Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

JohnCleary

Deleted User wrote: »

I spent a few years in the Czech Republic, one of the cheapest places in Europe to drink. Even relative to a Czech salary, its very cheap to drink. Coupled with 24 hour licensing for both on and off sales, and my drinking buddies being a cosmopolitan mixture of Scottish, English and Irish you would expect a recipe for disaster and yet I had zero negative experiences with any one. One main reason, IMO: They enforce the law and anyone being disorderly is invited to see a cell, and anyone drunk and disorderly gets to see a drunk tank. Ive not been in one, nor know anyone who has, but I'd imagine comfy and fluffy they are not. If the fear of spending a night in one kept a load of drunk irish and scots in check, I'd imagine a visit to one might make a few people change their ways.

^^ THIS!

Was in Krakow last week, they have a similar system (drunk tank), or so i've been told.

Think I mentioned this in another thread.... 2AM, centre of Krakow, people coming out of the pubs, Q'ing for food at outdoor markets... all having their own laugh in their own groups, minding their own business.

Try that in Ireland outside Supermacs at 2am....

kerryjack

Ya power wash out in morning handy way of getting them out the door

mean gene

Opening and closing times are a disgrace-Everyone home early for bed close the pubs early nanny state

joe40

Could be worse, you could be in where 11 is it, home with you. In Ireland at least up in the sticks, last orders are still fairly flexible.

realitykeeper

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Are you just a WUM or WTF you going on about, the reason we're talking about cars in the first place is because you brought it up, remember

No I didn`t. The post you quoted did not even contain the word and in any case the point being made pertained to justice being a remedy, i.e less desirable than a preventative, like a M.U.P for example.

odyssey06

realitykeeper wrote: »

No I didn`t. The post you quoted did not even contain the word and in any case the point being made pertained to justice being a remedy, i.e less desirable than a preventative, like a M.U.P for example.

Thats why theres supposed to be random checkpoints. A proven preventative justice solution in multiple jurisdictions where they even test people coming home from pubs. Unlike MUP.

Spanish Eyes

This is just ridiculous.

Command and control, thou shalt not drink anywhere except in the pub.

The Vintner lobby is powerful for sure.

But I won't change my enjoyable few drinks at home with family and friends. We are all the same. We all dislike the pub scene.

So I will pay the price for my own enjoyment and let the rest of the Nanny State control element go over my head. They will not control me.

I doubt this will change anything TBH.

realitykeeper

odyssey06 wrote: »

Thats why theres supposed to be random checkpoints. A proven preventative justice solution in multiple jurisdictions where they even test people coming home from pubs. Unlike MUP.

What about problem drinkers who do not happen to be motorists? A smorgasbord of solutions is the best approach. Bring on the MUP and set it high!

hatrickpatrick

realitykeeper wrote: »

What about problem drinkers who do not happen to be motorists?

Unless they're harming others, they should be let be problem drinkers. If I choose to destroy my own body of my own free will, that should be my absolute right. Nobody else has any right to dictate what I can or cannot do with my own body. End of.

realitykeeper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Unless they're harming others, they should be let be problem drinkers. If I choose to destroy my own body of my own free will, that should be my absolute right. Nobody else has any right to dictate what I can or cannot do with my own body. End of.

The reason you are wrong about that is because of the publicly funded health service. By suffering the consequences of their irresponsible drinking habits, these problem drinkers are imposing financial harm on the rest of society. This is why the MUP needs to be set at a punitive level.

odyssey06

realitykeeper wrote: »

The reason you are wrong about that is because of the publicly funded health service. By suffering the consequences of their irresponsible drinking habits, these problem drinkers are imposing financial harm on the rest of society. This is why the MUP needs to be set at a punitive level.

What 'financial harm' are they causing? What financial costs are incurred over and above that of an average person?
If they don't drink, will they impose zero costs on the health service? No, because teetotallers get sick too and need treatment from the health service. And they get arthritis. And dementia. And cancer, strokes and heart attacks.
What about the pension costs? What about prescription and GP costs? Nursing home care?
For all we know, someone who dies at 60 from irresponsible drinking 'saves' the state hundreds of thousands of euros. Have you accounted for them in your cold equation?

Show me the net difference to the state for a drinker versus a non drinker.
Otherwise I'm declaring this 'financial harm' to be a fake fact.

Leroy42

odyssey06 wrote: »

Show me the net difference to the state for a drinker versus a non drinker.
Otherwise I'm declaring this 'financial harm' to be a fake fact.

Really, this is the level of debate, people questioning whether alcohol creates additional costs to the health service?

Simple thought for you. Do you accept that driving while under the influence of alcohol impairs ones driving? (the overwhelming evidence is yes).
Based on that fact, do you accept that of all of the accidents caused by drunk drivers that at least one of them would not have happened if the person wasn't drunk (please refer the point above)
Once you accept that, then you simply need to look in to the costs borne by the state due to the accident. Cops, fire brigade, ambulance.

So even this simple little example shows that you calls of 'fake fact' are pathetic.

