How to tackle the drink problem

phil1nj · 25-01-2012 04:31PM

sensibleken wrote: »

I don't see what that is to do with anything.

It has a lot to do with it. Anytime a minister pops up on radio warning us about the evils of drink they always cite the cost of medical care that state has to fork out a a reason why alcohol "must" be controlled/increased in price. Our A&E's are overflowing every weekend with people being in brought in with alcohol related injuries and this puts a strain on the health system in addition to the emergency services in general.

Fair enough, I'll but that as I've seen it first hand. Not one minister has ever suggested as a policy initiative, of charging these people for the care they receive due to their over exuberance. Now these plebs had money to get roaring drunk in the first place so you have to figure they have a bob or two to spend on the demon drink. Let's see how quick they'll end up in A&E if the bill they wracked up still isn't paid the following weekend. It may even give them pause to think that getting stupid-fall-down-pants-pissingly drunk may not be the smartest move on their part considering the costs associated with the clean up.

If taxi drivers can impose a soilage fee on pissed up punters, why not the hospitals? It at least stops TDs spouting the same old tired nonsense about strains on the health system.

bleg · 25-01-2012 04:31PM

A great start would be for politicians to show some leadership and close the bar in their place of work.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 04:34PM

phil1nj wrote: »

It has a lot to do with it. Anytime a minister pops up on radio warning us about the evils of drink they always cite the cost of medical care that state has to fork out a a reason why alcohol "must" be controlled/increased in price. Our A&E's are overflowing every weekend with people being in brought in with alcohol related injuries and this puts a strain on the health system in addition to the emergency services in general.

Fair enough, I'll but that as I've seen it first hand. Not one minister has ever suggested as a policy initiative, of charging these people for the care they receive due to their over exuberance. Now these plebs had money to get roaring drunk in the first place so you have to figure they have a bob or two to spend on the demon drink. Let's see how quick they'll end up in A&E if the bill they wracked up still isn't paid the following weekend. It may even give them pause to think that getting stupid-fall-down-pants-pissingly drunk may not be the smartest move on their part considering the costs associated with the clean up.

If taxi drivers can impose a soilage fee on pissed up punters, why not the hospitals? It at least stops TDs spouting the same old tired nonsense about strains on the health system.

How do you impose the charge though. I've had 3 pints and some lunatic attacks me, does that mean i have to pay? Do you have to spend time establishing guilt, culpability mitigating factors before deciding if alcohol was the exact cause of why Im in A&E?

quietriot · 25-01-2012 04:35PM

sensibleken wrote: »

Firstly it does punish everyone. It me, as someone who just wants to go have a pint with my dad have to apply for a permit to do so. Its degrading, expensive and nonsense.

Is requiring that you have a license to operate a vehicle degrading? Is it nonsense that you have to prove you're fit to drive?

Why isn't this extended to something like alcohol, that in the wrong hands, like a vehicle, is extremely dangerous?

Is it because it existed before licensing existed? How quaint! Let's leave everything untouched due to tradition, shall we? You never know who it might offend!

Implementing it would be rather simple anyway, just a simple electronic chip on your passport. You could have your passport microchipped fairly handy and rolling it out would be free, just have people turn up to their local garda station with their passport. Not really much of an issue.

It doesn't punish everyone, unless your definition of punishment is getting off your arse to get your passport chipped. The only people it punishes are those already abusing the drug and the system at a massive cost to the taxpayer.

If you dont want to pay for for the treatment of drunk related incidents then thats unfortunate. I dont want to pay for people who get themselves hurt playing football because i dont like football. but hey, different strokes. you are trying to crack a nut by dropping a planet on it.

Football related accidents aren't the result of one choosing to overindulge in a dangerous drug. Accidents happen. Drink related incidents are entirely avoidable with some element of personal responsibility. However, many are neglecting their personal responsibility every week here without repercussion.

Comparing football accidents to alcohol related incidents is ridiculous, reactionary nonsense.

Anyway, what I outlined would benefit everyone and only affect those who refuse to control themselves with alcohol. Instead, we'll have a system that punishes every single on of us to account for the behaviour of these people. I hope you're happy with that as it's such liberal bleating that has the Government targeting everyone instead of just the offenders.

quietriot · 25-01-2012 04:37PM

bleg wrote: »

A great start would be for politicians to show some leadership and close the bar in their place of work.

Why? What would that do?

