Cost to NHS of treating drinkers over 55 is simply 'staggering' (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

One again, one sided garbage.
If your going to go on about the true "cost" then lets bring some other facts into the equation.
How much tax revenue does tax on alcohol bring jnto the treasury? You can't simply quote costs and totally ignore income in a bid to get your one sided agender across.
Also the older people are more likely to require hospital treatment regardless of drinking alcohol because that tends to be how the body works. People don't live forever so the older you get the more likely you are going to be admitted to hospital and this includes those who may have never taken drugs, drunk alcohol, eaten fatty foods or smoked in their lives.
Last year a professional premiership footballer had a heart attack, these things happen.
Keep pushing out this one sided garbage all you want but unless you adress both sided of the store it is simply one sided scare mongering propaganda.

Alcohol related liver disease is a chronic disease, takes time to develop and to be diagnosed. Therefore it is older rather than younger people who will be diagnosed/die. Why is this surprising?

The UK as a whole has a complete inability to socialise or live WITHOUT alcohol. They even claim to love the taste of it.....whatever next!

Thee Voice of reason said: "If your going to go on about the true "cost" then lets bring some other facts into the equation."

My brother is an alcoholic. He drinks cheap, strong cider that produces a minimal return to the treasury yet he is in and out of hospital for weeks at a time, is unable to work or contribute anything to society (how much does that cost the treasury and the rest of us who have to pay for his benefits?) because he exists in an alcoholic daze. He also has a stream of doctors and nurses coming to the house, like he was royalty or something, to treat his various illnesses and injuries received from falling over all the time. The costs by now must be running into the hundreds of thousands - and that is just for one person who is only 40 years old - not an old age pensioner of 90.

Also if you are so keen on examining the costs, then why don't you look at the mental and emotional costs imposed on all the people who are related to him. My mother has to practically wait on him hand and foot because he can't help himself and watch as he slowly self destructs. His 9 year old son whom should be have a role model to look up to and someone to kick a ball around with or help him with homework etc is confronted with this hagged and unkempt individual whom looks like he could be his grandfather.

I'm pretty sure if you had ever experienced the effects of alcoholism you wouldn't be making such uniformed comments.

In 2011 over a million people were admitted to hospital due to alcohol. Over the same period 750 people were admitted due to cannabis yet we spend millions each year preventing people from taking the safer option "to get them through the hard times" and millions more to clean up the damage done by drunks. Ah but cannabis "may" cause psychosis, whatever that is, but so can and does alcohol. The sad fact is that people will continue to damage themselves in a quest to unwind and relieve stress. It is folly to continue to allow people to pickle their livers ect. because it is a cultural tradition in this country whilst denying them an alternative that science has proved again and again to be much safer.

Alanuk wrote:
Thee Voice of reason said: "If your going to go on about the true "cost" then lets bring some other facts into the equation."

My brother is an alcoholic. He drinks cheap, strong cider that produces a minimal return to the treasury yet he is in and out of hospital for weeks at a time, is unable to work or contribute anything to society (how much does that cost the treasury and the rest of us who have to pay for his benefits?) because he exists in an alcoholic daze. He also has a stream of doctors and nurses coming to the house, like he was royalty or something, to treat his various illnesses and injuries received from falling over all the time. The costs by now must be running into the hundreds of thousands - and that is just for one person who is only 40 years old - not an old age pensioner of 90.

Also if you are so keen on examining the costs, then why don't you look at the mental and emotional costs imposed on all the people who are related to him. My mother has to practically wait on him hand and foot because he can't help himself and watch as he slowly self destructs. His 9 year old son whom should be have a role model to look up to and someone to kick a ball around with or help him with homework etc is confronted with this hagged and unkempt individual whom looks like he could be his grandfather.

I'm pretty sure if you had ever experienced the effects of alcoholism you wouldn't be making such uniformed comments.

