Alcohol-related hospital admissions reach record level

[GuestFellow]

:sl:

The number of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England has topped 1m for the first time, according to official statistics.

That includes liver disease and mental disorders due to alcohol abuse as well as some cancers, accidents and injuries.

Earlier this year the charity Alcohol Concern predicted the number of admissions would reach 1.5m a year by 2015. It estimated that would cost the NHS £3.7bn a year.

Do you think these people should pay for their own medical fees?

Discuss!

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Guestfellow;

Sadly I come into contact with lots of drunks, Christians are starting to work together out on the streets through an initiative called Street Pastors. This involves going out late on a Friday night until around 3 am, and coming into contact with lots of troubled people, drugs, aggression, fights, drunks, gangs and rowdy behaviour.

On our last night out, I met three separate drunks; they each talked about how much they loved their child, but not their partner. I am not sure that people can cope with life today, the breakdown of families, loss of jobs and an absence of God in people’s lives generally destroys the human spirit. People seem to drink seeking oblivion from the problems of life.

In the spirit of searching for God in our lives.

Eric

[Mr.President]

Yea they should pay ! cuz they are the one who started to drink and thats their fault and sometimes the government of UK also accountable for this issue


Whats the views of the government ?
Open many bars while opening many AA centers or do they have a proper plan ?

[Trumble]

Do you think these people should pay for their own medical fees?

They already have in paying the associated purchase tax, together with a sizeable chunk of everybody else's medical fees. As do smokers. And before you ask, no I don't do either! But the tax figures are something like £6 billion tax a year from alcohol and £8 billion from tobacco.

The other problem is the demographics. Most heavy smokers and drinkers are actually among the less well off, and couldn't afford to pay direct or via insurance with a smoker/drinker premium anyway.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Trumble]

Yea they should pay ! cuz they are the one who started to drink and thats their fault and sometimes the government of UK also accountable for this issue

Whats the views of the government ?
Open many bars while opening many AA centers or do they have a proper plan ?

Government doesn't 'open bars', but in terms of numbers it's actually the reverse. Pubs and bars have actually been declining in numbers for years as a result of the smoking ban, the recession and (mostly) just changes in leisure habits. The increase in hospital admission isn't the result of more drinking overall but an increase 'binge' drinking, especially among the young.

As to their 'views', same as the last lot. They can't increase restrictions on drinking, or levy much higher taxes as firstly they need the tax money and secondly they would never get re-elected. If it had been discovered recently alcohol would never have been made legal, but drinking is just so deeply ingrained in Western society it's impossible to change it now. The only real attempt was in the US in the '20s and '30s, and it was an unmitigated disaster (except for the gangsters who made vast fortunes); there ended up with twice as many illegal bars as there had been legal ones. Islamic countries are very fortunate in that respect.

[Ramadhan]

Islamic countries are very fortunate in that respect.

And that's because the muslim population choose not to drink alcohol, hence alcohol ban works.
In the west, when almost the whole population wants to drink, it is impossible to ban alcohol.
In the west, when almost the whole population think extra-marital affairs is ok, it is impossible to ban prostitution.
In the west, when almost the whole population think nothing is wrong with gambling, it is impossible to ban gambling and casinos.

You can thank christianity and their infamous "pericope adulterae", falsely attributed to Jesus, for those.

[Trumble]

And that's because the muslim population choose not to drink alcohol, hence alcohol ban works.
In the west, when almost the whole population wants to drink, it is impossible to ban alcohol.
In the west, when almost the whole population think extra-marital affairs is ok, it is impossible to ban prostitution.
In the west, when almost the whole population think nothing is wrong with gambling, it is impossible to ban gambling and casinos.

You can thank christianity and their infamous "pericope adulterae", falsely attributed to Jesus, for those.

Ah, the comedy relief has arrived. What would we do without you?

I'm afraid people were were indulging in all three long before Christianity came along so you might have to find someone else to blame. Not to mention that attempts to ban all of them (largely successful in the case of prostititition and partially so in the case of gambling) have been driven largely by the Christian community.

