the negatives that it can't be seen as a reason to drink. Of course, other drugs (and alcohol is classified as a depressant) are banned because of all the above reasons and are used in very small, controlled capacity for their limited medicinal purposes and I think the the enforced banning of such drugs is extremely positive to society. So why don't we attack the problem at the base? I know banning alcohol is very extreme and I don't expect it would ever occur but I push for it in the hope at least some limimation is one day applied to alcohol distribution and consumption.

The intention of reducing those problems is clear, but whether prohibition actually does achieve that intention or not is quite another question. Alcohol prohibition is a funding black hole to try to effectively enforce. It simply can't be done. Way too ubiquitous and societally/culturally accepted, and too easy to make.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Thread: Should the drunk be charged for their healthcare?

If by "the drunk" you mean chronic alcoholics, then there is no point to charging them -- chances are they don't typically have much money lying around.

If we wanted to be financially minded, we would simply not entitle them to any health care while intoxicated by substances, or in other words hospitals would be expected to turn away people who stumble onto their premises seeking whatever. It would make substance use an inherently much riskier activity, but it would make more sense than trying to send people more bills we know they can't pay.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

If by "the drunk" you mean chronic alcoholics, then there is no point to charging them -- chances are they don't typically have much money lying around.

We have a huge problem with Friday-night pint-and-a-fight drunks - these are usually people with jobs who let off far too much steam on a Friday night in most of the UK's city centres. They tend to be well off and can afford the inflated prices that the government charges everyone in tax.
At the moment, responsible drinkers are hit by the sledgehammer tool of high alcohol tax charges and while young irresponsible drinkers carry on regardless and end up in accident & emergency units when they get into drunken fights at 2 in the morning.

-- Require everyone to buy "drunk insurance".

How does that work?

Isn't there already a fine that is associated with being picked up and thrown into jail for a night?

Not in the UK unless the drunk is causing criminal damage or driving a vehicle.

 

[Mycroft]

We have a huge problem with Friday-night pint-and-a-fight drunks - these are usually people with jobs who let off far too much steam on a Friday night in most of the UK's city centres. They tend to be well off and can afford the inflated prices that the government charges everyone in tax.
At the moment, responsible drinkers are hit by the sledgehammer tool of high alcohol tax charges and while young irresponsible drinkers carry on regardless and end up in accident & emergency units when they get into drunken fights at 2 in the morning.



How does that work?



Not in the UK unless the drunk is causing criminal damage or driving a vehicle.

Like a cross between Obamacare and auto insurance. You are required to have it and if you get drunk it'll cover the costs incurred by your drunkenness.

 

[Neomalthusian]

We have a huge problem with Friday-night pint-and-a-fight drunks - these are usually people with jobs who let off far too much steam on a Friday night in most of the UK's city centres. They tend to be well off and can afford the inflated prices that the government charges everyone in tax.

If these people are functional enough to hold and keep jobs and stay out of jail, what exactly is the huge problem? Is your law enforcement failing to charge people with assault and battery?

At the moment, responsible drinkers are hit by the sledgehammer tool of high alcohol tax charges and while young irresponsible drinkers carry on regardless and end up in accident & emergency units when they get into drunken fights at 2 in the morning.

Responsible drinkers presumably drink less, and thus pay less of the sin tax than heavy drinkers. And people who don't drink at all are paying 0% of that tax, which is also proportional.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I think "drunk tanks" are a great idea, but I also think the taxes that have hiked the cost of alcohol in the UK should be lowered to more reasonable levels. Many people like a drink but governments in England and Scotland have successively raised the price with the supposed aim of tackling alcohol abuse where the reality is that it adds to government revenue.

The effect is that all legal-age drinkers are paying extra because of a blunt tool to tackle excessive drinking. "Drunk tanks" would levy the costs on those who abuse alcohol - which in the UK, we all as tax-payers pay for.

There are problems with binge drink and Friday night city-centres in the UK - violence and clogged up Accident and Emergency centres are struggling to cope but this is where drunk tanks and penalty charges on those responsible should be part of the answer.

1) You want taxes on alcohol to be lowered.
2) How does that coincide with you wanting people to drink less?

I don't follow - if the government has to put more into alcohol-related crimes, shouldn't they have every bit of a right to raise the cost of liquor?

Your argument isn't coming together very well. . . and what you bring up first (taxes and drunk tanks) has little to do with paying for healthcare.

What is it that you think a drunk tank is? In the US is just what they refer to when someone is intoxicated and is taken in by the police. They refer to holding them until they're sober enough to process out as 'being in the drunk tank' - other than that, it means nothing.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Speaking as someone who consumes plenty of alcohol, I say RAISE taxes on discretionary consumables like alcohol and (especially) tobacco products.

I like a drink from time to time, but even I realize that it's simply unnecessary. I could do without it. So raise the taxes. If people don't like it...don't buy it. Problem solved.

Drunks who are addicted to alcohol? They pay the price for their addictions with the increased taxes. See how that works? Complete freedom from paying those exorbitant taxes, if you refuse to pay. Acceptance of the "penalty" if you agree to the costs. Freedom, any way you look at it. Unlike other taxes, or 0bamaCare, which is basically extortion with a gun to the temple.