What you describe is an extreme case and you will agree it is not the norm.
The vast majority of people who use alcohol do so in moderation yet are always labelled as part if the problem.

Yet another piece of garbage produced by over-paid medics trying to justify their inflated salaries.

Of course the average youngster has a greater ability to handle alcohol, the body is younger, the organs in good condition. Now I'm in my 60's I reckon the NHS owes me big time anyway. Never once in hospital, very rarely seen a doctor, always paid the tax and NI demanded of me. If I wish to drink I will and will not be influenced by the control-freaks that is the modern medic who seems to know the risk of everything and the benefit of nothing.

I'm with Dr John on this. The government have taxed the price of beer so much that pubs are closing and people buying cheap booze from the supermarkets and sitting alone at home and drinking themselves into the grave. The pub is a great moderator where friends can meet and alcohol consumed in a controlled yet friendly environment. It's as if the government want to drive people into the clutches of the supermarkets and kill one of the success stories of British manufacturing, the small brewery.

If Alcohol Concern is so concerned they ought to write to the government and tell them to reverse their beer duty escalator policy and put more tax on cheap supermarket alcohol. But they probably rely on government grants for their very existence so they wont do that will they?

I know many people in their 50's who have worked hard all their lives and have realised their meagre dreams have disappeared and this is about as good as it gets; No going for the odd night away now the kids are grown up, no mortgage paid off(or moving to a better area,houses not selling (private lets keeping prices down), no holidays abroad, no new car, no warm house to come home to. So getting plastered on a few quid at home on the w/end, is just about all there is.

I wonder if the problem is that people are living longer, whether they drink in moderation, to excess or not at all.

And what is the cost of treating middle-aged cannabis users? Answer = 0

Why then are cannabis users being constantly persecuted by the authorities and media whilst alcohol remains legal? Where's the logic in that?

jh137 wrote:
I know many people in their 50's who have worked hard all their lives and have realised their meagre dreams have disappeared and this is about as good as it gets; No going for the odd night away now the kids are grown up, no mortgage paid off(or moving to a better area,houses not selling (private lets keeping prices down), no holidays abroad, no new car, no warm house to come home to. So getting plastered on a few quid at home on the w/end, is just about all there is.

Yes, or choosing to put your feet up after a hard day and smoke a joint, which harms no one.

A Casual Observer wrote:

jh137 wrote:
I know many people in their 50's who have worked hard all their lives and have realised their meagre dreams have disappeared and this is about as good as it gets; No going for the odd night away now the kids are grown up, no mortgage paid off(or moving to a better area,houses not selling (private lets keeping prices down), no holidays abroad, no new car, no warm house to come home to. So getting plastered on a few quid at home on the w/end, is just about all there is.

Yes, or choosing to put your feet up after a hard day and smoke a joint, which harms no one.

When you get older the chances of cannabis inducing paranoia are greater, I know long term smokers who gave up because of it, I wonder if you will think the same in another decade (assuming the lung cancer hasn't dispatched you).

Not rocket science is it.
The age group that they are condemning have been drinking, probably very moderately for the best part of 50 years. The years take their toll on all parts of the body.
The medics today seem to want the grossly inflated pay but are not prepared to put in neither the hours nor the labour.

Albion. wrote:

A Casual Observer wrote:

jh137 wrote:
I know many people in their 50's who have worked hard all their lives and have realised their meagre dreams have disappeared and this is about as good as it gets; No going for the odd night away now the kids are grown up, no mortgage paid off(or moving to a better area,houses not selling (private lets keeping prices down), no holidays abroad, no new car, no warm house to come home to. So getting plastered on a few quid at home on the w/end, is just about all there is.

Yes, or choosing to put your feet up after a hard day and smoke a joint, which harms no one.

When you get older the chances of cannabis inducing paranoia are greater, I know long term smokers who gave up because of it, I wonder if you will think the same in another decade (assuming the lung cancer hasn't dispatched you).

