Always an indication of a society in trouble

  Forum Editor 10:34 22 Dec 2015
Locked

is this kind of thing.

What's the answer?

  Quickbeam 10:57 22 Dec 2015

Prohibition...?

It's the current fashion to swig quick shots for a quick high. I think it'll eventually go out of fashion.

  xania 13:14 22 Dec 2015

Ideally they would be made to wait until all legitimate patients were treated AND be made to pay for their treatment.

Realistically - nothing. We can't even stop overseas visitors so what chance our own miscreants?

  Forum Editor 13:29 22 Dec 2015

xania

Surely, someone suffering from alcohol poisoning is a 'legitimate patient'? In extreme cases it can be fatal.

  Forum Editor 13:35 22 Dec 2015

"It's the current fashion to swig quick shots for a quick high."

That was the fashion in Britain in the mid 18th century, at least among the poorer classes. They relied on cheap Gin for their quick high. It made them forget their troubles for a while, and I suspect that is a motivating factor now.

  xania 13:42 22 Dec 2015

FE Hence the dilemma. All those are self-created 'legitimate patients'. Most insurance companies have get-out clauses - perhaps the NHS needs them as well. Trouble is - where do you draw the line. Hence my other comment - Realistically - nothing

  RV510 13:57 22 Dec 2015

Drink related problems among people is largely self inflicted and is a psychological condition rather than an illness.

  Forum Editor 14:13 22 Dec 2015

RV510

I don't think anyone has suggested that drink-related problems are illnesses, any more than say, speeding in a car is an illness. Both may have serious consequences, and both are self-inflicted. That isn't the point, though.

Alcohol abuse on a large scale, especially when it shows a marked increase, is a symptom of an underlying social problem. It means that society is not self-regulating to the degree that it ought to be.

  spuds 14:42 22 Dec 2015

"It means that society is not self-regulating to the degree that it ought to be."

And how can it be, when on the one hand there are complaints about how the world is shaping, and how much it is costing, in health, or whatever. Yet the government and council's expect rewards in the name of taxation and licensing fees.

My view, is that anyone seeking medical help through over indulgence of alcohol, un-prescribed 'social' drugs etc, should be made to foot the bill. Especially if they are regular 'victims', and well known for it. A few hefty bills might bring a little sense to the situation.

  Forum Editor 14:58 22 Dec 2015

spuds "And how can it be, when on the one hand there are complaints about how the world is shaping, and how much it is costing, in health, or whatever. Yet the government and council's expect rewards in the name of taxation and licensing fees."

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. First of all, the self-regulation of society is done by its members - you and I, and everyone else. It is up to us to teach our children to behave with a degree of self-restraint, it isn't anyone else's responsibility.

Secondly, taxes and licence fees are not 'rewards' for the government. The money from taxation is what pays for the services we receive. We're not giving our taxes to people in government, we're giving them to the society of which we are members. This misconception that the treasury somehow owns the money it gets in taxes is widespread, but it's totally wrong - taxes pay for public sector services, the armed forces, the roads, the civil amenities we enjoy, and so on.

The way the world is shaping, as you put it, and how much it is all costing are complaints about us, the people whose society it is. We have a say in how our elected representatives run our country, but come election time we'll see the usual people saying the usual thing - that they can't be bothered to vote because it will make no difference. That is nonsense, but they can't see it.

  Forum Editor 15:04 22 Dec 2015

"My view, is that anyone seeking medical help through over indulgence of alcohol, un-prescribed 'social' drugs etc, should be made to foot the bill."

So, someone seeks medical help because he/she has driven too fast, and has crashed into a tree. It's their fault, but they are seriously injured. Using your logic, you would make them foot the bill for their emergency treatment, is that so?

People sometimes drink too much, and sometimes that leads to a need for emergency treatment. It has been the case since alcohol was first discovered, and it will continue to be the case.

People will be injured because they do things they shouldn't - perhaps a man deliberately dives into a swimmimng pool, despite being warned that the water is too cold. He suffers a heart attack and is rushed to a hospital, his life is saved, but he is presented with a bill because he ignored advice, it was his fault. Is that how you would like it to be?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Amazon slashes Echo Dot price to just £24.99 to kick off Black Friday

The 51 Best Free Typefaces Every Designer Should Have

Mac mini 2018 review

Les meilleurs écouteurs et casques audio (2018)