Drunks & Christmas/New Years antics - should they pay?

Biggins

This could be a controversial one!

Considering the numbers of drunks, fights and anything in between in the coming days/weeks around Christmas and the new year, should those causing the usual annual massive upsurge in demand for emergency services IN SOME cases - not all - be made to pay for their antics?

In other words, should a drunk/trouble maker/brawler that got that way through fault of their own, be made pay/contribute towards the costs of having to further care for them?

I think they should.
No need to go on about how strapped we are, we all know this, so now that resources are further tighter to say the least, should we try and make those that will put our essential services under unnecessary and oft avoidable strain, be made to cought-up and pay for their misdeeds?

I think its about time!
I think hospitals should start charging people who get treatment involving over indulgence in drugs and alcohol.
The public can't afford more so now, to be constantly paying to the stupidity/misdeeds of others.

Interesting article form The Mail by the way about England and their strained resources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075654/Mad-Friday-causes-chaos-250-drink-related-calls-hour.html

Chuck Stone

Charging drunk people for services is a good idea in theory.

In a practical sense it would be very difficult and probably not worth the expense setting up a system that would charge people for such transgressions.

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Charging drunk people for services is a good idea in theory.

In a practical sense it would be very difficult and probably not worth the expense setting up a system that would charge people for such transgressions.

In some cases, there would be tough calls but in others, if you get yourself so drunk/drugged that you need an ambulance to get you from a street where you have collapsed to a hospital, to get stomach pumped and use of medical staff, etc - that will be €300 please!

You start a fight and maybe need to spend a night in the cells to sober up, a doctors check and calm down?
That will be €200 please!

minidazzler

As a drunkard, I say yes. I have yet to get in a fight while drunk, or even get angry really, and I tend to get pretty fcukin pissed. I don't understand how people do get so angry and stupid and then blame it on drink, it's not drinks fault that they are a cnut.

One should always have to pay the costs of one fcuking ones self up due to ones own fault.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

...it would take ten minutes for some insurance company to start offerign "drunk insurance" policeis.

Biggins

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

...it would take ten minutes for some insurance company to start offerign "drunk insurance" policeis.

Now there's an idea! More business = possible more eventual employment for others?

TheZohanS

So the problem is pushed on to the legal system instead of the health system?

Innocent 'til proven guilty and all that Biggins. I think it's a non-runner. And lets say Winston the scumbag is found to be at fault and refuses to pay, how do we force him to cough up? Give him more dole? Stick him in prison(which costs the State even more)?

minidazzler

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

...it would take ten minutes for some insurance company to start offerign "drunk insurance" policeis.

And before they do that they'll make sure that they can define a lot of things you do while drunk as your own fault due to reckless behaviour so they don't have to pay full whack.

Sunnyisland

It sounds good in theory and IMO If somebody is stupid and irresponsible enough to drink themselves into such a state that they require medical attention then they should be penalised for it. But where does this end Should smokers pay for lung cancer treatment ? Should unfit people pay for heart attacks, Most household accidents are a result of stupidity, would we have to start paying for that too ?
I fully agree with using the law if they are aggressive to any staff as that is just anti-social behaviour and an already recognised crime.But where would this end.

Celly Smunt

why not use the canadian model and make the bar responsible for the person they're serving.This means that the Bar can refuse drink to anybody they feel is getting too drunk as THEY can be held responsible for any antics he/she gets upto.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

minidazzler wrote: »

And before they do that they'll make sure that they can define a lot of things you do while drunk as your own fault due to reckless behaviour so they don't have to pay full whack.

Oh, indeed. Offering being the key word there!

Biggins

TheZohan wrote: »

So the problem is pushed on to the legal system instead of the health system?

Innocent 'til proven guilty and all that Biggins. I think it's a non-runner. And lets say Winston the scumbag is found to be at fault and refuses to pay, how do we force him to cough up? Give him more dole? Stick him in prison(which costs the State even more)?

Don't have to be a legal problem as such.
If a person is so stupid to go out and get themselves into such a catatonic state, through their own stupid efforts, that they need medical treatment not normally associated with natural occurrences of ill health, they are charged like a standard casualty visit fee, a further charge for the calling out of personnel and equipment.

minidazzler

pmcmahon wrote: »

why not use the canadian model and make the bar responsible for the person they're serving.This means that the Bar can refuse drink to anybody they feel is getting too drunk as THEY can be held responsible for any antics he/she gets upto.

A bar can refuse anyone, they just don't. Recently enough 2 bar men in Thurles or somewhere were prosecuted for serving a guy to the point that he passed out and died after they kept serving him.

Biggins

realies wrote: »

It sounds good in theory and IMO If somebody is stupid and irresponsible enough to drink themselves into such a state that they require medical attention then they should be penalised for it. But where does this end Should smokers pay for lung cancer treatment?

I would suggest that the use of "extra charges" be imposed at special holiday period times when its expected more so that these types of events take place.

pmcmahon wrote: »

why not use the canadian model and make the bar responsible for the person they're serving.This means that the Bar can refuse drink to anybody they feel is getting too drunk as THEY can be held responsible for any antics he/she gets upto.

The problem there sadly is that if a person is bar-hopping from one place to another, it might be very hard to prove that one place in particular is responsible.
I would love to know more about the way the Canadians do it.

minidazzler wrote: »

A bar can refuse anyone, they just don't. Recently enough 2 bar men in Thurles or somewhere were prosecuted for serving a guy to the point that he passed out and died after they kept serving him.

...And they got off if memory serves me right.

A lot of us know, a lot of bars will just keep taking the money while they can and refuse very little once a person is in through the doors of an establishment.

Sunnyisland

Wonder what the vintners federation would make of it all ?

Biggins

realies wrote: »

Wonder what the vintners federation would make of it all ?

They would lobby the hell out of their mates/fellow members in the Dail to see that such special period charges were not introduced.
God forbid something might be introduced that would curtail their profits!

Spunge

I thought they already pay ?
You know, tax and stuff.

Chinasea

And then there'll be the usual exemptions - medical carders and free loaders that contribute NOTHING

Biggins

Spunge wrote: »

I thought they already pay ?
You know, tax and stuff.

Indeed, for normal day to day care/treatments and natural illnesses.

For the self-induced stuff at periods when the stupid come out especially and get themselves into such a state and expect the rest of the nation, the pubic to pay for their stupidity, they should at least cough-up something extra for their own self-created actions.

Oranage2

Biggins wrote: »

Indeed, for normal day to day care/treatments and natural illnesses.

For the self-induced stuff at periods when the stupid come out especially and get themselves into such a state and expect the rest of the nation, the pubic to pay for their stupidity, they should at least cough-up something extra for their own self-created actions.

Should we charge smokers extra too?

minidazzler

Oranage2 wrote: »

Should we charge smokers extra too?

Yes. If it's something that smoking can cause.

Biggins

Oranage2 wrote: »

Should we charge smokers extra too?

No maybe, thats a long term thing that can be worked on with free advice, patches, self-will, etc.

For the IMMEDIATE more unwanted strain always being put on essential services by the drunks and druggies of this world around always the seasonal peak periods, something more should be done at least to act as a deterrent, to curve some of their excesses.

Smoking is a long term addictive, possibly mental condition.
Going out and just getting platonic far over drunk/over drugged is a self-imposed condition of a very short period of time - where the public is left paying more so for such daftness.

Latchy

' Mad Friday the 16th ' in UK when thousends of people head out to celebate office and work partys is also the time when the A&E people get the fall out from over indulgence in alcohol and you do have to feel sorry for them espicially with the new year coming up ,so if some people are just 'time wasting ' police and hospital services with drunken antics , that could be best put to use for more deserving causes, then I don't see why they should not pay a fine .

Oranage2

Biggins wrote: »

No, thats a long term thing that can be worked on with free advice, patches, self-will, etc.

For the IMMEDIATE more unwanted strain always being put on essential services by the drunks and druggies of this world around always the seasonal peak periods, something more should be done at least to act as a deterrent, to curve some of their excesses.

Well I agree with you - How many ambulances are in Dublin? not many!


Somebody could be having a heart attack but the Ambulance has some drunk with a broken nose in the back.


Morally I'm not sure or what previous posters said about how they're going to get payment.