Choosing to put your feet up after a hard day of what ? work ?

And canabis has effected you ACO your paranoid as hell that the work coaches are coming for you, and going to make you stack shelves at Tesco for free.

Hmmm, I wonder how much this article and the medics would have been slated by posters if it was saying that 16-24 years olds were costing the most money? Or has the fact that someone is suggesting that not all over 55's are the perfect liitle people they like to pretend they are rattled some cages because they realise they can't just blame everything on 'the youth or today'?

And Dr John is talking out of his ar$e. The fact that times are hard is no excuse for getting drunk to the point that you're a burden to the state.

Is this story merely a warning to the younger people? Of course older people have been drinking much longer and obviously something has to give, sooner rather than later.

The fact that you feel like crap if you've had a skinfull the night before should be an indication that it's long term use can cause major damage. Ignorance isn't a defence for anyone suffering ill health as a consequence. Just as a boxer makes a choice to get back in the ring knowing full well that every blow he takes can cause brain damage the drinker makes a choice to have another drink. Should we take away peoples freedom of choice to keep them safe from themselves?

My brother passed away last month due to being an alcoholic.He became an alcoholic forty years ago and his life was not the life most people would like to live. The person he hurt the most was himself. He never had any hospital treatment until a few days before he died. He was and still his dearly loved by his family.Alcohol was his addiction and the price he paid for that was an early death.

I think when people get to 60 just shoot us and have done with it. We're obviously a nuisance.

vikksy wrote:
I think when people get to 60 just shoot us and have done with it. We're obviously a nuisance.

Nah they'd never do that. At 60 you've potentially 5 years work left in you. Now if you'd have said 65.....

Yorkshire Lass wrote:
Is this story merely a warning to the younger people? Of course older people have been drinking much longer and obviously something has to give, sooner rather than later.

Quite right. Let's take it to its logical conclusion -more old people die more frequently than young people. And it takes a University education to tell us that? Get out and get a real job for goodness sake, the country is on the verge of bankruptcy ffs!

A Casual Observer wrote:

jh137 wrote: I know many people in their 50's who have worked hard all their lives and have realised their meagre dreams have disappeared and this is about as good as it gets; No going for the odd night away now the kids are grown up, no mortgage paid off(or moving to a better area,houses not selling (private lets keeping prices down), no holidays abroad, no new car, no warm house to come home to. So getting plastered on a few quid at home on the w/end, is just about all there is.

Yes, or choosing to put your feet up after a hard day and smoke a joint, which harms no one.

so long as no-one gets in a car to drive after doing either ...

what I find so sad, is that while alcoholism is going up, pubs are closing.

drinkers...staggerin
g? Gettit?

Would anyone from alcohol concern, or indeed the government like to enlighten us on how much is paid out in extra benefit money to registered alcoholics? ive been told they are entitled to £30 a day, to feed their addiction. Is this true? if this is so, then this should be stopped and the money used to look after our hospitals that are having to close.

MontyLeMar wrote:

Yorkshire Lass wrote:
Is this story merely a warning to the younger people? Of course older people have been drinking much longer and obviously something has to give, sooner rather than later.

Quite right. Let's take it to its logical conclusion -more old people die more frequently than young people. And it takes a University education to tell us that? Get out and get a real job for goodness sake, the country is on the verge of bankruptcy ffs!

I was of course referring to the health professionals who advise Alcohol Concern, not you Yorkshire Lass.

Why stop there, lets blame sports injuries, hey how about folk who get stranded at see and need the royal navy to rescue them, one happened 2 years ago South Atlantic ( how much would that have cost) and there are mountaineers and fell walkers who fall and break a leg, need a rescue with an helicopter.....tryin
g to lay blame on a small portion of the general public is so rude, that's what the NHS is for.

