U.K. Drinking Costs
 

As we head further in the direction of national health care we will probably see more public discussion of private issues because the private issue becomes public business. Anyway the U.K. is spending $4.4 billion a year on alcohol related treatment. 1 in 5 E.R. visits is alcohol related... I assume that Brits have a higher tolerance for boozing as they have better booze and a local pub culture. In the States, we have occasional bouts of Puritanism which lead us to bans, high age limits, high sin taxes, low blood alcohol limits etc... We have very serious alcohol issues here as well. Where are we in the US headed?

I have an issue with all the "sin tax" revenue being spent on all sorts of totally unrelated things. If you are going to tax prohibitively, then use that income for its intended purpose ONLY.

I'm guessing that our highest alcohol costs is the carnage on our highways. My county has hired a private outfit to do all "alcohol treatment" for prople who get DUI's. This company is raking in the moolah. Offenders are forced to go to classes every week at $65.00 a pop. That's $270.00 a month. On top of that the outfit does all the evaluations to determine just how many of their classes you need. A person I know who got two DUI's is being forced to attend "classes" for four years. What a rip off!

Since that person was dumb enough to do it twice (that we know of) I don't have too much sympathy. I'd feel a lot worse reading about them wiping out a family on the road.

That's the usual reply Rich, and it's bullshit. When they set the limit at .08 you can't even wear Cologne. Sure, there are dangerous drunks on the road and kill people. But many, if not most, of these people that are getting nailed and royally screwed, are not dangerous. They are no more impaired than somebody with a cold, and a fuck of a lot less than people playing with their ipod, or talking on the phone. Get nailed in PA and it'll cost you at least 8 or 10k, if you have to drive to work to keep your job, and all for a bullshit feel good law. It's revenue.

You drink & drive - you assume that risk. I think thats part of the point. If they made the limit much higher, then there would be an outrage over all the accidents that happen when a driver's BAC is less than that.

There has to be a line somewhere and they must have some valid reason for putting it at .08

I think the .08 limit is fine, but I think the enforcement of the limit is what matters. If cops are setting up roadblocks and randomly targeting people, they will get people who might be at .09 and are still pretty much fine to drive. I would think that is unfair.

But if they are only testing people who are weaving all over the road and giving them other probable cause, then the .08 limit serves as a way of inflating how serious the incident is. They are that much further over the limit because the limit is so low.

I also think the low .08 limit is a real deterrent. I know it works for me.

I don't have any sympathy, either. I'm just ticked at the system we have here. This man still frequents the local bar just as before and manages to elude sobriety tests when they are given. The only hope I can see for other drivers is that maybe his liver will fail. :eyebrow:

FWIW, the Royal College of Physicians’ position on alcohol can be read here: Link

And Alcohol now costs less than water - Timesonline.

I need the synopsis of this thread. Am I to understand that is is cheaper for me to stay here in the US to drink, and if so, is that factoring in the cost of hotel and airfare?

Sainsbury's at the moment are selling 500ml of Biere Des Moulins lager for 49p.
That is HALF the price of 500ml Coca Cola. And even cheaper than generic Cola sold at that size.
It's not all that strong, but it's still 1.9 units per bottle, and really quite nice (we had some over Christmas, I drank it instead of the stronger stuff - I'd need litres of that to have an effect on me).

You just have to wonder how they do it.
I bought a litre of Diet Ginger Ale instead. Same price.

Over here the legal limit is .05 for an open licence and .02 for a provisional (which is for the first 2 years after you get your licence). It used to be .08 but they lowered it many years ago in an attempt to stop the carnage on the roads.

I was the second on the scene of a single vehicle accident a couple of nights ago. The driver had been thrown from the vehicle and must have just about landed on his head. It was horrific. I administered first aid in that he was starting to choke on his own blood, so I turned his head and cleared the airway and supported him in that position till the ambulance arrived.

He had clearly been drinking and I suspect that was a major contributing factor to the crash.

