Dr Ciara Kelly talking nonsense on Claire Byrne?

Snickers Man

Yet another sterile RTE discussion on "our relationship with alcohol" on the Claire Byrne show on Monday 18th Jan.

Sterile because once again it presented the false dichotomy that our problem is a battle between good and evil with the former represented by the medical profession and the latter who are "only in it for the money" as the doughty Ms Byrne quipped, represented by the "drinks industry".

The simple truth is that it is the great Irish public that will decide by our behaviour exactly what our "drink culture" is.

But once again in the white corner was Dr Kelly and in the black corner was an economist who had been commissioned by a representative body from the alcohol industry to write a report on that industry's economic impact.

The economist was harangued by Dr Kelly to show remorse for the fact that Ireland has the second highest per capita consumption of alcohol in the world. He denied that that is the case. ( Watch it on RTE Player here while the playback window is still live. It's about 31 minutes in)

This denial sent the shrill doctor into something near apoplexy "If you're going to refute the fact that we are the second biggest consumer [of alcohol per capita] in the world we might as well not have a debate because if I say black and you say white and you're just making it up, it's just a load of nonsense. "

Unfortunately for the good doctor, I think her opponent is right. I don't know where she got her figures. She certainly didn't get them from the oft-quoted Government steering group report on alcohol and substance abuse which has a table of overall alcohol consumption for OECD countries. (see below) Ireland is behind several European countries in that ranking.

Granted, those figures date back to 2011 but the economist was quoting 2014 figures which the doctor scoffed at.

He also pointed out that Ireland has the most expensive alcohol in Europe. (Actually my understanding is that we're only the second most expensive) "Make it more expensive!" urged the good doctor.

If plan A is demonstrably not working, keep trying plan A. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


Data from Steering Group report. Figures for 2011


OECD Country Litres per capita Change in consumption levels
(15 years and over) 1980–2009 (%)

France 12.3 -37%
Portugal 12.2 -18%
Austria 12.2 -16%
Czech Republic 12.1 +3%
Estonia 12.0 n.a
Luxembourg 11.8 -14%
Hungary 11.8 -21%
Slovenia 11.5 n.a
Russian Fed. 11.5 +45%
Ireland 11.3 +18%
United Kingdom 10.2 +9%
Poland 10.2 -11%
Switzerland 10.1 -25%
Denmark 10.1 -14%
Australia 10.1 -22%
Spain 10.0 -46%
Finland 10.0 +27%
Germany 9.7 -32%
Belgium 9.7 -28%
Netherlands 9.4 -18%
New Zealand 9.3 -21%
Greece 9.2 -19%
OECD 9.1 -9%
Slovak Republic 9.0 -38%
Korea 8.9 n.a
United States 8.8 -15%
Chile 8.6 -21%
Canada 8.2 -23%
Italy 8.0 -52%
Sweden 7.4 +10%
Japan 7.4 +4%
Iceland 7.3 +70%
South Africa 7.2 +17%
Norway 6.7 +12%
Brazil 6.2 +188%
Mexico 5.9 +74%
China 4.4 +159%
Israel 2.5 -11%
Turkey 1.5 -17%
India 0.7 +47%
Indonesia 0.1 -25%

Nodin

I know a lot of people are attracted to recreating things, like Roman Legions, medieval life and the like, but this is the first Puritanical Prohibitionist Re-enactor I've come across.

foggy_lad

The way she went on I thought she was on crack, or just half cut!

She's the same as that clown vradkar and his minimum price bull.

Maybe they both went on a bender and woke up in the same bed and have sworn off the demon drink ever since?

Junkyard Tom

Inviting a guy who'd unashamedly prostituted himself to the booze-sellers to create the facade of a 'balanced' discussion with the medical profession is hilariously bad current affairs.

Up next: A chicken debates a fox who claims that hen-house security levels are over the top.

Later: Cows say red meat consumption levels are immoral.

foggy_lad wrote: »

She's the same as that clown vradkar and his minimum price bull.