No body has any authority to do any thing. The system will not change. Just keep on living as it is. Don,t waste your time to comment on any issue.

angi. b wrote:
Would anyone from alcohol concern, or indeed the government like to enlighten us on how much is paid out in extra benefit money to registered alcoholics? ive been told they are entitled to £30 a day, to feed their addiction. Is this true? if this is so, then this should be stopped and the money used to look after our hospitals that are having to close.

No, it's not true. They would get more than those on JSA, as Alcoholism is an illness they get some form of sickness benefit, what was either Incapacity or Disability Living Allowance, the same as anyone else on long-term sick.

RollandSmoke wrote:

vikksy wrote:
I think when people get to 60 just shoot us and have done with it. We're obviously a nuisance.

Nah they'd never do that. At 60 you've potentially 5 years work left in you. Now if you'd have said 65.....

I think that would be another 8 years now according to the Tories.

Get back to work wrote:

Albion. wrote:

A Casual Observer wrote:

jh137 wrote:
I know many people in their 50's who have worked hard all their lives and have realised their meagre dreams have disappeared and this is about as good as it gets; No going for the odd night away now the kids are grown up, no mortgage paid off(or moving to a better area,houses not selling (private lets keeping prices down), no holidays abroad, no new car, no warm house to come home to. So getting plastered on a few quid at home on the w/end, is just about all there is.

Yes, or choosing to put your feet up after a hard day and smoke a joint, which harms no one.

When you get older the chances of cannabis inducing paranoia are greater, I know long term smokers who gave up because of it, I wonder if you will think the same in another decade (assuming the lung cancer hasn't dispatched you).

Choosing to put your feet up after a hard day of what ? work ?

And canabis has effected you ACO your paranoid as hell that the work coaches are coming for you, and going to make you stack shelves at Tesco for free.

hahahaha no, that's NEVER going to happen, and is not something I ever worry about :)

No one on this planet is going to make me work for no pay, not you, not David Cameron, not Lord Freud, or anyone else. End of story.

A Casual Observer wrote:

Get back to work wrote:

Albion. wrote:

A Casual Observer wrote:

jh137 wrote:
I know many people in their 50's who have worked hard all their lives and have realised their meagre dreams have disappeared and this is about as good as it gets; No going for the odd night away now the kids are grown up, no mortgage paid off(or moving to a better area,houses not selling (private lets keeping prices down), no holidays abroad, no new car, no warm house to come home to. So getting plastered on a few quid at home on the w/end, is just about all there is.

Yes, or choosing to put your feet up after a hard day and smoke a joint, which harms no one.

When you get older the chances of cannabis inducing paranoia are greater, I know long term smokers who gave up because of it, I wonder if you will think the same in another decade (assuming the lung cancer hasn't dispatched you).

Choosing to put your feet up after a hard day of what ? work ?

And canabis has effected you ACO your paranoid as hell that the work coaches are coming for you, and going to make you stack shelves at Tesco for free.

hahahaha no, that's NEVER going to happen, and is not something I ever worry about :)

No one on this planet is going to make me work for no pay, not you, not David Cameron, not Lord Freud, or anyone else. End of story.

And no one on this planet is ever going to convince me that public money should be chucked away on the likes of you.

The article simply points out how much it costs to treat alcoholic addicts nothing more nothing less.
I have not had a drink for 20 years but still go in pubs the number of alcoholics one sees is unbelievable but none or very few will admit to it.All the deniers want to spend a little time in one of the drying out clinics and be thankful that these places exist to pick up the pieces while the drinks industry worldwide makes billions.

collos25 wrote:
The article simply points out how much it costs to treat alcoholic addicts nothing more nothing less.
I have not had a drink for 20 years but still go in pubs the number of alcoholics one sees is unbelievable but none or very few will admit to it.All the deniers want to spend a little time in one of the drying out clinics and be thankful that these places exist to pick up the pieces while the drinks industry worldwide makes billions.

"The article simply points out how much it costs to treat alcoholic addicts nothing more nothing less."