Would you be happy that they move the private bar outside of the Dail, and have a private place for public governmental figures to drink?

phil1nj · 25-01-2012 04:38PM

sensibleken wrote: »

People fall off ladders because theyve chosen to climb them, people crash cars because theyve chosen to drive them.

Not quite the same thing really. These are accidents (as in The A in A&E). There was no contributing factor other than bad luck/stupidity. Alcholol is known to impair judgment (or so we've been told in countless drink driving adverts) therefore any accident with alcohol as a contributing factor is a different barrell of monkies.

sensibleken wrote: »

people have a few drinks a trip they should pay for it but if they were sober they shouldnt? how much will i have had to drink that it costs me treatment if someone else, maybe a sober person, hits me

Yep. If you've ever been in a disagreement/row where one party has been drinking and it escalates to the point where the police are called who exactly do you think they are more inclined to believe? The sober one or the one with alcohol taken? I'm not saying it's right but unless you have sufficient evidence to the contrary , with drink taken you will always be a step behind. One of life's hard facts.

bleg · 25-01-2012 04:40PM

quietriot wrote: »

Why? What would that do?

Would you be happy that they move the private bar outside of the Dail, and have a private place for public governmental figures to drink?

It's symbolic that they are reducing their access to alcoholic beverages along with everybody else.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 04:43PM

quietriot wrote: »

Is requiring that you have a license to operate a vehicle degrading? Is it nonsense that you have to prove you're fit to drive?

Why isn't this extended to something like alcohol, that in the wrong hands, like a vehicle, is extremely dangerous?

Is it because it existed before licensing existed? How quaint! Let's leave everything untouched due to tradition, shall we? You never know who it might offend!

Implementing it would be rather simple anyway, just a simple electronic chip on your passport. You could have your passport microchipped fairly handy and rolling it out would be free, just have people turn up to their local garda station with their passport. Not really much of an issue.

It doesn't punish everyone, unless your definition of punishment is getting off your arse to get your passport chipped. The only people it punishes are those already abusing the drug and the system at a massive cost to the taxpayer.

Football related accidents aren't the result of one choosing to overindulge in a dangerous drug. Accidents happen. Drink related incidents are entirely avoidable with some element of personal responsibility. However, many are neglecting their personal responsibility every week here without repercussion.

Anyway, what I outlined would benefit everyone and only affect those who refuse to control themselves with alcohol. Instead, we'll have a system that punishes every single on of us to account for the behaviour of these people. I hope you're happy with that as it's such liberal bleating that has the Government targeting everyone instead of just the offenders.

Driving takes still knowledge and physical training. Drinking does not.

You keep saying it will only affect those who have abused alcohol. It wont. If I have to carry around my passport, and presumably if i want to get a round in ive to be in charge of everyone elses going to the bar too, then it affects me.

You say it will be cheap because all you need is a chip. what about the database, the technology at the bar to check those, monitoring and enforcement.

Also you say that accidents that are not drug related are fine. So what do you regard as drug related. If a sober person hits a drunk person does the drunk have to pay? Does this extend to other personal culpabilities. HIV patients must pay for themselves perhaps?

phil1nj · 25-01-2012 04:44PM

sensibleken wrote: »

How do you impose the charge though. I've had 3 pints and some lunatic attacks me, does that mean i have to pay? Do you have to spend time establishing guilt, culpability mitigating factors before deciding if alcohol was the exact cause of why Im in A&E?

Using your example above you are now the victim of an assult. At that stage I would recommend getting the Gardai involved. Provided you have evidence to prove that it was an unprovoked attack, you've nothing to worry about and the truth will out.

The example I gave was more along the lines of self inflcited injuries i.e what the TDs like to spout every other week about A&E being full of people off their drunken nut (not unprovoked victims of assault like yourself who are unable to give a coherent take on their side of the story). A certain degree of common sense would need to be exercised otherwise it woudl be unworkable.

Johro · 25-01-2012 04:44PM

henryporter wrote: »

How about putting something in our drinking water that would make us violently ill every time we drink alcohol?

That's the one, yeah.:pac: Much less invasive.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 04:47PM

phil1nj wrote: »

Not quite the same thing really. These are accidents (as in The A in A&E). There was no contributing factor other than bad luck/stupidity. Alcholol is known to impair judgment (or so we've been told in countless drink driving adverts) therefore any accident with alcohol as a contributing factor is a different barrell of monkies..