Actually, prostitution is legal in very few places 'in the west'. It still happens - just as it does in Islamic countries. 'Almost the whole population' most certainly do not think "extra-marital affairs are OK", they just don't think people should be executed for participating in them. I'm not a Christian as you know, but I get the impression Jesus probably actually did think that as well; he wasn't a 'throwing the first stone' type of guy. Or indeed throwing any stone at all.

[Ramadhan]

Ah, the comedy relief has arrived. What would we do without you?

You keep on throwing unnecessary insults, even if I did not do anything to warrant your insult in my post.

Is that very buddha? Are you not afraid you will be reborn as something sub-human?

You don't need to apologize. I have forgiven you.

I'm afraid people were were indulging in all three long before Christianity came along so you might have to find someone else to blame.

Sure some people have been indulging in all those vices for a very long time, but the messengers of each religion, including Jesus, sure did command their followers not to do those vices.
I'm sure Buddha also said similar things?
Religion gives guidance to people to improve personal and society life, and unless I'm very mistaken, you also agree that those vices are not good for individuals and society in general?

I'm not a Christian as you know, but I get the impression Jesus probably actually did think that as well; he wasn't a 'throwing the first stone' type of guy. Or indeed throwing any stone at all.

what is your proof?

Id like to hear.

[Trumble]

Sure some people have been indulging in all those vices for a very long time, but the messengers of each religion, including Jesus, sure did command their followers not to do those vices.
I'm sure Buddha also said similar things?
Religion gives guidance to people to improve personal and society life, and unless I'm very mistaken, you also agree that those vices are not good for individuals and society in general?

Of course! It was your somewhat bizarre attempt to blame the whole lot on "christianity and their infamous "pericope adulterae"" I was taking issue with.

what is your proof?

Id like to hear.

Had I 'proof' I would not have used the words "I get the impression". I don't think it's an uncommon one, though, do you?

[GuestFellow]

They already have in paying the associated purchase tax, together with a sizeable chunk of everybody else's medical fees. As do smokers. And before you ask, no I don't do either! But the tax figures are something like £6 billion tax a year from alcohol and £8 billion from tobacco.

The other problem is the demographics. Most heavy smokers and drinkers are actually among the less well off, and couldn't afford to pay direct or via insurance with a smoker/drinker premium anyway.

I think people should make a contribution towards their own medical fees. Of course, the individual financial circumstances will be taken into account. This should help save some money...

In the west, when almost the whole population wants to drink, it is impossible to ban alcohol.

Salaam,

I actually think it is possible to ban alcohol but it will take a very long time and the ban must be introduced very slowly and carefully, rather than banning alcohol all at once.

[Ramadhan]

Of course! It was your somewhat bizarre attempt to blame the whole lot on "christianity and their infamous "pericope adulterae"" I was taking issue with.

That's because majority of americans are christians and they believe in "pericope adulterae".

Had I 'proof' I would not have used the words "I get the impression". I don't think it's an uncommon one, though, do you?

Well I can say that your impression about Jesus is not correct. Jesus threw out the traders and kicked their tables from the temple.
And if you going by definition of majority christians that Jesus is God, then I can show you hundreds of instance from the OT of very angry, spiteful Jesus.

[Ramadhan]

Salaam, I actually think it is possible to ban alcohol but it will take a very long time and the ban must be introduced very slowly and carefully, rather than banning alcohol all at once.

I don't think it's possible to ban alcohol in the west. You have to really believe in something to allow rules to be made to enforce it.
It is possible in the muslim countries because muslims believe that alcohol is haram and there's eternal consequences in breaking God's commandments.
Population in western countries don't think it's wrong to drink, they even have studies etc that say drinking moderately is good for health. Not only that, christians even believe that Jesus/God sanctioned drinking. I have met several drunk priests, the rector at my residential college in Australia was a priest who really enjoyed good drinks... and often..
Even tobacco cigarette for example, which has been conclusively shown as toxic, and most population even don't want cigarettes, it is still not possible to ban it.

[Trumble]

That's because majority of americans are christians and they believe in "pericope adulterae".

And you would would contend, presumably, that the 'majority of Americans' indulge in and approve of extra-marital affairs, prostitution, gambling and (excessive) drinking? Sorry, I thought that was only the booge..erm, atheists who did all that, not having any source of moral values and all? But the the dreaded pericope adulterae is even worse? Like, wow....