 

[eph210]

The intention of reducing those problems is clear, but whether prohibition actually does achieve that intention or not is quite another question. Alcohol prohibition is a funding black hole to try to effectively enforce. It simply can't be done. Way too ubiquitous and societally/culturally accepted, and too easy to make.

I agree it would be difficult.
But I'm glad I'm not the only one who would push for it if it were possible.

 

[eph210]

prohibition has been tried, and it was a disaster.

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mmm.
I see what you mean. Do you agree though that if it were possible, it would be worthwhile?

 

[Helix]

Mmm.
I see what you mean. Do you agree though that if it were possible, it would be worthwhile?

No, I wouldn't make alcohol illegal even if it could be done without creating a criminal black market.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

If these people are functional enough to hold and keep jobs and stay out of jail, what exactly is the huge problem? Is your law enforcement failing to charge people with assault and battery?

See my earlier post regarding the cost of these drunks ending up in Accident and Emergency units on a Friday night...

-- Responsible drinkers presumably drink less, and thus pay less of the sin tax than heavy drinkers. And people who don't drink at all are paying 0% of that tax, which is also proportional.

Doesn't address that taxes on alcohol in the UK are ridiculous. Going for an after work drink with 5 friends used to cost around £7.50 a round if they all had a pint. Now, thanks to the duty escalator it's over £15 for 5 pints for 5 friends.

1) You want taxes on alcohol to be lowered.
2) How does that coincide with you wanting people to drink less?

I don't follow - if the government has to put more into alcohol-related crimes, shouldn't they have every bit of a right to raise the cost of liquor?

Your argument isn't coming together very well. . . and what you bring up first (taxes and drunk tanks) has little to do with paying for healthcare.

What is it that you think a drunk tank is? In the US is just what they refer to when someone is intoxicated and is taken in by the police. They refer to holding them until they're sober enough to process out as 'being in the drunk tank' - other than that, it means nothing.

I'm not sure you read the OP? The police proposed drunk tank is a care unit run by private healthcare business. Drunks would be looked after by trained medical professionals rather than police officers who are better handling crime and disorder than caring for unconscious drunks.
Taxes... tax on beer = tax on all consumers. We have something called a duty escalator which although stopped, automatically raised taxes year on year on alcohol.

Anyhow - drunk tank - targets friday night drunks only - they pay for their care while unconscious with alcohol, not everyone else.

The police and healthcare sector have been arguing for this for years in the UK. UK Governments have left many cities to become no-go zones for ordinary people going out on the night in many inner cities and the govt also prefers to tax as widely as possible with beer than tackle the problem of city-centre violence every Friday night in many parts of the UK.

 

[Neomalthusian]

See my earlier post regarding the cost of these drunks ending up in Accident and Emergency units on a Friday night...

Petition your government to stop covering these services. If they want to fight with each other and pay for their own subsequent medical costs, so be it. You said yourself that they're well enough off.

Doesn't address that taxes on alcohol in the UK are ridiculous. Going for an after work drink with 5 friends used to cost around £7.50 a round if they all had a pint. Now, thanks to the duty escalator it's over £15 for 5 pints for 5 friends.

Bummer. Ever consider homebrewing?

I'm not sure you read the OP? The police proposed drunk tank is a care unit run by private healthcare business. Drunks would be looked after by trained medical professionals rather than police officers who are better handling crime and disorder than caring for unconscious drunks.

How humane. Well yes I disagree with this sort of coddling. Substance abuse is not a necessity of life. Use at your own risk.

Taxes... tax on beer = tax on all consumers. We have something called a duty escalator which although stopped, automatically raised taxes year on year on alcohol.

Sin taxes are not necessarily something I inherently agree with, but they're not the least fair thing I've ever heard of either. It as at least proportional to the amount purchased/consumed.

 

[Leviculus]

There is a difference between a drunk and a drinker , I have a few beers every now and then but its not consuming me , I use it as a reward for myself ... A drunk is someone who the drinking interferes with there everyday life and most of these people wont have the money to pay for their own healthcare , so what are you gona do send them to debtors prison? I believe you should mind your own business and leave the drunks alone to die and not mess with the drinkers by trying to "fix" these people that dont want fixing

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Petition your government to stop covering these services. If they want to fight with each other and pay for their own subsequent medical costs, so be it. You said yourself that they're well enough off.

I support the police and hospitals in the drive to stop the taxpayer covering the costs mentioned. It's just stupid that we continue.

-- Bummer. Ever consider homebrewing?

Unsurprisingly, there's a growing black market here but a lot of it is dangerous - ethanol and all sorts of stuff being put into bottles which then have fake labels put on. Govt policy is really stupid - tax alcohol to hell and back and spend a lot of the tax revenue on trading standards officers (not sure of the American equivalent of food safety officers?) who have to go out searching for the fake alcohol that such high prices are fostering.

We're not quite at prohibition foolishness but we're heading that way.