Binge drinking

[joe-90]

and surely Joe, even your deluded brain would understand if it wasn't profitable it would be banned.

There's no need to be abusive just because I proved you wrong so easily. The drinking class will carry on drinking or riot - nothing to do with revenue.

 

[EddieM]

and surely Joe, even your deluded brain would understand if it wasn't profitable it would be banned.

There's no need to be abusive just because I proved you wrong so easily. The drinking class will carry on drinking or riot - nothing to do with revenue.

"proved" wrong, what proof ...you are deluded....

 

[joe-90]

You prove I'm not right (he won't).

 

[Susiejb]

Why, justify it. tax receipts from alcohol, equate to around £7bn per year, it costs the nhs 3bn in alcohol related problems, sounds like a £4bn plus to me.

Same with smoking. generates more tax than it takes.

if you dont agree, supply, stats that back it up.

So because tax is raised on alcohol...does that justify the 3 billion that then has to be spent by the NHS, does that make it acceptable.
Is it specifically raised just to treat drunks attending hospital....would that 3 billion not be better spent on research and cancer drugs that could prolong the life of people who really need it and improve the quality of life for people who are genuinely sick.

 

[joe-90]

Just another excuse to raise government revenue, more to come.......

They raise it for the PEOPLE. Gedditt yet? It's OUR money - not the governments.

Such naivety is sweet.

..and it's true. Who do you think owns it? Cameron? Stop being so naive - it's not pretty.

 

[joe-90]

Hey Eddie - here's another 2 billion for you.


http://www.workplacelaw.net/content/10975

 

[joe-90]

...and what about all the teen pregnancies due to alcohol - keeping mum and kid on benefits for decades.

 

[joinerjohn]

So because tax is raised on alcohol...does that justify the 3 billion that then has to be spent by the NHS, does that make it acceptable.
Is it specifically raised just to treat drunks attending hospital....would that 3 billion not be better spent on research and cancer drugs that could prolong the life of people who really need it and improve the quality of life for people who are genuinely sick.

What they should do is introduce charges for NHS treatment of drunks. As others have pointed out, it's self inflicted. Anyone treated for alcohol related problems, should be charged for the treatment (same way that victims of RTA's are charged. If you don't believe me, go to your local A&E next time your injured and tell them it was the result of an RTA)

 

[joe-90]

I presume that is the same for fatties too?

 

[joe-90]

...and sporting injuries?

 

[EddieM]

...and sporting injuries?

and people with genetic faults, where would you like to draw the line?

 

[EddieM]

Hey Eddie - here's another 2 billion for you.


http://www.workplacelaw.net/content/10975[/QUOTE]

errr.... "only four out of ten employers believe that alcohol and drug misuse causes significant employee absence and lost productivity in the workplace. "

 

[joinerjohn]

Heck, anything that's "accidental" like sporting injuries, (or RTA's or falling off ladders etc) , shouldn't be charged for, but certainly morbidly obese people, should be charged for any treatment related to their being morbidly obese. Drunks should be charged for "all" treatment received at A&E when they turn up (or are brought in unconscious) The bill can be sent out after the treatment.
I bet some bright spark is now going to bring up the cost of cancer treatment. For smokers, if proven to be smoking related (eg lung cancer) then I'm sure a charge should be levied for "effective " treatment, but someone who perhaps only smokes 5 or 10 cigarettes a day who subsequently gets prostrate cancer, probably shouldn't be charged.
You have to remember there are many variables connected with different diseases. Alcoholics suffering cirrhosis of the liver should be charged as should 40 a day smokers with lung cancer, but a child suffering cancer shouldn't be charged.
Mind you, medical scientists could probably find some statistical link between the incidence of brain cancer and the amount of Big Mac's or KFC eaten in one's lifetime. Should we then impose a tax on fast food?

 

[joinerjohn]

errr.... "only four out of ten employers believe that alcohol and drug misuse causes significant employee absence and lost productivity in the workplace. "

Probably the 40% of employers who are already alcoholics or drug addicts believe that.

 

[Blasphemous]

Just put out by The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/15/david-cameron-minimum-price-alcohol?CMP=twt_fd