FINDINGS:
Longitudinal estimates suggest that a 10% increase in the minimum price of an alcoholic beverage reduced its consumption relative to other beverages by 16.1% (P < 0.001). Time-series estimates indicate that a 10% increase in minimum prices reduced consumption of spirits and liqueurs by 6.8% (P = 0.004), wine by 8.9% (P = 0.033), alcoholic sodas and ciders by 13.9% (P = 0.067), beer by 1.5% (P = 0.043) and all alcoholic drinks by 3.4% (P = 0.007).

Stockwell T, Auld MC, Zhao J, Martin G.
Addiction. 2012 May.

Yer Aul One

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

FINDINGS:
Longitudinal estimates suggest that a 10% increase in the minimum price of an alcoholic beverage reduced its consumption relative to other beverages by 16.1% (P < 0.001). Time-series estimates indicate that a 10% increase in minimum prices reduced consumption of spirits and liqueurs by 6.8% (P = 0.004), wine by 8.9% (P = 0.033), alcoholic sodas and ciders by 13.9% (P = 0.067), beer by 1.5% (P = 0.043) and all alcoholic drinks by 3.4% (P = 0.007).

Relative to other beverages is the most important point here, as in reality different alcoholic drinks can be considered substitute goods

Canadel

The notion that alcohol advertising is driving consumption in Ireland is nonsense.

The economist lost all credibility when he said that. Alcohol advertising creates the idea of there being an intrinsic correlation between alcohol and Irish culture. This is an incredibly powerful message and can create a lasting memory in the minds of the target group which alcohol advertising, like tobacco before it, focuses specifically on: young people. Alcohol advertising might not be driving consumption in Ireland in the short run, but it certainly is contributing massively in the long run.

jimgoose

One side is in it for the money alright. The other manufactures and distributes various drinks.

Snickers Man

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Inviting a guy who'd unashamedly prostituted himself to the booze-sellers to create the facade of a 'balanced' discussion with the medical profession is hilariously bad current affairs.

You mean sold his professional services for a fee?

Do you think Claire Byrne was there for the benefit of her health and out of the goodness of her heart?

Does the doctor provide her services to patients gratis?

Why are they allowed earn a living and he not without being decried as a whore?

Snickers Man

Oh boy. Look what I just found!!! It gets worse, Joe.

More recent figures from the OECD which shows that Ireland is in 11th place among OECD countries, not second!!! And our overall consumption is dropping.

Note: this was published a week and a half ago in the Health section of the Irish Independent to which Dr Kelly is a frequent contributor.

So either she doesn't read the paper she writes for and is unaware of the facts or else.........let's not go there.

lertsnim

Snickers Man wrote: »

Why are they allowed earn a living and he not without being decried as a whore?

It is a typical tactic when someone tries to discredit another's opinion.

jimgoose

lertsnim wrote: »

It is a typical tactic when someone tries to discredit another's opinion is demonstrated to be a pathological liar who goes into a mini-psychological meltdown when proven wrong on live television by a competent, sane person.

Atlantic Dawn

If you look at alcohol consumption figures in the EU you can see that either a cheap or expensive pricing level has nothing whatsoever to do with consumption levels in that country, this is fact.

LDN_Irish

Snickers Man wrote: »

the great Irish public

Cringe.

Nodin

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Inviting a guy who'd unashamedly prostituted himself to the booze-sellers to create the facade of a 'balanced' discussion with the medical profession is hilariously bad current affairs.
.

...but one must say that a shrill puritan such as the good doctor hardly bodes well for a decent discussion in any event. And I speak as one who has not been a regular boozer either in public establishments or out of them for over two decades.

the_syco

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Inviting a guy who'd unashamedly prostituted himself to the booze-sellers to create the facade of a 'balanced' discussion with the medical profession is hilariously bad current affairs.

As opposed to the "host" who pulls fictional figures from thin air?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

FINDINGS:
Longitudinal estimates suggest that a 10% increase in the minimum price of an alcoholic beverage reduced its consumption relative to other beverages by 16.1% (P < 0.001). Time-series estimates indicate that a 10% increase in minimum prices reduced consumption of spirits and liqueurs by 6.8% (P = 0.004), wine by 8.9% (P = 0.033), alcoholic sodas and ciders by 13.9% (P = 0.067), beer by 1.5% (P = 0.043) and all alcoholic drinks by 3.4% (P = 0.007).