The images are haunting me from that night. It was the worst thing I have ever witnessed on a physical level (aside from my Mum's struggle with cancer). I never did find out his name but I know he is still alive because I've been checking with the police. I don't know any more details than that because I'm not family.

Drink driving is a mistake no one should ever make. I don't care if they're just over the limit. The limit is there for a reason. It's no different to any other crime if you kill someone (including yourself) when you've been drinking.

Dead is dead.

Which is exactly why alcohol treatment is important. People will say it's a choice, drinking. I agree with that to some degree, but making the choice in an illness, a disease, may require treatment. We don't discuss treatment for diseases that are attributable to obesity, or not walking a mile a day to stay heart-healthy, but we will discuss costs of treatment for drinking or smoking or drug use, and there will be uprising that these dregs of society don't just pick themselves up by their bootstraps and quit doing what it is that is making them unhealthy.

At least, I think that was the original point of the thread, that it is bound to come up that there are people who will be outraged that Johnny the Alcoholic will get treatment, when Johnny the Alcoholic quit his job some time ago and has no personal insurance.

Biere de moulins ....memories.... ugh.... student beer

I guess my original intent was to make the point that, although I support the idea of universal health-care, there will be a price to pay in terms of individual freedom. The American tendency to over-do the moralizing will probably lead to ineffective one size fits all interventions similar to Bush era sexual abstinence trainings. We'll end up with nonsense like .05 blood alcohol limits. Keep in mind that this is being written by someone who shouldn't drink even a little.

Perhaps we'll try prohibition again?

Good thoughts, Griff, there are always multitudes of angles no one sees until the ball really gets rolling. You're a thinker, you are. These issues will certainly become apparent as time goes on, and as those who opposed the health care reform will tell us "should have been careful what you wished for...watch THIS, how you like them poison apples, eh?"

The problem I see with the drinking and driving issue is that there is a clear cut between what is ideal and what is reality. Of course drinking and driving is bad and I personally don't know anyone that will disagree but in reality, the drinking and driving dilemma becomes more of calculating risk then a clear cut right and wrong.

We are supposed to think ahead but eventually many people will face the fork in the road when they are just drunk enough that they shouldn't be driving, are less then a mile away from their house, its -20 degrees outside, have no money for a cab, and no one else is on the road. Most people I know will decide that they will take the risk of drinking and driving even though they know they shouldn't. They make it home safety and then tell themselves that they will never put themselves in that position again. Naturally, they will put themselves in that situation again and will tell themselves that they have made it home before and they can do it again. That is where the snowball starts rolling and people start to feel confident in their drinking and driving abilities and start to believe that drunk driving accidents only happen to "other less responsible" people.

There are many flaws in the drinking and driving logic but in reality, many people are going to take the drinking and driving risk. No matter how much campaigning is done, no matter how low you make the drinking and driving limit, and no matter how big of consequences you make, drinking and driving is going to happen and most people are going to do it "safety" even though people know they shouldn't. The best solution IMO is creating alternative options and not trying to forcefully lower the number of drunk drivers with big consequences. Taxis are good and are widely used but they are expensive and many people prefer to drive. I don't know of a good solution besides expanding cab services and I doubt there really is one but I just don't believe continuing to lower the drinking limit and raising the consequences will do anything.


As a note, I do not disagree with the current laws in my area (.08 limit and heavy consequences for being caught) and quit drinking so I have never and will never drink and drive. Even though it is a reality that people will drink and drive, there must be consequences for doing it because of what can happen in the worst case scenario. It is not a preferable system but will have to do until a better is thought up.

Well, it worked for Sweden. Their driving limit is .02, and the recommended penalty for driving with a 1.0 (even if you don't hit someone) is 2 years in prison. It's pretty Draconian, but they do have less than half the alcohol-related fatalities we do (measured per miles driven, so it takes into account their smaller population,) and that's even with a drinking age of 18. On the other hand, there obviously still are some number of drunk drivers in their country, even with the harsh laws.

