The trouble with accepting 'drunk and incapables' into custody is partly a lack of cells. But it is mainly the fact that very drunk people have a much higher chance of dying than the rest of the population. And if someone dies in custody, the officers who have had dealings with that person get suspended, sometimes for months or even years - and are subject to criminal and internal investigations. I've seen it happen to colleagues. At the very best they and their families suffer the stress and anxiety of not knowing if they are going to go to jail/lose their job/lose their pension/get demoted/get fined - and get dragged through the press (who, incidently, make an assumption that because it was a death in police custody that the deceased was deliberately beaten to death by uniformed fascists). Police cells are not designed for looking after drunk and vulnerable people anyway. So we have to adopt incredibly labour intensive regimes of sitting with drunks in their cell the whole time they are there to ensure they don't die. That task is performed by police officers who would otherwise be out on the streets. So it's a Catch 22 situation. Either you do what you describe in your post, or we lock them up and tie up police officers for hours. Both options mean anger and frustration for hard-pressed emergency services - and a reduced service for those who really need us. If we do end up charging drunks with the offence of being drunk and incapable it is difficult for the courts to do anything meaningful anyway. Usually the time they have spent is custody is deemed as being their punishment. How on earth do you deter habitual drunks. Despite having a close relative who died of alcoholism, and knowing how difficult and intractable it is - I find it difficult to feel anything but anger and frustration at the selfishness of these people. Their self-intoxication results in the ambulance service, the wider health service, and the police service being unable to deal with genuine emergencies - and unable to provide a proper service to others who need it. What the answer is I don't know. Perhaps if the government were to recognise it and fund 'drunk-tanks' which provide a mixture of custody and properly trained medical intervention? Whatever happens, all I see is the drinks industry making a fortune out of these people, and then leaving them out on the streets for someone else to deal with. Perhaps the Scandinavian model of super-taxation on drink is the one way of dealing with it? Anyway - I understand your frustration Reynolds :-( Rory