Stockwell T, Auld MC, Zhao J, Martin G.
Addiction. 2012 May.

Just to confirm, you're comparing British Columbia, in Canada to Ireland?

BattleCorp

foggy_lad wrote: »

Maybe they both went on a bender and woke up in the same bed and have sworn off the demon drink ever since?

Both went on a bender. :pac: lol

Junkyard Tom

Snickers Man wrote: »

You mean sold his professional services for a fee?

He was commissioned by the drinks (bought and paid for) industry to come up with figures that suited their ends. An assassin sells his professional services but that doesn't mean the service he provides has any virtue.

Do you think Claire Byrne was there for the benefit of her health and out of the goodness of her heart?

What does Claire Byrne stand to gain from any regulations of the drinks industry? Stay focused you're beginning to wander.

Does the doctor provide her services to patients gratis?

What does the medical profession stand to gain from minimum pricing or advertising restrictions? If anything the medical profession stands to lose 'custom' with a reduction in alcohol consumption.

Muahahaha

OP I think you're misquoting the doctor. I watched it the other night and am fairly certain that she didn't say Ireland has the 2nd highest consumption of alcohol, she said that we have the second highest rate of binge drinking.

I think we all know by now that Irelands alcohol consumption has been dropping for several years now so she didn't use any of those stats because they wouldn't suit her anti-drinking agenda, instead she focussed on binge drinking to get her points across. She never actually said where those stats on binge drinking came from and I'd be interested to know myself.

Muahahaha

OP I think you're misquoting the doctor. I watched it the other night and am fairly certain that she didn't say Ireland has the 2nd highest consumption of alcohol, she said that we have the second highest rate of binge drinking.

I think we all know by now that Irelands alcohol consumption has been dropping for several years now so she didn't use any of those stats because they wouldn't suit her anti-drinking agenda, instead she focussed on binge drinking to get her points across. She never actually said where those stats on binge drinking came from and I'd be interested to know myself.

Junkyard Tom

Nodin wrote: »

...but one must say that a shrill puritan such as the good doctor hardly bodes well for a decent discussion in any event.

I'm not too aware of the puritanical intentions of that particular individual tbh. I was more annoyed by the preachy pioneer whose qualification was 'former Rose of Tralee'... eh.. stop talking, will ya?. I was under the impression the Doctor was there on behalf of the medical establishment.

And I speak as one who has not been a regular boozer either in public establishments or out of them for over two decades.

And I speak as a person who enjoys a drink or ten of a night out, as a person who thinks pubs and off-licences should be allowed open for as long as they choose providing they're not causing a nuisance in residential areas, who believes that drug possession should not be illegal, who believes that the legalisation of marijuana and recreational drugs would be a good start.

In fact I believe puritans are largely a bunch of dour pricks who'd better serve their designs for society by shutting the fuck up and leading by an example that everyone else can ignore.

Snickers Man

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

He was commissioned by the drinks (bought and paid for) industry to come up with figures that suited their ends.

Which doesn't in any way prove, or even suggest, that the figures he presents are false. You can get figures from any number of reputable bodies including OECD, the World Health Organisation and EuroStat which support the assertion that Ireland is not one of the largest consumers of alcohol on a per capita basis.

If a spokesman for the alcohol industry points that out, it doesn't make it untrue anymore than Dr Kelly peddling false statistics makes her statements valid facts.

What is damaging to the credibility of a doctor is basing her argument on a false premise. In her day job that might be called making a false diagnosis.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What does Claire Byrne stand to gain from any regulations of the drinks industry? Stay focused you're beginning to wander.

What does the medical profession stand to gain from minimum pricing or advertising restrictions? If anything the medical profession stands to lose 'custom' with a reduction in alcohol consumption.

Of course you can take account of the vested interests represented by any speaker but the idea that anything the alcohol industry says is automatically a lie is nonsensical. If he states as a fact something that can be verified independently then it's a fact.

