Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Fr Tod Umptious

kylith wrote: »

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

But that cheapest crap is now going to be more expensive thus they cannot drink as much of it.

I love all this "we need a attitude change to alcohol, but MUP is not the answer.."

It basically saying, "yes we have a alcohol problem but please don't try a solution that means I have to pay more for it".

Fr Tod Umptious

kylith wrote: »

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

Unfortunately the linked report has no data from France or Italy but it has from other European countries that are seen to have a healthier attitude to alcohol than our own and where alcohol is cheaper than in Ireland, specifically Portugal, Spain, Germany, Holland and Belgium

So here are some findings

Alcohol related cancers
Portugal, Germany and Belgium higher than Ireland
Spain the same as Ireland

Liver cirrhosis
Germany and Portugal higher than Ireland
Spain the same

Death by alcohol related injury
Ireland and Portugal higher than Germany, Spain and Holland

Overall we die less from alcohol than the Portuguese or Germans

So while the Europeans are slowly killing themselves with alcohol the Irish and killing themselves by alcohol related injuries

Therefore the European attitude to alcohol is not healthier than the Irish one and not one that we should be trying to achieve.

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190430/Status-Report-on-Alcohol-and-Health-in-35-European-Countries.pdf

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I honestly don't think the average Joe understands what is about to happen until they stroll into their local Tesco and see what is in front of them.

Brexit will be in 6 months anyway. We'll have duty free shopping in Newry to look foward to. Might not be a bad business idea to start a click and collect drive-tru on the borderlands.

We won't if it's a crash out Brexit. Non-EU import duty quotas will apply on such stuff. What's allowed is prohibitively small.

bnt

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190430/Status-Report-on-Alcohol-and-Health-in-35-European-Countries.pdf

According to that report, people in Ireland averaged about 12 litres of pure alcohol per person per year in 2010, though the trend was downwards. Let's say the same trend continues downward and it's about 10 litres this year. That is still a serious amount of alcohol. Some quick calculations tell me that's equivalent to about a bottle of whisky (40% ABV) every ten days, or a pint of 4.9% ABV beer every day. And that's the per capita average of everyone, including non-drinkers, that got reported. Some people are drinking a lot more than that, obviously.

10 litres of alcohol is 7.893 kilograms (since ethanol is lighter than water), so at €0.10 per gram minimum unit pricing, the average drinker would pay €78.93 per year minimum. I'm pretty sure I spent more than that in the last year, even though I estimate I hit about 1/3 of the average alcohol consumption. :eek:

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And getting tanked up on cheap supermarket booze before going out has nothing to do with that anti social behaviour?

Only some people who get drunk in this manner engage in anti social behaviour afterwards. Therefore, a measure which also penalises those who don't is an unfair measure.

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But that cheapest crap is now going to be more expensive thus they cannot drink as much of it.

Which means forcing people to change their behaviour rather than persuading them. That is an inherently authoritarian mindset.

I love all this "we need a attitude change to alcohol, but MUP is not the answer.."

It basically saying, "yes we have a alcohol problem but please don't try a solution that means I have to pay more for it".

Exactly - bring in measures which specifically target those who cause problems, and explicitly do not inconvenience anyone who does not. That is the only acceptable way to deal with an issue which causes problems only in an indirect and potential manner as opposed to a guaranteed universal manner.

end of the road

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

And getting tanked up on cheap supermarket booze before going out has nothing to do with that anti social behaviour?

given that those who will get tanked up before they go out will continue to do so, no

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But that cheapest crap is now going to be more expensive thus they cannot drink as much of it.

except they can and will. if they want to drink a certain amount, they will just spend more money on it.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I love all this "we need a attitude change to alcohol, but MUP is not the answer.."

It basically saying, "yes we have a alcohol problem but please don't try a solution that means I have to pay more for it".

that's not a problem. people who are responsible don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something because of others being irresponsible, when they know little to no difference will be made via having to pay more. they also don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something, when they know the reason they are paying more is in a misguided attempt by the government to try and protect 1 part of the alcohol industry, the vintners, by attempting to price people back into their pubs, something which is also not going to work, because in reality the pub doesn't offer what these people want, and the pub is not willing to offer it. they also don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something when the people they are buying it from will get to keep that money, when in actual fact the money raised could go toards addiction services and other support services for those genuinely effected by alcohol.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Unfortunately the linked report has no data from France or Italy but it has from other European countries that are seen to have a healthier attitude to alcohol than our own and where alcohol is cheaper than in Ireland, specifically Portugal, Spain, Germany, Holland and Belgium

So here are some findings

Alcohol related cancers
Portugal, Germany and Belgium higher than Ireland
Spain the same as Ireland

Liver cirrhosis
Germany and Portugal higher than Ireland
Spain the same

Death by alcohol related injury
Ireland and Portugal higher than Germany, Spain and Holland

Overall we die less from alcohol than the Portuguese or Germans

So while the Europeans are slowly killing themselves with alcohol the Irish and killing themselves by alcohol related injuries

Therefore the European attitude to alcohol is not healthier than the Irish one and not one that we should be trying to achieve.