Which means you have to establish contributing factor before you can assign costs and as that is assigning guilt an inquiry body would have to be established. The costs of which would be greater than the treatment.

phil1nj wrote: »

Yep. If you've ever been in a disagreement/row where one party has been drinking and it escalates to the point where the police are called who exactly do you think they are more inclined to believe? The sober one or the one with alcohol taken? I'm not saying it's right but unless you have sufficient evidence to the contrary , with drink taken you will always be a step behind. One of life's hard facts.

Every situation like that is different you cant extract a general rule from these situations

ShooterSF · 25-01-2012 04:47PM

quietriot wrote: »

sensibleken wrote: »

Firstly it does punish everyone. It me, as someone who just wants to go have a pint with my dad have to apply for a permit to do so. Its degrading, expensive and nonsense.

Is requiring that you have a license to operate a vehicle degrading? Is it nonsense that you have to prove you're fit to drive?

Why isn't this extended to something like alcohol, that in the wrong hands, like a vehicle, is extremely dangerous?

Is it because it existed before licensing existed? How quaint! Let's leave everything untouched due to tradition, shall we? You never know who it might offend!

Implementing it would be rather simple anyway, just a simple electronic chip on your passport. You could have your passport microchipped fairly handy and rolling it out would be free, just have people turn up to their local garda station with their passport. Not really much of an issue.

It doesn't punish everyone, unless your definition of punishment is getting off your arse to get your passport chipped. The only people it punishes are those already abusing the drug and the system at a massive cost to the taxpayer.

If you dont want to pay for for the treatment of drunk related incidents then thats unfortunate. I dont want to pay for people who get themselves hurt playing football because i dont like football. but hey, different strokes. you are trying to crack a nut by dropping a planet on it.

Football related accidents aren't the result of one choosing to overindulge in a dangerous drug. Accidents happen. Drink related incidents are entirely avoidable with some element of personal responsibility. However, many are neglecting their personal responsibility every week here without repercussion.

Comparing football accidents to alcohol related incidents is ridiculous, reactionary nonsense.

Anyway, what I outlined would benefit everyone and only affect those who refuse to control themselves with alcohol. Instead, we'll have a system that punishes every single on of us to account for the behaviour of these people. I hope you're happy with that as it's such liberal bleating that has the Government targeting everyone instead of just the offenders.

The comparison seems apt to me. I play football I know I risk injury and a cost to the taxpayers. It's easily avoidable.
The only difference is that you consider one activity a positive and another negative. Then you are deciding what values the state should put on these activities.
Also unlike football playing me alcohol consuming me pays plenty of taxes to enjoy said activity and arguably has more right to expect medical treatment.
Oh and who pays for your national database of people's drinking and a and e visits? Surely not the same people complaining their tax money pays for others medical treatment? Or is it only a financial thing when people oppose it on liberal grounds?

quietriot · 25-01-2012 05:02PM

sensibleken wrote: »

Driving takes still knowledge and physical training. Drinking does not.

Responsible drinking takes knowledge and control, just as driving does.
If you behave irresponsibly in the car, you get points and taken off the road. If you behave irresponsibly with drink, what happens? You cost the taxpayer money, aren't punished in any way and are free to do so again?

Sorry, not good enough.

You keep saying it will only affect those who have abused alcohol. It wont. If I have to carry around my passport, and presumably if i want to get a round in ive to be in charge of everyone elses going to the bar too, then it affects me.

Get a round? Rounds a part of the binge drinking problem. Forcing people to drink faster and "keep up" with the fastest drinkers in the group. I couldn't give a f*ck if a drinkers ability to force a round system on people is affected. Most people don't want to "do rounds", they end up roped into it by one or two harder drinkers.

You've painted yourself in a fairly bad light, I'm glad I don't drink with you anyway. Rounds, forced drinking and if you're not involved you're no "craic", I pity those who end up out with you!

You say it will be cheap because all you need is a chip. what about the database, the technology at the bar to check those, monitoring and enforcement.

The handheld things the Luas drivers have, which just gives a green light or red light when it scans a chip on the smartcards, would be dirt cheap to buy. A database wouldn't be much effort to implement at all.

Also you say that accidents that are not drug related are fine. So what do you regard as drug related. If a sober person hits a drunk person does the drunk have to pay? Does this extend to other personal culpabilities. HIV patients must pay for themselves perhaps?

