I understand your wish to focus on the main topic, MtheGM, but I'm not sure it is really possible to separate things out like that. If you argue that drunks should pay something for treatments, and give a certain rationale, then you can't help implying that other treatments may also be candidates for charging if the same or a similar rationale applies, whether you want to make that implication or not. Certainly, when the powers-that-be look at ways of funding things, if they find the public accept one set of charges it makes it much easier for them to argue for another that is similar. Equally, I can see a rational argument for no charge, or the full charge, but anything in between is a pretty arbitrary choice depending on what seems right at the time, and is therefore liable to be revised as circumstances change.