By the same token, if Dr Kelly states as a fact something that can be refuted by independent verification then she's in error. And can be called on that.

So go on then. Go find the independent statistics that say that Ireland has the second highest per capita alcohol consumption in the world, as Dr Kelly claimed. The various figures I gave you came from the OECD via the Irish independent and the Government's Steering Group report on Alcohol and substance misuse. (I have a copy on my PC, but it's available online)

You don't have to take my word for it. And, if you have any sense, you shouldn't take Dr Kelly's.

Snickers Man

Muahahaha wrote: »

OP I think you're misquoting the doctor. I watched it the other night and am fairly certain that she didn't say Ireland has the 2nd highest consumption of alcohol, she said that we have the second highest rate of binge drinking.

I must ask you to withdraw that comment. I certainly DID NOT misquote the doctor. I have linked to the RTE Player recording of the program. It only stays live for a few days and as I speak I believe it is still live now. By all means check the record while you can and satisfy yourself that I am quoting her correctly.

She did indeed point out that we have a high level of binge drinking. I personally believe that that is the essential nature of the "problem" that exists with regard to alcohol in this country. But it is hard to find statistics to back that up. One must rely on one's perceptions and observations, allied to the data that comes from more general gathering of statistics.

The issue I have with the doctor presenting false assertions is that a tactic that can result in changing one behaviour (eg overall consumption) may not prove effective in countering another. Indeed, there is almost a linear correlation between countries that have high pricing --which tends to reduce overall consumption--having the worst reputations for binge drinking.

The Brits have expensive alcohol and are bad binge drinkers. We have more expensive alcohol and are worse than they. And the Scandinavians esp Sweden and Finland are more expensive again and they are the worst bingers in the EU.

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think we all know by now that Irelands alcohol consumption has been dropping for several years now so she didn't use any of those stats because they wouldn't suit her anti-drinking agenda, instead she focussed on binge drinking to get her points across. She never actually said where those stats on binge drinking came from and I'd be interested to know myself.

Ditto.

Junkyard Tom

Snickers Man wrote: »

Which doesn't in any way prove, or even suggest, that the figures he presents are false.

I wasn't arguing against the figures he was paid to present. The figures themselves can be distorted and can be stupidly reductive but that's a different argument. I was highlighting the ridiculous 'false balance' of having a representative of the medical profession (to whose benefit?) in one corner and a paid shill in the other (to whose benefit?).

It's like a public broadcaster having an evolutionary biologist debate a creationist - the very fact that the creationist is given an equal platform for his bullshit is a distortion of the issue before the discussion has even begun because of its blatant false balance.

What is damaging to the credibility of a doctor is basing her argument on a false premise.

That's fair enough - if she's wrong on that point then she's wrong and it didn't lend her views credibility. That said there is undeniably a public health issue when it comes to the consumption of alcohol in Ireland. It's conspicuously evident every weekend in urban centres and hospital A&E's and that's before we consider what happens behind closed doors - harm caused that you simply cannot cost.

Of course you can take account of the vested interests represented by any speaker but the idea that anything the alcohol industry says is automatically a lie is nonsensical.

The alcohol industry's primary responsibility is to its bottom line. You don't have to outwardly lie to distort the truth. The very fact that we're here discussing the virtues, or lack thereof, of the alcohol sellers is a direct consequence of the false balance that RTE presented to the public. We should be discussing the level of societal harm alcohol causes and how we can reduce that harm; suffice to say the alcohol business is only too happy to have any consequence of its product remain an externality.

A REPORT FROM the World Health Organisation has revealed that Ireland has the second highest rate of binge drinking in the world.

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse

Snickers Man

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I was highlighting the ridiculous 'false balance' of having a representative of the medical profession (to whose benefit?) in one corner and a paid shill in the other (to whose benefit?).

Well, TBH that is the main point I was making in my OP. You say false balance, I say false dichotomy.

I also said that it would be the "great Irish public" (a term you seem to have some difficulty with) that will determine by its actions the nature of our drinking culture. Regardless of what the medical profession or the drinks industry thinks.