I'm sure if we replicated Sweden's drunk driving laws here it would also have an effect of the number of drunk drivers but since drunk driving is something that the vast majority people know is wrong, or initially know is wrong, and do make attempts to avoid, I don't think making the laws even harsher will be as effective. Ideally, working with the population to create alternative solutions would produce better results. From what I've seen, people truly do want to avoid drunk driving but doing so is sometimes too much of a hassle so risks are taken. However, I am not aware of any other ideas or if they are realistic so the current laws may be the only realistic way to curb drunk drivers.

Also, I usually don't like comparing laws from other countries as concrete evidence. I have never been to Sweden but I'm sure the driving and drinking cultures are different than here in the US, especially in the Midwest, so the same laws may produce different results.

I have a feeling this is going to be true no matter what as long as people drink, cars are a used form of transportation, and checkpoints are not setup.

Well, the bloke I attended to the other night wasn't far from home on a straight road and he still managed to get himself into trouble.

I don't know if attitudes are different in the US or not, but over here, the majority of the population doesn't drink then drive. Usually the designated driver wont have any at all, or if they do, maybe just one or two light beers. Clearly there are still those here who choose to take the risk of drinking and driving, but personally I have never done it and would never consider it. If I'm going to be driving I just don't drink. Most people I know have the same attitude. It's the 1% out there who decide to 'take the risk' that are the problem.

Don't forget Pierce is in college. He's surrounded by people of a completely different mindset, because they do not yet know anyone who screwed up a year of their life with a DUI, or worse, gotten into a terrible accident or killed someone.

While you're waiting to find out which one of your friends it will happen to, Pierce, you would be wise to make sure it isn't you.

Over here, I would say that the majority of people do not drink and drive the majority of the time. That means there is a minority of people who do drink and drive and have no problem with it and then there is a larger minority that will plan ahead on most occasions with taxis and designated drivers, but will slip up every once in a while and drink and drive if they feel "okay to drive". As I've said, almost everyone here knows its bad to drink and drive but there are rare occasions where people didn't plan ahead and the risk is taken. There are a few people who have no problem drinking and driving and do it on a regular occasion, I would assume these people make up the vast majority of accidents, but these people, as in Australia, make up the vast minority of people.


I guess my main point is that with respect to drunk drivers, as ironic as it sounds, there are two types of drunk drivers, those that do respect others and try to avoid drunk driving and those that do not give a shit and will do it on regular occasions. For the first group, these people will only drink and drive if they their options are extremely limited and will feel bad for it. These people will take advantage of other means if they are available. The second group, these are the people that will drink and drive no matter what and have no respect for anyone else because they either don't care or they think they are a "good drunk driver". These people are the reason why we need harsh drinking and driving laws.

So my idea on a good solution is to polarize these two groups. As realistically as possible, offer easy and cheap alternatives ways to travel to lower the drunk driving for those who do want to avoid it while keeping and maybe extending harsh penalties for those who choose not to take them.

At my university, there is a service where the student body will take turns driving a van around at night, giving free rides to whoever needs transportation. From my personal experiences, this is cheap, easy, and relatively quick. With this service, there is very little excuse to drink and drive. Obviously, this exact service is not realistic on a large city scale, but the idea could somewhat be used.

True, I was going to integrate that into this post. I do not know about the people that do get many DUIs and or have gotten an accident, but I do notice trends in the past two years. I noticed that out of the people that do drink and drive, there are those who hate doing it but will if they feel they have little alternative and those that feel comfortable doing it and do nothing to prevent themselves from getting in a bad situation. I am assuming that the first group will eventually learn to plan ahead more effectively and along with more and more people who quit drinking, designated drivers will be much easier to come by. I am also assuming the second group will get more and more comfortable with drunk driving and keep pushing themselves and then eventually get a few DUIs or get into an accident. I know it isn't that clear cut and DUIs and accidents do happen to those who I would consider in the first group but I am generalizing.