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190430/Status-Report-on-Alcohol-and-Health-in-35-European-Countries.pdf

the thing is, ireland has a tiny population compared to those countries, so we cannot say for definite that our rate and their rates are caused by each other's respective attitudes.

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

and yet countries like ireland will double down on the same policies that cause problems rather then change, and are then surprised when nothing changes.

Reputable Rog wrote: »

You're wasting your time, it's a group of trolls working in tandem to just wind people up.
I wish to mods would step in and put a halt to it.

i actually don't think they are trolls. i think they have simply fallen for the constant alcohol restrictionist and pro-pub propaganda being spouted by vested interests and lobby groups. there are people who genuinely support this minimum pricing, dispite the likely realities that it won't make any difference.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

there is little or no evidence to suggest that introducing alcohol at a younger age helps "educate" kids/teens to the detrimental effects of drink. indeed the opposite holds true, ie the longer/older one leaves the regular consumption of alcohol the better the outcomes.

if that was the case, then the stats posted by kylith would surely be the opposite.

Wheres Me Jumper?

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

end of the road wrote: »

if that was the case, then the stats posted by kylith would surely be the opposite.

the evidence from this report does not support your contention i'm afraid.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/introducing-alcohol-to-teens-a-double-edged-sword/8164518

the advice i would give to kids is to delay their drinking as long as possible.

elperello

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

the evidence from this report does not support your contention i'm afraid.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/introducing-alcohol-to-teens-a-double-edged-sword/8164518

the advice i would give to kids is to delay their drinking as long as possible.

It's an interesting article but I don't see the full study.
I don't think I would approve of starting too early.
They mention working up to "full serves" by mid teens. Assuming they mean drinking as much as adults by 15 then I would agree with them that's not ideal.

I would have thought that starting with a small drop of wine at 16 makes more sense. Then maybe going to the pub with parents at 18 and learning to take it easy.

Just as a footnote and it's not scientific or anything, just life experience. I have noticed that people who start drinking in late 20's/early 30's often turn out to be problem drinkers.

Fr Tod Umptious

end of the road wrote: »

and yet countries like ireland will double down on the same policies that cause problems rather then change, and are then surprised when nothing changes.



i actually don't think they are trolls. i think they have simply fallen for the constant alcohol restrictionist and pro-pub propaganda being spouted by vested interests and lobby groups. there are people who genuinely support this minimum pricing, dispite the likely realities that it won't make any difference.



if that was the case, then the stats posted by kylith would surely be the opposite.

What stats did kylith post ?

Wheres Me Jumper?

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

elperello wrote: »

It's an interesting article but I don't see the full study.
I don't think I would approve of starting too early.
They mention working up to "full serves" by mid teens. Assuming they mean drinking as much as adults by 15 then I would agree with them that's not ideal.

I would have thought that starting with a small drop of wine at 16 makes more sense. Then maybe going to the pub with parents at 18 and learning to take it easy.

Just as a footnote and it's not scientific or anything, just life experience. I have noticed that people who start drinking in late 20's/early 30's often turn out to be problem drinkers.

sorry to be argumentative but the people i know who became problem drinkers and alcoholics (many of which are now dead btw) nearly all started in their teens.

Leroy42

elperello wrote: »

I would have thought that starting with a small drop of wine at 16 makes more sense. Then maybe going to the pub with parents at 18 and learning to take it easy.

Herein lies a major part of the problem. Far too many parents don't think like this. Children learn from their parents, they see their parents heading to the pub regularly and want to do the same.

Would these parents bring their kids to the pub at 16 and give them a small taster and then go home with them? Would they bring their kids back at closing time to show them the drunks and the fights?

Kids know about alcohol. The problem is they know alcohol are this great product that they see their parents drinking at christenings, communions, matches etc.

elperello

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

sorry to be argumentative but the people i know who became problem drinkers and alcoholics (many of which are now dead btw) nearly all started in their teens.

No problem. Like I say it's not scientific just anecdotal.
I also knew people who drank in teens who became problem drinkers and alcoholics.
I was responding to the idea that the longer you delay the less chance of having issues.

realitykeeper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fixing the justice system would target those individuals without the same collateral damage.

Justice applies after the fact. I would rather my kid is not killed by a drunk driver in the first place, then there would be no need for a judge to punish the culprit.

McMurphy

realitykeeper wrote: »

Justice applies after the fact. I would rather my kid is not killed by a drunk driver in the first place, then there would be no need for a judge to punish the culprit.

It's not only drunk drivers who kill kids.

Let's ban cars.

Leroy42

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's not only drunk drivers who kill kids.

Let's ban cars.

But they are far more likely to have accidents, and thus deaths, when alcohol is involved.

But we do ban drink driving, we have speed limits. It is not always a 100% ban or total freedom.

Wheres Me Jumper?