Perhaps I should be clear. I have no professional or familial connection with any part of the drinks industry. Although I am a fairly regular customer

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That said there is undeniably a public health issue when it comes to the consumption of alcohol in Ireland. It's conspicuously evident every weekend in urban centres and hospital A&E's and that's before we consider what happens behind closed doors - harm caused that you simply cannot cost.

Nobody is denying that. The question is how do you improve it. And sadly I don't think we are conducting the debate at all well. Pitting the doctors against the drinks industry will likely produce a disastrous group-think solution that will satisfy both their egos and bottom line and screw the rest of us.

Who benefits from this whole "minimum pricing" malarkey?

Retailers see improved margins: Good for them
Vintners see reduced difference between their prices and off license sales: They're happy
Doctors claims they are taking steps and when it all goes pear shaped they can still blame "the drinks industry": bully for them.


Who suffers: The Irish public, especially the Ordinary Decent Drinker. Higher prices. Little change in destructive practices.

Why so?

Expect to see an increase in illegal drinking clubs in poorer/deprived areas. Also of alcohol smuggling and greater involvement of criminal gangs in a relatively risk free environment with a guaranteed captive market.

The very fact that we're here discussing the virtues, or lack thereof, of the alcohol sellers is a direct consequence of the false balance that RTE presented to the public. We should be discussing the level of societal harm alcohol causes and how we can reduce that harm

Hear hear. :D:D:D:D

So what would you do.

BnB

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I wasn't arguing against the figures he was paid to present. The figures themselves can be distorted and can be stupidly reductive but that's a different argument. I was highlighting the ridiculous 'false balance' of having a representative of the medical profession (to whose benefit?) in one corner and a paid shill in the other (to whose benefit?).

Trying to paint Ciara Kelly as just "a representative of the medical profession" is extremely misleading. She is a journalist. Her agenda is to self promotion.

At least the guy who was on representing the drinks industry:

1. Had the decency to outline his agenda (that he was representing the drinks industry)
2. Did some research on his side of the argument

Junkyard Tom

Snickers Man wrote: »

Well, TBH that is the main point I was making in my OP. You say false balance, I say false dichotomy.

Well nobody was saying abstinence = good and drinking = evil.

I also said that it would be the "great Irish public" that will determine by its actions the nature of our drinking culture. Regardless of what the medical profession or the drinks industry thinks.

Except they both have the capability to influence public policy and therefore drinking culture. I know which group I'd rather have informing public health.

I am a fairly regular customer

As am I.

Pitting the doctors against the drinks industry will likely produce a disastrous group-think solution that will satisfy both their egos and bottom line and screw the rest of us.

Except it's only the drink industry's bottom line that would suffer. Reduction in harm caused by alcohol would mean less work for people involved in services that cater to the ill-effects of alcohol misuse.

Who benefits from this whole "minimum pricing" malarkey? Retailers see improved margins: Good for them

Hardly. The more booze costs the less people will be able to afford it.

Vintners see reduced difference between their prices and off license sales: They're happy

Well if you think about it if 8 cans costs €20 instead of €10 that leaves a consumer with €10 less to spend in the pub.

Who suffers: The Irish public, especially the Ordinary Decent Drinker. Higher prices. Little change in destructive practices.

A reduction in harm will see the ODD's taxes being put to better use or back in his pocket.

Expect to see an increase in illegal drinking clubs in poorer/deprived areas. Also of alcohol smuggling and greater involvement of criminal gangs in a relatively risk free environment with a guaranteed captive market.

OMG that sounds horrible.

A parade of horribles is a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action.

So what would you do.

Look at other countries where they've reduced the harm drug/alcohol use causes to society and implement similar programmes and if that includes minimum pricing so be it.

ArtSmart

Tv3 got lucky with Vinny.

The rest?

Muck.

drunkmonkey

Sideballoon wrote: »

Irish people are drinking less and less ever since 2001 when alcohol consumption peaked. We're drinking about 40% less.