If one person hits another, the gardai are involved. If the drunk person is not responsible, then sure they don't have to pay nor will it affect their license. If they're found to be responsible then they pay for themselves and the person they hit, and get "recorded". Not that hard really.

Lol, such liberal, reactionary bull****, equating people drinking themselves stupid with HIV. I'm not even going to respond to it, such a suggestion is retarded.

ShooterSF wrote: »

The comparison seems apt to me. I play football I know I risk injury and a cost to the taxpayers. It's easily avoidable.
The only difference is that you consider one activity a positive and another negative. Then you are deciding what values the state should put on these activities.

Football isn't costing the state millions per year in HSE and Gardai resources.

Also unlike football playing me alcohol consuming me pays plenty of taxes to enjoy said activity and arguably has more right to expect medical treatment.
Oh and who pays for your national database of people's drinking and a and e visits? Surely not the same people complaining their tax money pays for others medical treatment? Or is it only a financial thing when people oppose it on liberal grounds?

Fairly easy database to implement really. I'm sure €50K p/a for a DBA would be covered appropriately by the money saved by preventing bad drinkers access to alcohol.

Anyway, it's grand lads, your "FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE FOR EVERYTHING **** THE COSTS!" attitude is resulting in all our freedom being reduced and the costs ever increasing.

conorhal · 25-01-2012 05:02PM

As solutions go, quotas is a stupid idea, only of any real benefit to criminals and the black economy.

Ireland doesn't have a drink problem, it has a personal responsibility and an enforcement problem.
You see it in our banks, you see it in our government, you see it in the way we behaved during the Celtic tiger and yes, you also see it in the way we drink.
If people bore any actual personal responsibility for their actions, be it in government, or our banks or our even in our bars we'd live in a much more civilized society.
Nobody gets picked up and tossed in the drunk tank for being insensible in the street. Nobody that carries out an assault in a drunken rage gets any kind of jail time, in fact "I was hammered and I didn't know what I was doing" seems to constitute a legitimate defense.
Well, I'd be happy to see anybody that turns up hammered to an A&E automatically quarantined from the rest of the patients in a room with a Guard and handcuffed if they said a single word to any staff. The real problem with our society is that nobody is ever sanctioned for their behavior because nobody in this country cares for the ‘old fashioned concept’ that is personal responsibility.
It's time we enforced the laws we already have rather then trying to find new ones that we don't enforce either.

Paparazzo · 25-01-2012 05:02PM

If the government think we have a problem with alcohol, they should lead by example and get rid of the Dáil bar, and replace it with a cafe.
Now, what are the chances of that happening?

phil1nj · 25-01-2012 05:08PM

sensibleken wrote: »

Which means you have to establish contributing factor before you can assign costs and as that is assigning guilt an inquiry body would have to be established. The costs of which would be greater than the treatment.

Not at all. If alcohol is a contributing factor to a self inflcited injury then you pay for the costs simple. What inquiry body needs to be set up to determine this? Its the same as drink driving IMO, if you are stopped and breathlysed and over the limit you put your hand up there and then. You don't spout on about inquiry bodies or such. You accept it because it's the law. If you present at A&E with an injury that is the result of excess alcohol consumption prepare yourself for some financial pain in addition to the physical type. The sober guy who tripped over and fell whilst walking down the street should not be treated the same as the drunk person who tripped over and fell whilst walking down the street. Just as the drunk driver (as in over the legal limit) who drove through a wall should be treated differently then the sober driver who drove through a wall through no fault of their own.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 05:15PM

quietriot wrote: »

Responsible drinking takes knowledge and control, just as driving does.
If you behave irresponsibly in the car, you get points and taken off the road. If you behave irresponsibly with drink, what happens? You cost the taxpayer money, aren't punished in any way and are free to do so again?

Sorry, not good enough.
.

No it doesnt. I dont need lessons to drink. maybe you do but to the vast majority of the population its very easy. The fact that the majority people can do it drunk would show that.

quietriot wrote: »

Get a round? Rounds a part of the binge drinking problem. Forcing people to drink faster and "keep up" with the fastest drinkers in the group. I couldn't give a f*ck if a drinkers ability to force a round system on people is affected. Most people don't want to "do rounds", they end up roped into it by one or two harder drinkers.

You've painted yourself in a fairly bad light, I'm glad I don't drink with you anyway. Rounds, forced drinking and if you're not involved you're no "craic", I pity those who end up out with you!

