Is wine addictive?

[expat]

As this thread shows there is an epidemic of alcohol abuse in this country. While that is a personal choice, I think the NHS should charge for self-inflicted conditions.

What's a self-inflicted condition?

My first problem, a really serious one, is that most voluntary activities carry risks. Who is to say that some activities are "normal", whereas others are beyond the pale? Travelling in a car is very dangerous: should we charge for all motor vehicle injuries? Or do we just apply some arbitrary moral judgement, preferably yours, to all?

My second problem comes from how alcohol (for example) causes medical conditions. If drinking 5 units a day makes, say, oesophageal cancer 20% more likely, and I drink that amount, and I get oesophageal cancer, do I have a self-inflicted condition? I say 4-to-1 I don't (OK I know that's not how probability works, but you know what I mean). The condition can be caused by alcohol but most often it isn't.

My third problem with it would be how it would be almost certain to be applied: you drink, so you're not covered. Arbitrary.

My fourth problem with it would be the dishonesty of taking people's taxes including that which covers the NHS, and then denying coverage without a refund. This is punitive, and that is wrong (since the contributions are compulsory). Or do you imagine that I could testify in advance that I drink, and get reduced taxes to offset the fact that the treatment they pay for is now unavailable? Then just watch the drink figures go!

[ratewhore]

What's a self-inflicted condition?

friction burns on yer knob...

[expat]

friction burns on yer knob...

Not necessarily

[sasguru]

What's a self-inflicted condition?

My first problem, a really serious one, is that most voluntary activities carry risks. Who is to say that some activities are "normal", whereas others are beyond the pale? Travelling in a car is very dangerous: should we charge for all motor vehicle injuries? Or do we just apply some arbitrary moral judgement, preferably yours, to all?

My second problem comes from how alcohol (for example) causes medical conditions. If drinking 5 units a day makes, say, oesophageal cancer 20% more likely, and I drink that amount, and I get oesophageal cancer, do I have a self-inflicted condition? I say 4-to-1 I don't (OK I know that's not how probability works, but you know what I mean). The condition can be caused by alcohol but most often it isn't.

My third problem with it would be how it would be almost certain to be applied: you drink, so you're not covered. Arbitrary.

My fourth problem with it would be the dishonesty of taking people's taxes including that which covers the NHS, and then denying coverage without a refund. This is punitive, and that is wrong (since the contributions are compulsory). Or do you imagine that I could testify in advance that I drink, and get reduced taxes to offset the fact that the treatment they pay for is now unavailable? Then just watch the drink figures go!

Its not that difficult. I suppose everyone should be allowed a warning.
Consistently drinking more than safe levels after being told not to, then expecting to be treated for it is clearly unfair to other people who contribute to the NHS and look after themselves.
Any dangerous activity (and it's not that hard to define this - to some extent it's already done by insurance companies) that's not essential for earning your living or life in general should and must be penalised.
A health service cannot be a universal panacea for everyone's bad habits or it will collapse. The NHS is well on the way to doing so in some areas.

[Jubber]

(ahem) Getting back on topic - Is Wine Addictive?

As I mentioned earlier - it is the alcohol in the wine that is highly addictive to some people, not all. Some people can drink like trojans and never have many problems, others seem to have issues with alcohol from day one.

I personally think this quote is the great test of whether you should give your 'wine' drinking a closer look...

If, when you honestly want to, you find you cannot quit entirely, or if when drinking, you have little control over the amount you take, you are probably alcoholic.

Can you easily have a glass or two of wine out of the bottle and leave the rest for tomorrow? Or do you just have to finish the bottle and maybe open another? Do you sit at work and dream of the first drink tonight? Can't wait to get to the pub after work and neglect other things/people because of it?

Unfortunately, most alcoholics (many people do not like that word as there is a stereotype) generally have to go through the usual chaos

e.g

Broken relationships, lost jobs, financial difficulties, poor health

before they ask for help, but there is plenty of good help out there if it is needed.

[ratewhore]

Not necessarily

ah - touche...

[expat]

Its not that difficult. I suppose everyone should be allowed a warning.
Consistently drinking more than safe levels after being told not to, then expecting to be treated for it is clearly unfair to other people who contribute to the NHS and look after themselves.
Any dangerous activity (and it's not that hard to define this - to some extent it's already done by insurance companies) that's not essential for earning your living or life in general should and must be penalised.
A health service cannot be a universal panacea for everyone's bad habits or it will collapse. The NHS is well on the way to doing so in some areas.

So you would penalise people for travelling in cars. That is clearly implied by what you said, unless you would use the phrase "essential for ... life in general" to cover what you judge acceptable, like riding in cars, but not what you judge unacceptable, like drinking (and what about bacon rolls?). It's arbitrary, and pretending otherwise is weaselly, sorry, I don't mean to be rude. That was my first problem.

But you missed the point about what I called my second problem: how can you tell that a condition is caused by behaviour? You say "Consistently drinking more than safe levels after being told not to, then expecting to be treated for it" but what is "it"? It is not drinking that comes for treatment, it is medical conditions that may or may not be cause by a person's drinking. Alcohol consumption is a risk factor for oesophageal cancer, but most oesophageal cancer is not caused by drinking: do you penalise all sufferers who happen to drink, even if that's not the cause?

And you ignored my third and fourth problems completely. Good thing you're not trying to convince me

[techno]

...I want wine every night, and I can't see the point in having a meal without it!
I dont want any other booze, and I dont need a whole bottle (although it's getting there!!), but I'm starting to wonder if wine is actually addictive? I've never felt this dependant on something since I smoked.
I seriously couldn't imagine not having a drink when I get in tonight

Anyone else the same?

SallyAnne

Just wait until you have kids, you will be cracking open the bottle as soon as the little darlings go to bed (and sod the meal). That's what me and the mrs do

[expat]

SallyAnne

Just wait until you have kids, you will be cracking open the bottle as soon as the little darlings go to bed (and sod the meal). That's what me and the mrs do

Then as they get older and go to bed later and later, you'll find yourself unaccountable more and more stressed, until you realise that you've been pushing your first drink back. Then you make the decsion to drink in front of them. Everybody does eventually.

[sasguru]

So you would penalise people for travelling in cars. That is clearly implied by what you said, unless you would use the phrase "essential for ... life in general" to cover what you judge acceptable, like riding in cars, but not what you judge unacceptable, like drinking (and what about bacon rolls?). It's arbitrary, and pretending otherwise is weaselly, sorry, I don't mean to be rude. That was my first problem.

But you missed the point about what I called my second problem: how can you tell that a condition is caused by behaviour? You say "Consistently drinking more than safe levels after being told not to, then expecting to be treated for it" but what is "it"? It is not drinking that comes for treatment, it is medical conditions that may or may not be cause by a person's drinking. Alcohol consumption is a risk factor for oesophageal cancer, but most oesophageal cancer is not caused by drinking: do you penalise all sufferers who happen to drink, even if that's not the cause?

And you ignored my third and fourth problems completely. Good thing you're not trying to convince me

This is the problem with socialised medicine, isn't it? No wonder the NHS is the 3rd largest employer in the world (after the Chinese Army and Indian Railways).
This is what "service industry" in the UK consists of. People over eat processed food and drink too much leading to epidemics of diabetes, obesity and liver disease.
Then the NHS has to expand to cope.
I suppose its a job creation scheme of sorts, except that not enough to people can be bothered to become doctors so we have to import them.
Of course these same obese people complain about immigrants in the pub, fag on lip.