Yea but were probably taking 9000% more drugs than we were in 2001. We didn't just stop tearing the arse out of it, we merely changed how we done it.

We're living on a small little island in the Atlantic, waters too cold to swim in, pisses rain 9mts of the year, the youth are taking the bullet or the boat, we've draconian laws around everything from crossing the road to buying a tin of beer after 10, were taxed to the bollix and now after all the ****e we put up with from our overlord ex teachers, the want to price beer so high it'll be cheaper get Brazilian hookers to bring us cocaine on silver service than go out for a few beers. : (

foggy_lad

Anyone that thinks that 3pints is a binge can go kiss my hairy ass! That doctor and the minister of health would be better spending time on treating the poor unfortunate people they put on trollies instead of bringing about legislation that will be rubbished by the EU courts!

Yer Aul One

I saw Leo walking into a popular BYO restaurant doubling fisting bottles of red wine. I fully support him in doing so but obviously his chateau neuf would not be targeted by the minimum alcohol pricing...well for him

Darkest Horse

LDN_Irish wrote: »

Cringe.

I was going to pick up on that myself but decided not to. I would assume the OP did this because he/she has watched one too many television shows in which the "Great British public" are allowed to vote/have a say. This, I understand, could be said another way: 'the population of Great Britain'. Unless the name of our country is now 'Great Ireland', I think the OP has got it wrong. Of course, we are great but we don't need to shout about it.

suicide_circus

Dr Kelly is a talking head, self styled as the voice of the medical profession who is wheeled out by various media outlets when they need a young media-savvy doctor. She has presented George Hook's radio show when he was on holidays. She is a doctor and a "personality".

Snickers Man

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I know which group I'd rather have informing public health.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that just because somebody knows in intimate detail how the human digestive system works, they are equally knowledgeable about how to influence overall behaviour in society.

Doctors may well know what sort of general consumption patterns are best conducive to good health; what they are really bad at, in my opinion, is influencing society to adopt those behaviours. So they get frustrated that people can't see the wisdom of their advice and start demanding coercion instead.

Not clever.

ME: So what would you do?
You:
Look at other countries where they've reduced the harm drug/alcohol use causes to society and implement similar programmes and if that includes minimum pricing so be it.

Well absolutely!! That is what we should be doing. Isn't that what we did when we made a determined effort to reduce road deaths?

Who do we want to be like? Who did this already? How did they do it? Can we do something similar here? I believe Victoria Australia was the template and that is what we followed. REsult: in absolute terms a 50 per cent reduction in road fatalities in 10 years. Not bad.

Now. I see no evidence of a similar approach to our "drink problem". I would love to see a TV anchor, or radio presenter, just once ask an anti-alcohol abuse campaigner "Which country or society's attitude to alcohol is the best one to try and emulate here? Who's got it right? How should we go about modifying our behaviour to get there?"

Instead we get a lot of old bollocks about academic studies carried out in controlled environments that show what their creators always intended they show. Hint: when ever you see a "medical professional" say teh words "studies show" you can be fairly sure they are bull****ting.

If you could get one to answer the question "who do we want to be like?" we could then, as you say, look at ALL the factors that go to making that country's attitude to drink what it is. I am fairly certain "minimum unit pricing" will not be one of them.

Junkyard Tom

Snickers Man wrote: »

Hint: when ever you see a "medical professional" say teh words "studies show" you can be fairly sure they are bull****ting.

Yeah, **** that 'empirical evidence' and 'scientific method' shit.

Snickers Man

Darkest Horse wrote: »

I was going to pick up on that myself but decided not to. I would assume the OP did this because he/she has watched one too many television shows in which the "Great British public" are allowed to vote/have a say. This, I understand, could be said another way: 'the population of Great Britain'. Unless the name of our country is now 'Great Ireland', I think the OP has got it wrong. Of course, we are great but we don't need to shout about it.

All right, Jesus. It was just an expression. Replace it with "Irish public in general then" if it irritates you so much.

Fusspots :rolleyes:

Snickers Man

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah, **** that 'empirical evidence' and 'scientific method' shit.