I know it will not be me. I quit drinking a year ago and always offer to DD and will even go out of my way to make sure my friends do not drink and drive. I have physically restrained people and have almost gotten into a fist fight about the issue. I am confident in my ability to plan ahead for myself and my friends but even then, especially for those in the young to mid twenties, it is almost impossible to know what will happen during the night so occasionally, bad situations will arise. What I have learned over the past few years is that it is not only disrespectful assholes who have no concern for other people's lives who drink and drive. There are legitimately respectful people who will drink and drive because of planning issues. This has changed my perspective on the issue and hence my different views. I am not advocating that my perspective the correct one but it is what I observe and will probably change as I get older. I am not trying to justify anyone's actions, I strongly disagree with drinking and driving, but I do realize, at least for my demographic, drinking and driving is a reality and I am thinking of possible solution.

Edit - Just in case I wasn't clear, I do not have any sympathy for people who get a DUI. If you are over the limit and drive, no matter the situation, you are taking a known risk. Plus, there is always the chance that you screw over someone else's life besides your own. But, in spite of that, it is sometimes an extreme hassle to not drink and drive for some in particular situations and many people, at least of my age, will take the risk because most people I know in those situations do not get caught or have anything bad happen to them. This is a reality and I think this should be taken into account for any anti-drunk driving law planning.

Blah...I have a lot of free time today so I have been thinking a lot about this today so here my summarized thoughts instead of the pretty cluttered stuff I've posted earlier.

As I mentioned many times, I feel there are two types of drunk drivers, the ones that do it because they feel they are "good drunk drivers" and have no respect for others and those that do not like drunk driving but will occasionally get into situations where it is an extreme hassle not to drink and drive. As for laws, I completely agree with extremely strict drunk driving laws as long as the second group is taken into account.

For the first group, there is almost NOTHING our government can do to stop them from drinking and driving. They will do whatever is easiest for them and drinking and driving is almost always that. Besides a few exceptions, no matter how strict we make the laws, these people will continue to drink and drive because they believe they will not get caught and have a general disrespect for everyone else.

The second group, on the other hand, will take into account that drunk driving is strongly unperferable. These people will make sacrifices to try to avoid drunk driving but will if it becomes too much of a hassle. This also means extremely strict laws will have little effect on them because, like the first group, they also will only do it when they feel they will not get caught. But, this group will avoid drunk driving if a realistic alternative is provided.

This means I believe anti-drunk driving laws and planning should include two parts. The first part is prevention. This means setting up realistic means of transporting drunk people that did not effectively plan ahead. An idea off the top of my head would be the subsidizing of five taxi rides a year for those to apply to a certain program (18+). This will not only provide an escape route for those who did not effectively plan but will also show that government is trying to prevent drunk drivers and not just prosecute them, making it harder to justify unplanned instances where drunk driving occurs. The second part is prosecution. This is where the extremely strict drunk driving laws come in. While not solving the problem, this will scare people from the "second group" into using alternative ways of transportation and try to keep people from the "first group" off the streets.

Whether you believe all drunk drivers, no matter the "group", are disrespectful selfish people or not, I would much prefer to pay a little more in taxes to subsidize a free taxi ride than have him or her go to jail for a few years, costing even more money, or potentially kill someone if they only drink and drive on rare occasions.

If someone drives after a few drinks, they have a much greater chance of killing or hurting someone than a regular asshat driver. So we have a law to stop them even if they do no damage.

If someone pulls a gun in perceived self defence after a few drinks it's only a crime if they hurt someone innocent.....

If someone has sex with someone else agaianst their will after a few drinks, their drunkenness is used as a defence.

Just sayin'

Depending on weight, sex, body fat, and how quickly they drink those 1-2 beers, they will fairly easily go over the 0.08 limit by drinking that much alcohol.

