Alcohol Limit

[Churchill]

No actual argument I see. Par for the course.

You'll find that I was agreeing with someone there.

Argument? With you? You're deluded!

[sasguru]

You're deluded!

Quite. My delusion is that you have the intellectual apparatus to understand a point.

My apologies.

[suityou01]

are you seriously 6ft 8??

that's massively tall

freakishly

[TykeMerc]

I don't exceed the 21 units on average, it's not deliberate, I drive a fair bit and it just doesn't occur to me to drink sometimes for weeks on end.
I drink less since my local shut after the smoking ban.

I enjoy a drink when I fancy one and I don't care if others drink more or less than I do so long as they don't get stupidly aggressive.

[Board Game Geek]

Well, I shall attempt to respond politely to SAS's question, since it was asked innocently enough.

Essentially, it asked whether we (and I assume he means the collective public), should fund the treatment of others where the illness / disease is self-inflicted.

The price has already been paid.

It's called National Insurance, and it not only covers "lifestyle decisions of others, which you may or may not agree with", but it also covers you individually as well, for your own "lifestlye decisions, which others may or may not agree with".

Collectively, we all fund the NHS, and collectively we all benefit it from it, without the further complication and ethical dilemmas of choosing who is more worthy to receive treatment or not. (NICE notwithstanding, but that's a different story).

Hence, although it is justifiable to say "Why should I pay for others self-afflictions?", know then that others like me who pay our NI do so knowing that it will help me, you and others, regardless of misfortune or self-affliction, somewhere down the line.

I don't know your particular habits or vices, or if you even have any, but my share of my NI tax contribution for your treatment will be there when you need it.

If you are private, then no matter, my share can help someone else who isn't as fortunate.

[RichardCranium]

It's called National Insurance, and it not only covers "lifestyle decisions of others, which you may or may not agree with", but it also covers you individually as well, for your own "lifestlye decisions, which others may or may not agree with".

Thank you for the injection of common sense.

I now see I was wrong to think body piercings and tattoos that go wrong should not be treated by the NHS. I had also wondered about mountain climbers that fall and get hurt and similar dangerous hobbies.

What you're saying is, if I want to moan about them, I have to give up alcohol, give up sometimes going over the speed limit and accept I shouldn't get treatment if my 25 years of smoking (stopped a few years ago) catches up with me.

Bollocks to that.

OK, I'll tolerate other people's foibles - it makes far more sense than living in a society that tells us we should not do that which is legal and makes life worth living.

[expat]

Well, I shall attempt to respond politely to SAS's question, since it was asked innocently enough.

Essentially, it asked whether we (and I assume he means the collective public), should fund the treatment of others where the illness / disease is self-inflicted.

The price has already been paid.

It's called National Insurance, and it not only covers "lifestyle decisions of others, which you may or may not agree with", but it also covers you individually as well, for your own "lifestlye decisions, which others may or may not agree with".
...

Bravo+1. Excellent piece of good sense and humanity.

[EternalOptimist]

and the latest scores are

BGG 1
SadGuru 0