.

Its always a good sign that someone has lost the argument when they start to get personal. Rounds dont force anyone to do anything for god sake. just means not everyone has to go to the bar at the same time.

quietriot wrote: »

The handheld things the Luas drivers have, which just gives a green light or red light when it scans a chip on the smartcards, would be dirt cheap to buy. A database wouldn't be much effort to implement at all.

.

Are you a DBA? do you know the costs of setting up remote connection databases and their support? I do and it is very very expensive. Those luas things check little information. they do not require the background involvement of guards, courts, appeals etc which the system you are suggesting would and on the grounds of 'expense to the taxpayer'

quietriot wrote: »

If one person hits another, the gardai are involved. If the drunk person is not responsible, then sure they don't have to pay nor will it affect their license. If they're found to be responsible then they pay for themselves and the person they hit, and get "recorded". Not that hard really.

.

all which will require a lot of cost to establish

quietriot wrote: »

Lol, such liberal, reactionary bull****, equating people drinking themselves stupid with HIV. I'm not even going to respond to it, such a suggestion is retarded.

.

If personal culpability is only in question if youve had a drink then youre being hypocritical

quietriot wrote: »

Football isn't costing the state millions per year in HSE and Gardai resources.
.

yes it is. policing sporting events is very expensive

quietriot wrote: »

Fairly easy database to implement really. I'm sure €50K p/a for a DBA would be covered appropriately by the money saved by preventing bad drinkers access to alcohol.

Anyway, it's grand lads, your "FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE FOR EVERYTHING **** THE COSTS!" attitude is resulting in all our freedom being reduced and the costs ever increasing.

If you can implement this system for 50 grand a year then by all means bring it to a politician. just make sure you tape their reaction and post it online.

af_thefragile · 25-01-2012 05:16PM

Taxing/licensing alcohol will not solve the problem. What will probably solve it is some campaign like the one against cigerettes. People have stopped smoking as much as people used to before because of increased awareness of the health risks of smoking.

If similar can be done with alcohol, it might work. People need to be made more aware of the illnesses caused by alcohol and such.

_ __ _ · 25-01-2012 05:19PM

quietriot wrote: »

Oh, but we do. The A&E and Gardai throughout the country will agree with this.

If people do stupid stuff while drunk, then the problem is people choosing to do stupid stuff whilst drunk. The problem is not alcohol itself.
Afaik our legal system is quite clear on the issue of alcohol and personal responsibility, in that you are still 100% responsible for your actions whilst drunk. I would agree with this. Unless you think a drunk driver who kills someone shouldn't be prosecuted because they "weren't responsible"...

We're the ones paying for these problems. The public health system is facing a huge burden due to the lifestyle choices of these people that could easily be dealt with and reduce the bill.

So it's not about "public health" but rather about public healthcare costs. Specifically, you having to pay towards healthcare costs which you feel arose from other people's stupidity.
I'm not going to argue against this position, i just want to point out that it's a position of self-interest, not one of altruism.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 05:21PM

phil1nj wrote: »

Not at all. If alcohol is a contributing factor to a self inflcited injury then you pay for the costs simple. What inquiry body needs to be set up to determine this? Its the same as drink driving IMO, if you are stopped and breathlysed and over the limit you put your hand up there and then. You don't spout on about inquiry bodies or such. You accept it because it's the law. If you present at A&E with an injury that is the result of excess alcohol consumption prepare yourself for some financial pain in addition to the physical type. The sober guy who tripped over and fell whilst walking down the street should not be treated the same as the drunk person who tripped over and fell whilst walking down the street. Just as the drunk driver (as in over the legal limit) who drove through a wall should be treated differently then the sober driver who drove through a wall through no fault of their own.

Its not the same as drink driving. Being in charge of a vehicle when over the limit is illegal. Theres no if nor butts and it takes a trial to convict that person of it, so yeah you do spout on about inquiry bodies.

How are you going to determine that alcohol was a contributing factor to you presenting at A&E exactly? For example, my friend died while intoxicating but alcohol was not ruled a contributing factor in his death. A verdict that can only be given by a coroner.

phil1nj · 25-01-2012 05:29PM

sensibleken wrote: »

Its not the same as drink driving. Being in charge of a vehicle when over the limit is illegal. Theres no if nor butts and it takes a trial to convict that person of it, so yeah you do spout on about inquiry bodies..