That isn't strictly true!
A good number of the people treated are not addicts and stop drinking when confronted with the facts of their condition by a doctor.
I have one drink a day and have offered to stop when asked about it by my doctor, but the reply was "no need, it's good for your heart and circulation", If my liver isn't particularly robust and problems occur due to it coping with my intake of alcohol, I might end up as a statistic in reports like the one above, but I'm certainly not an addict and if I don't happen to be home at my usual tipple time, I simply do without.

First the righteous, initially bankrolled by big business, came for the smokers to divert attention away from the real causes of ill health and increase the profits of the big corporations. They promised that smoking was a 'special case' and only wanted to improve your health, (while pocketing vast amounts of public money). AND you believed their rubbish.

Now they are coming for the drinkers. Alcohol is another 'special case', it kills so many, costs so much and they only want to improve your health! Will you believe them while they pocket even more public money? I think so.

Some would argue this is a 'slippery slope' - No, it is inevitable! 100 years ago tobacco prohibition was planned to immediately follow alcohol prohibition. It didn’t work then so now they are trying the other way around.

No matter how many quit smoking, so called 'smoking attributable' illness continues to increase substantially, so before word gets out to the masses they need another culprit but one that does not adversely effect the rich and powerful polluting industries.

Alcohol fits the bill - it is YOUR fault you see, same as smoking, no one else was/is to blame, no one else can be called to account for public ill health apart from YOU and your 'filthy habits'!

The obese are next - inevitable!

Vellocatus wrote:
First the righteous, initially bankrolled by big business, came for the smokers to divert attention away from the real causes of ill health and increase the profits of the big corporations. They promised that smoking was a 'special case' and only wanted to improve your health, (while pocketing vast amounts of public money). AND you believed their rubbish.

Now they are coming for the drinkers. Alcohol is another 'special case', it kills so many, costs so much and they only want to improve your health! Will you believe them while they pocket even more public money? I think so.

Some would argue this is a 'slippery slope' - No, it is inevitable! 100 years ago tobacco prohibition was planned to immediately follow alcohol prohibition. It didn’t work then so now they are trying the other way around.

No matter how many quit smoking, so called 'smoking attributable' illness continues to increase substantially, so before word gets out to the masses they need another culprit but one that does not adversely effect the rich and powerful polluting industries.

Alcohol fits the bill - it is YOUR fault you see, same as smoking, no one else was/is to blame, no one else can be called to account for public ill health apart from YOU and your 'filthy habits'!

The obese are next - inevitable!

Nonsense.

Albion. wrote:

A Casual Observer wrote:

Get back to work wrote:

Albion. wrote:

A Casual Observer wrote:

jh137 wrote:
I know many people in their 50's who have worked hard all their lives and have realised their meagre dreams have disappeared and this is about as good as it gets; No going for the odd night away now the kids are grown up, no mortgage paid off(or moving to a better area,houses not selling (private lets keeping prices down), no holidays abroad, no new car, no warm house to come home to. So getting plastered on a few quid at home on the w/end, is just about all there is.

Yes, or choosing to put your feet up after a hard day and smoke a joint, which harms no one.

When you get older the chances of cannabis inducing paranoia are greater, I know long term smokers who gave up because of it, I wonder if you will think the same in another decade (assuming the lung cancer hasn't dispatched you).

Choosing to put your feet up after a hard day of what ? work ?

And canabis has effected you ACO your paranoid as hell that the work coaches are coming for you, and going to make you stack shelves at Tesco for free.

hahahaha no, that's NEVER going to happen, and is not something I ever worry about :)

No one on this planet is going to make me work for no pay, not you, not David Cameron, not Lord Freud, or anyone else. End of story.

And no one on this planet is ever going to convince me that public money should be chucked away on the likes of you.

Luckily you have little say in the matter.

Heavy drinkers/alcoholics are lucky if they even make it to 55 years of age. Most of the hardcore drinkers I've known were dead before 50.