How wrapped up must you be in the myth that somehow alcohol is good for you that you willing to take such a ridiculous position.

oceanman

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really, this is the level of debate, people questioning whether alcohol creates additional costs to the health service?

Simple thought for you. Do you accept that driving while under the influence of alcohol impairs ones driving? (the overwhelming evidence is yes).
Based on that fact, do you accept that of all of the accidents caused by drunk drivers that at least one of them would not have happened if the person wasn't drunk (please refer the point above)
Once you accept that, then you simply need to look in to the costs borne by the state due to the accident. Cops, fire brigade, ambulance.

So even this simple little example shows that you calls of 'fake fact' are pathetic.

How wrapped up must you be in the myth that somehow alcohol is good for you that you willing to take such a ridiculous position.

this new law is going to change noting regarding your post, can you not see that?

Leroy42

oceanman wrote: »

this new law is going to change noting regarding your post, can you not see that?

I totally can see that there will be minimal impact (I do not accept that it will have no impact as any reduction in the amount people drink will have a knock on effect on drink driving). For example, there is a known element of drivers that drink the night before yet drive the next morning, not all of these drink in the pubs. Many will have been drinking at home. If this law reduced their intake by even 1 can that will have and effect.

But overall, yes I can see that this measure will not make any noticeable impact on this area.

But that was not what I was responding to. We had a post that claimed that the financial harm was a fake fact. It is so clearly not that I felt that such blatant rubbish should not just be left unchallenged.

bnt

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, they'd have to pay €789.30 and that's if they're drinking the cheapest stuff available. The knock-on effect on prices will be increases across the board.

Yikes - sorry 'bout that, off by a factor of 10. According to my calculations, only spirits sold outside pubs will be drastically affected:

Beer: 500ml can, 5% ABV -> € 1.97
Wine: 175ml glass, 13% ABV -> € 1.80
Whiskey: 25ml shot, 40% ABV -> € 0.79
Whiskey: 700ml bottle, 40% ABV -> € 22.10

Even after the changes, the cost will still be a small fraction of the prices charged in pubs. Since it's not a tax, it won't cost pubs any more and they will have no excuse to increase their prices.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

Really, this is the level of debate, people questioning whether alcohol creates additional costs to the health service?

Simple thought for you. Do you accept that driving while under the influence of alcohol impairs ones driving? (the overwhelming evidence is yes).
Based on that fact, do you accept that of all of the accidents caused by drunk drivers that at least one of them would not have happened if the person wasn't drunk (please refer the point above)
Once you accept that, then you simply need to look in to the costs borne by the state due to the accident. Cops, fire brigade, ambulance.

So even this simple little example shows that you calls of 'fake fact' are pathetic.

How wrapped up must you be in the myth that somehow alcohol is good for you that you willing to take such a ridiculous position.

I didn't say there were no costs to the state from drinking. You have listed one cost. What's really relevant is the cost to the state, of which the public health sector is one arm.

To know whether drinking causes financial harm, we need to see the whole equation and the other side of the equation. The state takes IN over €1 billion in direct alcohol related taxes, and when indirect taxes are included it's closer to €2 billion.
What are the consequences for the state in terms of tax, pensions, etc for drinkers versus non drinkers.

That is why it's a fake fact - at the moment. Because no one has done that equation.

weldoninhio

realitykeeper wrote: »

The reason you are wrong about that is because of the publicly funded health service. By suffering the consequences of their irresponsible drinking habits, these problem drinkers are imposing financial harm on the rest of society. This is why the MUP needs to be set at a punitive level.

But they die earlier so no pension to pay, no hospital bills later in life etc. so swings and roundabouts.

TallGlass

Say the pints be flowing in the Dail bar after this budget anyway.

kerryjack

weldoninhio wrote: »

realitykeeper wrote: »

The reason you are wrong about that is because of the publicly funded health service. By suffering the consequences of their irresponsible drinking habits, these problem drinkers are imposing financial harm on the rest of society. This is why the MUP needs to be set at a punitive level.

But they die earlier so no pension to pay, no hospital bills later in life etc. so swings and roundabouts.

Yes and what about all the tax they have paid on drink and fags as the 2 usually goes together.

Leroy42

kerryjack wrote: »

Yes and what about all the tax they have paid on drink and fags as the 2 usually goes together.

Oh come on now.

Lets say €10 on every box of 20 is tax. 1 box a day, for 40 years.

Thats 10x7x52x40...€146,000.

Do you know how much it costs to treat cancer? The Kemo, drugs, oxygen etc etc. This nonsense that smokers pay for themselves is just that. They certainly help. but since they are actively increasing their risks, rather than simply being unlucky needs to be taken into consideration.

Now massively reduce that tax number for drinkers.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

Oh come on now.

Lets say €10 on every box of 20 is tax. 1 box a day, for 40 years.

Thats 10x7x52x40...€146,000.

Do you know how much it costs to treat cancer? The Kemo, drugs, oxygen etc etc. This nonsense that smokers pay for themselves is just that. They certainly help. but since they are actively increasing their risks, rather than simply being unlucky needs to be taken into consideration. Now massively reduce that tax number for drinkers.