Change the law then (which they want to do anyway) to cover this.

sensibleken wrote: »

How are you going to determine that alcohol was a contributing factor to you presenting at A&E exactly? For example, my friend died while intoxicating but alcohol was not ruled a contributing factor in his death. A verdict that can only be given by a coroner.

I think you are starting to go down the route of splitting hairs. Your friend dying (whcih I'm sorry to hear about) and someone getting pissed and injuying themselves and thus choking up A&E on a Friday night are very different things. I'm sure a blood test would answer any questions regarding alcohol being a contributing factor i.e. as to what level it impairs judgment etc.

I think I'll leave it at that now.

sensibleken · 25-01-2012 05:33PM

phil1nj wrote: »

Change the law then (which they want to do anyway) to cover this.
.

what to remove due process? no thanks

phil1nj wrote: »

I think you are starting to go down the route of splitting hairs. Your friend dying (whcih I'm sorry to hear about) and someone getting pissed and injuying themselves and thus choking up A&E on a Friday night are very different things. I'm sure a blood test would answer any questions regarding alcohol being a contributing factor i.e. as to what level it impairs judgment etc.

I think I'll leave it at that now.

ok thanks for being civil in your argument.

It isnt splitting hairs. Blood tests will only tell if alcohol is present. It will not tell you if alcohol is a contributing factor in said injury. We only know there is a difference between my friend and someone else falling because they were drunk is because a coroners enquiry and garda investigation said so.

dsmythy · 25-01-2012 05:35PM

sensibleken wrote: »

Stagger closing times for a start so people dont race to get drunk

You can get drunk before you even leave your house.

_ __ _ wrote: »

Ireland does not have a drink problem. It does not have a tobacco problem, an obesity problem or any other sort of "public health" problem.

If people as free individuals have their own problems then we should provide help if they ask for it, otherwise their lifestyle choice is none of our concern.

Anyone who sincerely believes in the idea of "public health" is just outing themself as an elitist snob who enjoys the idea of people they don't identify with being subjugated under the guise of altruism. The government serves the people, not the other way around.

How the hell am I meant to refer to you in future posts

ShooterSF · 25-01-2012 05:39PM

Ok how about this for a compromise then, it will solve people's concern over financial issues without hampering a person's liberty to chose their lifestyle (this is all theory btw):

First, any visit to an A&E which you had direct influence over you pay either cash or community service. Things that will cost you: Playing sports with known risks, climbing ladders, getting drunk. Things you will not pay for: being landed on by someone that falls off a ladder, freak accidents (e.g a chess piece explodes). This may cost the state a bit to implement but it is fair in theory.

Second, all duty on recreational drugs abolished. Now that you are responsible if you end up in hospital why should the activity cost you more?

Third, all state pensions are paid out in a lump sum at retirement age influenced by any longterm care required for vices from sports to drugs. This I put in as otherwise those that chose a healthy lifestyle are likely to unfairly be picking up a larger pension paid in taxes by those that dont (equality should swing both ways).

The details are vague as it's more an idea of what I would accept as fair. Would you accept this folks?

recylingbin · 25-01-2012 05:42PM

!: **** off with tackling anything.
2. raising tax/duty on drink is just that. Stealing more money from people to pay politicians huge wages and expenses while the rest of us pay ever increasing taxes.
3. **** off regulating anything. People who can't handle drink have a decision to make - give it up or keep at it. No skin off my nose.
4. knackers will be knackers whether they have drink onboard or not. I shouldn't have to pay more just so they have to steal more to get their fix.
5. **** off with your Orwellian state

old hippy · 25-01-2012 05:45PM

bleg wrote: »

People should take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of those for whom they act as guardians.

Sick people often can't do that, though.

quietriot · 25-01-2012 05:45PM

sensibleken wrote: »

No it doesnt. I dont need lessons to drink. maybe you do but to the vast majority of the population its very easy. The fact that the majority people can do it drunk would show that.

The vast majority of the drinking population "binge" drink. It's pretty clear they need to be taught how to behave themselves.

Sure you don't

Its always a good sign that someone has lost the argument when they start to get personal. Rounds dont force anyone to do anything for god sake. just means not everyone has to go to the bar at the same time.

Rounds are known to make people drink faster and drink more. Lost the argument? No, everything I've said makes perfect sense. You've retaliated with absolute nonsense, making sensationalist statements comparing drunks to HIV patients and bringing up ridiculous "what ifs" such as a perfectly sober person attacking a drunk without provocation.