You know, if you just pulled your head out of your arse for a minute, you might see that I actually agree with much of what you say but rather than engage in a simple dialectic that might reveal much more common ground you would rather disappear down a rabbit hole of mutual abuse.

In a way, this reflects the silly and impertinent false balance/dichotomy of public discussion on this topic being limited to face offs between the medical profession and the drinks industry with which BOTH of us are frustrated.

And I am not decrying the scientific method or empirical evidence. Far from it. I am just drawing a distinction between controlled laboratory environments, when only certain variable factors are compared and all else are held constant and the real world where numerous "externalities" are in play.

rainbowtrout

Snickers Man wrote: »

He also pointed out that Ireland has the most expensive alcohol in Europe. (Actually my understanding is that we're only the second most expensive) "Make it more expensive!" urged the good doctor.

He's clearly never been to Norway then. Paid on average €9-10 for a pint in Oslo over the summer, and in one bar in Bergen paid €23 for two drinks :eek:

darkpagandeath

rainbowtrout wrote: »

He's clearly never been to Norway then. Paid on average €9-10 for a pint in Oslo over the summer, and in one bar in Bergen paid €23 for two drinks :eek:

Sigh, You do know it's the Price over all for alcohol in Ireland. We are second on price for drink in the Entire EU/EZ just behind Finland. The stats are in many threads about this. We are first most expensive in the EU/EZ for cigarettes. Not being Irish and living here a very long time, I can tell you that Irish people do not drink to the levels being trotted out. You binge a bit more due to stupid laws simple as. Crazy price of drink = pre drinking to levels larger than places with cheap drink. Stupid closing times = Pre drinking on top of a nights consumption chucked into a few hours. And then you have the OMG the streets are red with blood lark. Well If you did not close the whole place at the same time you would not have this problem. You would have like most other places that have cheap drink and normal opening times a slow movement of drunk people to home in small numbers creating no problem. Drunk Tanks would be a good idea to and large fines for taking the piss.

Junkyard Tom

Snickers Man wrote: »

You know, if you just pulled your head out of your arse for a minute

I understand you're intensely frustrated but there's no need to get abusive.

you might see that I actually agree with much of what you say

It's difficult to disagree with the wise and righteous.

but rather than engage in a simple dialectic that might reveal much more common ground you would rather disappear down a rabbit hole of mutual abuse.

Sir, 'tis only your good self who has gotten thoroughly enraged.

In a way, this reflects the silly and impertinent false balance/dichotomy of public discussion on this topic being limited to face offs between the medical profession and the drinks industry with which BOTH of us are frustrated.

You conjured the false dichotomy, as if from thin air, and I observed the false balance, they're not the same.

And I am not decrying the scientific method or empirical evidence.

But you clearly are?

Originally Posted by Snickers Man
Hint: when ever you see a "medical professional" say teh words "studies show" you can be fairly sure they are bull****ting.

Far from it. I am just drawing a distinction between controlled laboratory environments, when only certain variable factors are compared and all else are held constant and the real world where numerous "externalities" are in play.

You cannot study large numbers of human being in a laboratory - it's impractical. We work with the evidence we can realistically collate.

I think your unbridled fury risks dragging this discussion into the gutter so I shall retire from it forthwith.

Have a good evening.

darkpagandeath

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I understand you're intensely frustrated but there's no need to get abusive.



It's difficult to disagree with the wise and righteous.



Sir, 'tis only your good self who has gotten thoroughly enraged.



You conjured the false dichotomy, as if from thin air, and I observed the false balance, they're not the same.



But you clearly are?





You cannot study large numbers of human being in a laboratory - it's impractical. We work with the evidence we can realistically collate.

I think your unbridled fury risks dragging this discussion into the gutter so I shall retire from it forthwith.

Have a good evening.

You a link to the laboratory testing in relation to shops near the dail selling below cost and below excise. As stated by Leo.

Snickers Man

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think your unbridled fury risks dragging this discussion into the gutter so I shall retire from it forthwith.

Have a good evening.

Good riddance.

Meh. It's After Hours. What can one expect.