Alcohol abuse

[Kaz]

I honestly think that scenario is a possibility Frank, as ludicrous as it is ,,,,,,,

[Workingman]

But is it ludicrous, Kaz?

The government keeps putting out these warnings about products without actually doing anything to ban them.

There are tests to see if people are harming themselves with drugs, drink, sugar and tobacco, and obesity is pretty obvious. Why not charge for self-harm? I bet some Think-Tank, with connections, is already on the case.

[TheOstrich]

I think the days of a free (at point of service) NHS are numbered, to be honest; indeed, there has been a lot of speculation about this of late.

If you are going to implement a charge, then you have to find a political "reason" to sweeten the pill for the populace. And yes, so-called "self-harm" seems a good a reason as any.

[Kaz]

Well perhaps ludicrous was the wrong word (it was late for me, and I was tired )

Actually years ago it would have been a ludicrous proposition, very far-fetched, but with the way things have changed I suppose it is inevitable

[Suff]

Well if they are going to test for and charge for self harm then they are going to have to have a personal baseline for every single person in the country.

More billions spent on tests to establish a baseline. Then more billions to create the computer system to hold them and make them available all over the UK. Then more billions in legal fees fighting the "no win no fee" cases where someone has been abused because they don't conform to any norm.....

Yep. That'll save money and provide a better service.

More sound byte politics. I really hate it. If they want to control sugar it will be like when they did away with section 28 in Scotland. My BIL told me that it would NOT become sexualisation of the 5-14 age group because heads would not buy books like that. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that it would be illegal to buy anything else.

So if it's self harm and it's a risk to the country and it's costing us money on our NHS, then put the sugar and drink industry on a diet, not our wallets. The first place they can start is by banning pizza, chips and sugary drinks from School canteens...

[Workingman]

My previous post re self-harm was semi-sarcastic, yet I bet that there will be people in government thinking that way.

Government will throw out these sound byte warnings as a way of softening us up for what is to come, as was done with passive smoking. Once that is achieved "controls" can then be put in place. However, nothing will be done to hurt the industries producing these harmful substances too much, they will be by way of taxing our behaviour "to save us from ourselves". If we do not conform it is no problem, as the tax keeps rolling in, and government can claim that it tried to help us. It is only a small step from there to charging us for treatment for our self-inflicted ill health.

[KateLMead]

The Bar in Westminster is heavily subsidised, the politicians can't wait to get there, cheap food, cheap booze they have it made. I write this as I sip my brandy and Ginger wine, my nightly treat..

[Aggers]

Brandy and Ginger wine ?

That sounds my cup of tea. LOL

[KateLMead]

Delicious Aggers, heart and body warming. Ginger wine £3.99 from the Co-op. A little goes a long way.xxx

[pederito1]

Have always thought - or maybe I am kidding myself- that it is the rate of drinking that is really important. So I make a glass of wins or a pint of beer or a small scotch last at least half an hour to give the liver time to deal with it. Difficult if you are in a group where some are eager to buy the next round, it seems to have worked with me however as my liver function is still OK on regular tests.