According to Wikipedia "However, it is generally accepted that the consumption from sober of one standard drink of alcohol (e.g. 14 grams (17.74 ml) ethanol content by U.S. standard) will increase the average person's BAC roughly 0.02% to 0.05% and would return to 0% about 1.5 to 3 hours later (at a dissipation rate of around 0.015% per hour)."

So one drink is probably OK, but that second drink, depending on a bunch of different variables, might put you into jail. That's where it gets into the gray area. Is a person who has had that second drink an impaired driver? Sometimes I'll feel a little "light headed" after having two drinks. Sometimes, I won't feel at all different after having two drinks. Three drinks, and I'm impaired, without a doubt.

Then there's the heavyweight factor. An ex cow orker of mine was clocked at .10 and did a weekend in jail. But he reports not being impaired at all. He's a daily alcoholic; he works a second job as a bartender at a rum bar. .10 is like his baseline. It's what he wakes up with.

Was he pulled over for driving in a way that made the cops think he was impaired, or was it more random than that? Like a taillight out or a checkpoint?

In my town, they can gun you down the second you walk out of the bar, no questions asked.

When I was a lass, they gunned you down before you walked into the bar, just to be on the safe side.

He said he swerved while reaching for something in the passenger seat.

Moss Side?:p

hehe my dad used to teach near there. rough doesn't even touch on it.

Doesn't matter if he was impaired or not, it's money maker for the cops.

@ Monnie: I have a very vague recollection of being stranded in Moss Side one night. Cannot recall the circumstances. I remember standing in the phone box trying to get through to a taxi firm...then trying to persuade them to drive to MS. :P

I also went there a few times in less stressed circumstances, 'cause a mate of mine used to go regularly to see an acquaintance of his. All interesting experiences, of which I am glad, but none of which I would choose to repeat lol.

Generally it is acceptable to have one standard drink per hour if you're male and one standard drink about every hour and a half if you're female.

If I were driving I might have 2 drinks if I were going to be there for a few hours, and I wouldn't be having the second if I were getting into the car within an hour, but having said all that, usually I will choose to just not drink if I'm driving. What's the point of taking the risk?

I really don't care what the circumstance is. There's no excuse for drink driving. There are always better options.

It's funny, because all the channels are reporting on the banning of all-you-can-drink offers as if they are rampant in the UK. All-you-can-drink for £10!!! Trust me, outside of some of the university cities you will not see this! Even in Leicester I only ever saw one deal that promised unlimited drink and that was on St Paddy's day, the only drink was Guinness and it was in one of the scuzziest bars I've ever not been into. Trust me, no young'uns would have dared cross that threshold.

Still, it's not banned til April. I'll let you know if we find any such deals in cardiff this weekend.

I haven't seen All You Can Drink offers. But loads of buy one get one free offers, or half price drinks type thing.

Buy one get one free, or half price drinks, is a standard "happy hour" practice over here.

Wetherspoons offer very good deals, but they're a low-price, friendly drinking establishment, not a get-pissed-quick hostelry. They're not quite in the BOGOF range though - they're best deals tend to be on food, or food & drink combinations.

I have been in a student-friendly promotion pub in Bradford, but this is going back nearly 20 years now. Every hour? half hour? a klaxon sounded, the lights flashed on and off and a wheel was spun with whatever deal would now be available. Some were very silly, like 10 minutes of 10p a pint or suchlike. It meant the place was always rammed by students getting ready for a night of clubbing (alcohol in clubs was prohibitively expensive then) and there was always a scrum at the bar. Now that I consider irresponsible. Just not at the time.

They have a lot of them here in the US, some for as low as $8. You can basically find a bar doing that any night of the week. A hell of a lot cheaper if you like to drink a lot and don't mind cheap alcohol.

This varies states to state. New York has limitations on drink specials.

Ladies drink free! That was always a big draw for me back in the day. And I drove, too. What was I thinking? But for the grace of God... :beer::driving: