'Drunk Tanks'

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Ever heard of Serco and G4S?

 

Yup

 

I don't think (for example) prisoners being transported around pay for that transport. Those put into these drunk tanks will pay for the service..big difference

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Or that missing £20 billion on a computer system that didn't quite work!

 

Appalling management by the civil servants and govt ministers involved..and probably some of the private sector managers involved too

 

All sorts of multi bilion/million £ IT projects are succssful..what's the point in mentioning just one that failed?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If the police are not running them then what would stop people just leaving them? It would be deemed as kidnapping surely.

 

The devil would be in the detail..I would hope that it would be something like the police handing them over to be held securely by the private facility for a period of time leaving the police free to get back to dealing with the remaining members of the public

 

As long as due process is followed within the boundaries laid down by the relevant law then I am confident it could be made to work. Not suggesting current law would cover this.

 

I think it might also be important to emphasise that the drunk tank would be more of a medical facility than a 'prison'..where the person is being kept for their own good until they are in a position to make decisions for themselves under medical supervision

[JOHNNYAITCH]

& I bet 80% wouldn't bother paying the fine that comes with it and once there in/out the tank the police wont chase them for the money.

 

You may be right but it will not be the police after the money but a private company that wil have a financial interest in recovering the money and no interest in letting them get away without paying

 

If ir were made a criminal offence not to pay then that would also provide an incentive

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Because it helps to protect to vulnerable, simple.

 

But it's not simple; following that logic we should ban alcohol completely cos it would help to protect vulnerable people.

 

Prevention (and therefore protecting vulnerable people) is more about education..finding out why people want to get drunk..get the answers and we might be able to prevent them from doing so. That's by far the best way to help vulnerable people.

[Shropshire_Valiant]

Get a grip of the drinking culture. Smoking is the lesser of the two evils. No one ever beat their wife up because they had had one too many fags!

 

True, but how much does people having smoked too much cost the NHS and hence the country in the long run?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Because it helps to protect to vulnerable, simple.

 

Incidentally following on from your earlier question..I stopped drinking alcohol (at the time a planned temporary hiatus) about three years ago for purely pragmatic reasons when my Mum was very ill and I needed to be in a fit state to drive or deal with issues 24/7. Even though she passed away in March 2011 I have just not started drinking again..not a deliberate decision not to, I simply fell out of the habit.

 

But my attitude to getting drunk was the same long before any of the above...I don't get why anyone would set out to deliberately get drunk...they must be pretty unhappy in my book

[JOHNNYAITCH]

True, but how much does people having smoked too much cost the NHS and hence the country in the long run?

 

I know lung cancer is not the only disease that smoking casuses but most smokers do not develop it..although something like half to two thirds develop smoking related health problems

 

In a 2006 European study, the risk of developing lung cancer was:

 

•0.2% for men who never smoked (0.4% for women)

•5.5% for male former smokers (2.6% in women)

•15.9% for current male smokers (9.5% for women)

•24.4% for male “heavy smokers” defined as smoking more than 5 cigarettes per day (18.5% for women)

 

An earlier Canadian study quoted the lifetime risk for male smokers at 17.2% (11.6% in women) versus only 1.3% in male non-smokers (1.4% in female non-smokers).

 

So in crude terms the tax they pay probably greatly outweighs the cost of treating the smokers.

 

Research commissioned by ASH in 2010 has shown that the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year. The same year HMRC estinmate the tax revenue form smoking to be 10.5 billion

 

However there is a wider cost...a report by the Policy Exchange in 2010 estimated the total cost to society of smoking to be £13.74 billion (that's health treatment, people being on benefits cos of ill health cos of smoking etc even productivity losses cos of fag breaks at work)..so that is in defecit.

 

Persoanlly I'd like everyone to stop smoking for their own welfare and not cos of any drain on the NHS

 

Very sadly an acquaintance of mine down here died of lung cancer in May aged 64. He'd never smoked and was only diagnosed 3 weeks before he died, his only symptom having been a persistant cough :(