BTW, the topic was actually about UK admissions, where the number of practicing Christians is proportionally much smaller.

Well I can say that your impression about Jesus is not correct. Jesus threw out the traders and kicked their tables from the temple.

I don't think so. You might say it's not the same as yours, but otherwise,

what is your proof?

Jesus threw out the traders and kicked their tables from the temple.

He did indeed. And your point is? Surely you aren't claiming that that somehow suggests Jesus would be first in line to stone an adulterer?!

And if you going by definition of majority christians that Jesus is God, then I can show you hundreds of instance from the OT of very angry, spiteful Jesus.

Nope. I don't think Jesus was God, or a third of God, or whatever. Just a nice, spiritual guy who preached peace and love as opposed to malice, war and chucking rocks at people, who wound up the wrong people and got nailed to a tree for it, and found himself an excellent post-mortem publicist. Totally agree on that point, the God of the OT is clearly very different from that of the OT or the Qur'an.


Actually, I do think think there will be a total tobacco (not alcohol) ban in the UK and many other Western countries at some point. The process has already started, a small step at a time. The ban can only follow a change of behaviour rather than enforce one, though. I think at the present time something like one in three packs of cigarettes sold in the UK are smuggled goods, because of the high tax on legal ones. If they were just banned straight out I think smoking would actually increase, as the only source of cigarettes then would actually cost the smoker substantially less. While the public might accept a ban, they wouldn't tolerate legal penalties for smoking in line with those for hard drugs, say, or indeed anything more than a 'slap on the wrist'.

[Ramadhan]

And you would would contend, presumably, that the 'majority of Americans' indulge in and approve of extra-marital affairs, prostitution, gambling and (excessive) drinking? Sorry, I thought that was only the booge..erm, atheists who did all that, not having any source of moral values and all? But the the dreaded pericope adulterae is even worse? Like, wow....

You missed the point. Pericope adulterae set the stage for lax attitude towards sins and vices because it gives excuse that people who do vices should not be punished. This process of course did not start today but has happened in the past 1,400 years (pericope aduterae was first added in the gospel of john of latin vulgate bible around 600 ad). The result is today you get churches lax attitude towards outright public sinful acts which would have surely angered Jesus. Ever heard of churches sanctioning gay marriage? of practicing homosexual as priests, etc?
This include lax attitude towards drinking, adultery and gambling.

I don't think so. You might say it's not the same as yours, but otherwise, He did indeed. And your point is? Surely you aren't claiming that that somehow suggests Jesus would be first in line to stone an adulterer?!

The passage is important because it shows Jesus was very firm against immoral people and that was not shy to use violence to establish law.
You are over reacting. I never said Jesus would be the first in line to stone an adulterer.
I think you need to calm down.

Nope. I don't think Jesus was God, or a third of God, or whatever. Just a nice, spiritual guy who preached peace and love as opposed to malice, war and chucking rocks at people, who wound up the wrong people and got nailed to a tree for it, and found himself an excellent post-mortem publicist. Totally agree on that point, the God of the OT is clearly very different from that of the OT or the Qur'an

Umm... if you go by only jesus sayings and actions, he was not the lovey dovey hippy jesus singing kumbaya who current christians and athiests are trying to portray him.
He was a reformer of many incorrect jewish practices, and he was given sent the message to tell the people of isarel to go back to obeying the mosaic laws.

I am surprised that you base your opinion about jesus not on evidence.

[Trumble]

You missed the point. Pericope adulterae set the stage for lax attitude towards sins and vices because it gives excuse that people who do vices should not be punished. This process of course did not start today but has happened in the past 1,400 years (pericope aduterae was first added in the gospel of john of latin vulgate bible around 600 ad). The result is today you get churches lax attitude towards outright public sinful acts which would have surely angered Jesus. Ever heard of churches sanctioning gay marriage? of practicing homosexual as priests, etc?
This include lax attitude towards drinking, adultery and gambling.

You are suggesting a trend over time that there seems to be little if any evidence for. The debates regardings gay 'marriage' and practicing homosexuals as priests are contemporary, and even that regarding women priests only goes back to the 1970's. That surely suggests they are the result of recent changes in society, including a perception that the Church needs to remain 'relevant',l rather than anything to do with Christian dogma, let alone dogma which goes back that far? With drinking as perhaps the only exception, there is little record of 'lax' attitudes regarding any of the rest until the second half of the last century, either. Over the vast majority of that time, there seems no trace of these 'lax' attitudes as church policy. That doesn't mean all churchmen were paragons of virtue themselves, of course.

The passage is important because it shows Jesus was very firm against immoral people and that was not shy to use violence to establish law.

There's violence, and there's violence. No harm was done to the moneylenders beyond damaging their pride.

You are over reacting. I never said Jesus would be the first in line to stone an adulterer.

In which case, please clarify your position. Did, in your opinion, Jesus support the enforcement of stoning to death for adultery or not?

Umm... if you go by only jesus sayings and actions, he was not the lovey dovey hippy jesus singing kumbaya who current christians and athiests are trying to portray him.
He was a reformer of many incorrect jewish practices, and he was given sent the message to tell the people of isarel to go back to obeying the mosaic laws.

I'm not interested in how others portray him, but I'll admit to exaggerating somewhat on the peace and love front. They were hard times.

I am surprised that you base your opinion about jesus not on evidence.

There is very little evidence, as we have no original sources and few direct secondary sources that can be assumed to be even partially reliable. Any sources after that (including all Islamic ones) are just a re-hash of those proceeding them. Plausible cases can be made for Jesus having both personality and agenda comparable to anyone from Che Guevara to Gandhi.

[Ar-RaYYan]

:sl:

The number of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England has topped 1m for the first time, according to official statistics.





Do you think these people should pay for their own medical fees?

Discuss!

I think people who usually engage in these 'binge' drinking sessions and have alcohol problems are the young and people who wouldnt be able to afford medical fees so the idea of people paying for their treatments would be a very difficult one and one that is against the principles of the NHS. If we go in that line of speaking a lot of people would argue that smokers and people with obesity problems should also pay their own fees too.

Maybe the government should impose higher tax on alcohol products and a minimum price too.

[Who Am I?]

*Reads this thread while drinking a beer, smoking a cigar, and playing craps with dice*

Don't mind me, guys...

[Ramadhan]

There's violence, and there's violence. No harm was done to the moneylenders beyond damaging their pride.

Jesus destroyed their tables.

In which case, please clarify your position. Did, in your opinion, Jesus support the enforcement of stoning to death for adultery or not?

Jesus said that he come not to abolish the law but to fulfill them. stoning for adultery is part of the mosaic law. If all conditions met for such punishment, then obviously Jesus would fulfill it.

I'm not interested in how others portray him, but I'll admit to exaggerating somewhat on the peace and love front. They were hard times.

I'm glad you realized that you speak of Jesus not based on evidence.

There is very little evidence, as we have no original sources and few direct secondary sources that can be assumed to be even partially reliable

This is true. That's why the closest way is only to limit Jesus direct sayings and actions in the gospels and the relevant verses of the OT.

Any sources after that (including all Islamic ones) are just a re-hash of those proceeding them.

You speak without evidence again. The Qur'an verses and ahadeeth about Jesus is completely different from every book in the NT, except the gospels, and even then there's fundamental difference about resurrection too.

Plausible cases can be made for Jesus having both personality and agenda comparable to anyone from Che Guevara to Gandhi.

not if you take only from jesus direct sayings and actions.

[GuestFellow]

I think people who usually engage in these 'binge' drinking sessions and have alcohol problems are the young and people who wouldnt be able to afford medical fees so the idea of people paying for their treatments would be a very difficult one and one that is against the principles of the NHS. If we go in that line of speaking a lot of people would argue that smokers and people with obesity problems should also pay their own fees too.

Maybe the government should impose higher tax on alcohol products and a minimum price too.

Salaam,

I think a system of deterrence should be in place for irresponsible drinkers. Those who drink and get drunk are dangerous. Some sort of corporal punishment should be introduced, but this idea is too drastic for most British people to accept.