I encounter your type of drinker almost every time I go out, who can almost never accept "no" for an answer when they try to get me to do rounds with them or do shots. You guys can get quite insulting over it too...it's bizarre. I'm just glad you left it at a sarcastic "I'm sure you're loads of craic" when dealing with that person earlier.

Party on Ken, party on.

Are you a DBA? do you know the costs of setting up remote connection databases and their support? I do and it is very very expensive. Those luas things check little information. they do not require the background involvement of guards, courts, appeals etc which the system you are suggesting would and on the grounds of 'expense to the taxpayer'

All those little things would have to check for it a boolean value for "record". Those checking it wouldn't need the background information, just like when you go to do finance on a car or similar. The dealership hasn't a clue why your credit is denied, but it's not for them to deal with. Similarly, you'd be well aware why you were banned from drinking so if you were caught trying to buy with a record, the shopkeeper wouldn't have to explain it to you, nor require the information to.

yes it is. policing sporting events is very expensive

We weren't talking about "sporting events". We were talking about someone getting injured playing football.

Those sporting "events" would have teams that pay their own medical costs. Saying that a premiership footballer is going to end up in hospital under public care isn't very realistic, in fitting with the rest of the irrational sensationalist hyperbole you've spouted so far.

If you can implement this system for 50 grand a year then by all means bring it to a politician. just make sure you tape their reaction and post it online.

Thankfully I didn't suggest it could be implemented for €50k, I said a DBA could be hired for €50k.

Long term, such a system would be dramatically less expensive than the one we currently have.

_ __ _ wrote: »

If people do stupid stuff while drunk, then the problem is people choosing to do stupid stuff whilst drunk. The problem is not alcohol itself.

No, alcohol is known to alter perception and judgement. Those same actions would not have been carried out sober, so are at the very least 50% due to the alcohol.

Afaik our legal system is quite clear on the issue of alcohol and personal responsibility, in that you are still 100% responsible for your actions whilst drunk. I would agree with this. Unless you think a drunk driver who kills someone shouldn't be prosecuted because they "weren't responsible"...

There's no question that they're responsible, but it's without question that it probably wouldn't have happened if they weren't drunk.

So it's not about "public health" but rather about public healthcare costs. Specifically, you having to pay towards healthcare costs which you feel arose from other people's stupidity.
I'm not going to argue against this position, i just want to point out that it's a position of self-interest, not one of altruism.

It's for the benefit of everyone.

If we had more money to spend, less services would be being cut back now. More garda stations would remain open, more gardai would be being recruited, etc. The more money we can save on stupid things like retard drunks causing messes, the more money we can allocate to things we actually need.

Next time you see someone sitting in on a trolley in a corridor in a hospital, just remember that a few less drunks coming into A&E or wasting Garda time could have paid for a bed for that person.

ShooterSF · 25-01-2012 05:50PM

quietriot wrote: »

The vast majority of the drinking population "binge" drink. It's pretty clear they need to be taught how to behave themselves.

Thank you for being honest in your support of authoritarian social laws. I can happily agree to disagree strongly and not argue over financial "issues" which some people tend to muddy their views with to hide such a disliked opinion.

If more people just said what they mean it would save a lot of pointless arguing.

_ __ _ · 25-01-2012 05:51PM

dsmythy wrote: »

How the hell am I meant to refer to you in future posts

quietriot · 25-01-2012 05:53PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Second, all duty on recreational drugs abolished. Now that you are responsible if you end up in hospital why should the activity cost you more?

Er, you could also say that you're unlikely to be hospitalized by a PS3, so you shouldn't have to pay tax on it.

Everything is taxed, whether you like it or not. You take the tax off something, or if the tax take from something decreases, the difference has to be taken from somewhere else. While you appease one set of people by taking the tax off something, you'd enrage a much larger set by imposing a charge/tax on something else.

I think that anything that requires you signing a waiver of being able to sue for damages shouldn't be covered by public health care as it's clearly inherently dangerous. Whether football is covered in that, I don't know, I don't play football.

So yeah, anything that you sign your rights away to take part in, and drugs, shouldn't be covered under the public health system. I don't see why you should get to take what are deemed to be extreme risks and the taxpayer cover the costs, when the taxpayer gets no benefit from your risk/leisure.

How to tackle the drink problem

Comments