Scruffles

in some ways-yes,in some ways-no.
in agreement with this if they are in hospital because their drinking was a senseless act of stupidity,however- if the person has a mental health condition that is directly or indirectly related to their drinking problem and behavior then woud say no charge-just sort em out.

mum has been an alcoholic for as long as have known her;she has had to attend A&E on a number of occasions because of injuries to herself from attacking us-and she can get very abusive.
however she has severe depression and with every week there are always days where she is textbook sectionable.
though her hospital visits are not often as she will hit out at paramedics if they dare go near her and refuse to go,woud say people like her shoud not have to pay because they have a lot more of a complex background than simply getting pissed up and acting stupid.

there shoud be those community police working in hospitals,teach them proper restraint methods and get agressive or challenging drunks restrained to the bed on their side so they wont choke on their puke.

have special wards just for drunks/drugged/prisoners/abusive challenging people -sound proof the walls and doors and put wallpadding on it all,remove all the alcohol hand wash unless its used whilst witnessed by staff,have all possible furniture nailed down so they cant be thrown or only use special padded furniture from the likes of ROMPA.
and as soon as they so much as think about touching staff;theyre going to get strapped down.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Been suggesting that for ages.

Logical Fallacy

You should need a license to drink, too many transgressions while under the influence gets your license revoked.

If you can't get drunk like an adult then go **** yourself tbh.

starlings

Biggins wrote: »

Going out and just getting platonic far over drunk/over drugged is a self-imposed condition of a very short period of time - where the public is left paying more so for such daftness.

That Plato was an awful drunk, all over the ladies when he'd had a few

In Finland, they have drunk tanks instead of bringing the inebriated to A&E and wasting resources there. It seems that for most "casualties", the hangover and shame are punishment - and deterrent - enough.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4384992.stm

Biggins

Scruffles wrote: »

in some ways-yes,in some ways-no.
in agreement with this if they are in hospital because their drinking was a senseless act of stupidity,however- if the person has a mental health condition that is directly or indirectly related to their drinking problem and behavior then woud say no charge-just sort em out.

mum has been an alcoholic for as long as have known her;she has had to attend A&E on a number of occasions because of injuries to herself from attacking us-and she can get very abusive.
however she has severe depression and with every week there are always days where she is textbook sectionable.
though her hospital visits are not often as she will hit out at paramedics if they dare go near her and refuse to go,woud say people like her shoud not have to pay because they have a lot more of a complex background than simply getting pissed up and acting stupid.

there shoud be those community police working in hospitals,teach them proper restraint methods and get agressive or challenging drunks restrained to the bed on their side so they wont choke on their puke.

have special wards just for drunks/drugged/prisoners/abusive challenging people -sound proof the walls and doors and put wallpadding on it all,remove all the alcohol hand wash unless its used whilst witnessed by staff,have all possible furniture nailed down so they cant be thrown or only use special padded furniture from the likes of ROMPA.
and as soon as they so much as think about touching staff;theyre going to get strapped down.

I hear what your saying - and on a side note, you have my hope (I suspect along with good others here) that things get better for you and you mam.

You mam it seems is suffering from a more long term illness.
I don't know and shouldn't comment more on your mams state except to wish her well.

For the ones that are having a regular immature, immediate strain on 'special peak periods' I think an extra social charge should be introduced for those periods to try cut down on such extra really unwarranted demands on services.
We have to try and start more so, somewhere.

Latchy

starlings wrote: »

In Finland, they have drunk tanks instead of bringing the inebriated to A&E and wasting resources there

.
This I like ... as long as the person hasn't got a medical condition or injury that might need attention in A&E .

Chuck Stone

I think what you're lookin for is a 'hosprison' Biggins.

That would learn 'em.

A secure hospital that where you have to pay the costs of treatment and service use before you're let out.

Hmmm...

minidazzler

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You should need a license to drink, too many transgressions while under the influence gets your license revoked.

If you can't get drunk like an adult then go **** yourself tbh.

That would do the same thing as Prohibition really, just open up a blackmarket....which sounds bad on one hand, but Speakeasies seem like they would have been fantastic places!

starbelgrade

A drunk is not just for Christmas.

Charge the rowdy fuckers all year round, I say.