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

elperello wrote: »

No problem. Like I say it's not scientific just anecdotal.
I also knew people who drank in teens who became problem drinkers and alcoholics.
I was responding to the idea that the longer you delay the less chance of having issues.

of the most sensible drinkers i know, almost all did not drink in their teens. the context is an important factor i would reckon, but i do agree this is purely anecdotal.

maybe there's a proper study around somewhere?
then maybe French & Italian kids respond differently to Welsh & Irish kids?

hatrickpatrick

realitykeeper wrote: »

Justice applies after the fact. I would rather my kid is not killed by a drunk driver in the first place, then there would be no need for a judge to punish the culprit.

A properly functioning justice system is a deterrent to stupid and avoidable crime like getting behind the wheel after drinking. If you knew that you were 100% guaranteed, context be damned, to get a minimum sentence of several months in prison for even one drink driving offense, the vast majority of people would cop on and just not bother risking it.

McMurphy

Leroy42 wrote: »

But they are far more likely to have accidents, and thus deaths, when alcohol is involved.

But we do ban drink driving, we have speed limits. It is not always a 100% ban or total freedom.

We also restrict alcohol sales, both time based (selling between certain hours, on certain days) and age restrictions, not to mention the restrictions supposedly in place to try and place restrictions on someone already appearing to be under the influence.

We have went through the looking glass wherein we live in a state where the govt tell us in one breath that they will legislate for MUP for health reasons, but in the previous breath, tell us they'll introduce it to protect the pub industry and try and ensure that industry's viability.

A tax increase on the stuff, and tax raised ringfenced for treatment and education might be a bit more believable than what Is a blatant sop to a group of lobbyists with a vested interest.

Wheres Me Jumper?

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

elperello wrote: »

No problem. Like I say it's not scientific just anecdotal.
I also knew people who drank in teens who became problem drinkers and alcoholics.
I was responding to the idea that the longer you delay the less chance of having issues.

Here is the full study,
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(17)30240-2/fulltext?elsca1=tlpr

The Rape of Lucretia

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's not only drunk drivers who kill kids.

Let's ban cars.

38% of all road deaths in Ireland are alcohol related.

Thats still a shockingly high influence on road tragedy despite a strong improvement on this issue of the last few decades.

McMurphy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

38% of all road deaths in Ireland are alcohol related.

.

Shocking statistic altogether. No doubt.

I wonder how many involved folk having a few glasses of wine or beer in the house, travelling back home to the... um house?

And I wonder how many were caused by folks getting tanked up in the bar going home?

Mr. teddywinkles

end of the road wrote: »

given that those who will get tanked up before they go out will continue to do so, no



except they can and will. if they want to drink a certain amount, they will just spend more money on it.



that's not a problem. people who are responsible don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something because of others being irresponsible, when they know little to no difference will be made via having to pay more. they also don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something, when they know the reason they are paying more is in a misguided attempt by the government to try and protect 1 part of the alcohol industry, the vintners, by attempting to price people back into their pubs, something which is also not going to work, because in reality the pub doesn't offer what these people want, and the pub is not willing to offer it. they also don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something when the people they are buying it from will get to keep that money, when in actual fact the money raised could go toards addiction services and other support services for those genuinely effected by alcohol.




the thing is, ireland has a tiny population compared to those countries, so we cannot say for definite that our rate and their rates are caused by each other's respective attitudes.

Your point on people getting tanked up before going out is very true due to it still being cheaper than the pub. So unless ya price it higher than your local. People will most definitely keep doing this. Funny thing is if a pint was reasonably priced in the pubs. Ya wouldn't have this horsing of drink into ya before a nite out.

suicide_circus

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Your point on people getting tanked up before going out is very true due to it still being cheaper than the pub. So unless ya price it higher than your local. People will most definitely keep doing this. Funny thing is if a pint was reasonably priced in the pubs. Ya wouldn't have this horsing of drink into ya before a nite out.

no one pre drinks if they're heading out to a Wetherspoons

realitykeeper

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's not only drunk drivers who kill kids.

Let's ban cars.

Ah but you forget, cars don`t get drunk.

realitykeeper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A properly functioning justice system is a deterrent to stupid and avoidable crime like getting behind the wheel after drinking. If you knew that you were 100% guaranteed, context be damned, to get a minimum sentence of several months in prison for even one drink driving offense, the vast majority of people would cop on and just not bother risking it.

But what if drink clouded your judgement? You said yourself you enjoy a drink.

odyssey06

You need to be skeptical of statistics such as 38 percent of road deaths being alcohol related. Note they dont say caused by alcohol.
That means most accidents are caused by sober people. Sometimes drink is the cause of that 38pc but sometimes it will be caused by the same things causing most accidents... ie carelessness, bad driving, tiredness, road conditions, badly maintained roads, speeding etc

Gunmonkey

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Shocking statistic altogether. No doubt.

I wonder how many involved folk having a few glasses of wine or beer in the house, travelling back home to the... um house?

And I wonder how many were caused by folks getting tanked up in the bar going home?

Bingo! Whats the breakdown of this 38% of road accidents based on where they were drinking? Because if it was the pub (and can assume over 80% will be) then MUP wont do squat to restrict that as those drinks are already over the MUP.

McMurphy

realitykeeper wrote: »

Ah but you forget, cars don`t get drunk.

They don't kill people either.

Let's ban people.