It's not just the health care costs. A smoker who dies at 60, viewed purely through the prism of the cold equation of money, has 'saved' the state decades of prescription, pension costs etc and likely expensive health care interventions in later life.

When it comes to alcohol, you need to massively reduce that risk for drinkers. In "all mortality" risk studies, moderate drinkers have better health outcomes than teetotallers or heavy drinkers. Where is that in your equation?
There is some higher cancer risk associated with alcohol use, but they tend to be in relatively rare cancers, even a 10% increase in risk on them is a tiny number because the 'background' risk of developing the cancer is so low.

The figures seem to assuming that the person won't develop some other chronic or expensive to treat condition, won't cost the state a cent more for the rest of their life - but you can't just stop the health cost calculator at the point they get cancer.

kerryjack

I helped to take an elderly lady in and out of bed for 5 years she lived to the great ould age of 92 spending the last 5 years in bed hoping to die. Never drank or smoked but lived too long. Give it a blast while you about. like the saying goes live while your alive and die when your dead.

The Rape of Lucretia

kerryjack wrote: »

I helped to take an elderly lady in and out of bed for 5 years she lived to the great ould age of 92 spending the last 5 years in bed hoping to die. Never drank or smoked but lived too long. Give it a blast while you about. like the saying goes live while your alive and die when your dead.

Exactly. Life is too short to take the risk of drinking any alcohol - it may or may not impact you negatively, but its just not worth seeing if you are one of the lucky ones and die of an alcohol unrelated cause.
Live life to the full, not dampening your experience with alcohol.

CinemaGuy45

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Exactly. Life is too short to take the risk of drinking any alcohol - it may or may not impact you negatively, but its just not worth seeing if you are one of the lucky ones and die of an alcohol unrelated cause.
Live life to the full, not dampening your experience with alcohol.

Doubt you get too many party invites.

Leroy42

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Doubt you get too many party invites.

Whilst glib, I think this does serve to highlight the view that many people take on alcohol, and indeed those that don't drink.

There are plenty of examples of people that do not drink yet lead full and exciting lives. And there are plenty of examples in each of our own lives that we enjoy without the need for drink.

I do find it odd that in many respects the things that people claim to enjoy so much, watching football games etc, are routinely accompanied by drinking.

We have been sold this lie by the drinks companies that not only can the fun be enhanced, but that really it is an integral part of the fun.

There has been plenty of posts saying that people should be able to unwind/relax after a hard week with a drink, and I have no issue with that. But it does point to a wider problem. We all know that drinking doesn't itself solve the problem, and whether it be a relaxant or a de-stress, it would make far better sense to work out how to do that without the need for outside products.

In the same way that sleeping tablets can help people sleep, they should not be used without trying to understand the underlying problem and solving that. So periods of pain, stress etc, it makes perfect sense. But when you get to the stage that you can't sleep without them, then you have a problem.

In many ways, particularly the Irish, have that relationship with alcohol.

CinemaGuy45

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whilst glib, I think this does serve to highlight the view that many people take on alcohol, and indeed those that don't drink.

There are plenty of examples of people that do not drink yet lead full and exciting lives. And there are plenty of examples in each of our own lives that we enjoy without the need for drink.

I do find it odd that in many respects the things that people claim to enjoy so much, watching football games etc, are routinely accompanied by drinking.

We have been sold this lie by the drinks companies that not only can the fun be enhanced, but that really it is an integral part of the fun.

There has been plenty of posts saying that people should be able to unwind/relax after a hard week with a drink, and I have no issue with that. But it does point to a wider problem. We all know that drinking doesn't itself solve the problem, and whether it be a relaxant or a de-stress, it would make far better sense to work out how to do that without the need for outside products.

In the same way that sleeping tablets can help people sleep, they should not be used without trying to understand the underlying problem and solving that. So periods of pain, stress etc, it makes perfect sense. But when you get to the stage that you can't sleep without them, then you have a problem.

In many ways, particularly the Irish, have that relationship with alcohol.

Many people get a buzz out of a few drinks the drink comes first and the accompanying activity is just a bonus.

elperello

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/if-i-was-a-3-glasses-of-wine-a-week-person-i-wouldn-t-stop-in-the-face-of-recent-scare-stories-1.3652725?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Flife-and-style%2Fhealth-family%2Fif-i-was-a-3-glasses-of-wine-a-week-person-i-wouldn-t-stop-in-the-face-of-recent-scare-stories-1.3652725

Dr. Muiris Houston breaks rank.

Zebra3

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

TallGlass wrote: »

Say the pints be flowing in the Dail bar after this budget anyway.

The taxpayer subsidised pints?

odyssey06

Zebra3 wrote: »

The taxpayer subsidised pints?

Only alcohol bought in supermarkets is bad. The vintners, like the future imagined by Star Trek, have invented synthehol, which mimics all the good points of alcohol but without it being possible for you to be drunk or inebriated and it is easily broken down by enzymes in human bodies so no hangovers or nasty future health impacts.
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Synthehol

I think the Dail bar is the trial run for it.

kerryjack

Jesus i wouldn't chance watching the late late show without a few drinks.