Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Which is not a reason to not do it. Because it is not as effective a measure, even if somewhat effective, is not a reason to not use the measure at all.

Some cancer drugs are only effective in 30 or40% of cases. No one says they should be administered because they arent fully effective.

Regardless of their effectiveness medications should only taken by those who suffer from illness.

MUP is a blunt medicine applied to people who suffer no ill effects at all.

hatrickpatrick

Well, this is embarrassing Viva la sesh :cool:

The Rape of Lucretia

elperello wrote: »

Regardless of their effectiveness medications should only taken by those who suffer from illness.

MUP is a blunt medicine applied to people who suffer no ill effects at all.

Everyone who consumes alcohol suffers bad effects from it. How much they are conscious of this harm varies, as does the extent of the harm.
So all alcohol consumers are patients, making mup an effective tool to help them personally, and the harm their ill effects have on those around them, and wider society.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well, this is embarrassing Viva la sesh :cool:

What's the source of that article ?

Looks like an attack on the SNP as much as anything.

IMO MUP is a long term thing to discourage new drinkers rather than current ones.

odyssey06

Who knows how to start an online petition?

I hereby pledge to drink an additional 50 bottles of wine a year in the event of the minimum alcohol pricing coming into effect.

weldoninhio

odyssey06 wrote: »

Who knows how to start an online petition?

I hereby pledge to drink an additional 50 bottles of wine a year in the event of the minimum alcohol pricing coming into effect.

That’s only 1 extra bottle a week. Amateur numbers. You need to pump them up.

Back in the day, a parental advisory sticker on a tape / CD was a guaranteed way to sell better. It made it cooler.

Making alcohol more expensive and having health warnings would make it seem even cooler.

People don't like to be told what to do and will generally go against the system.

Maybe reverse psychology would work. The Govt say that alcohol is awesome and should be cheaper. Everyone should buy lots of it. Then people might stop.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

Yes private is better than public and those with addiction get help via treatment.

I've experienced both private and public mental health services, both were exceptional, particularly public services, I've heard similar comments from others, have you experience yourself, and what do you base this 'opinion' on?

Reputable Rog

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What's the source of that article ?

Looks like an attack on the SNP as much as anything.

IMO MUP is a long term thing to discourage new drinkers rather than current ones.

It was in the Sunday Mail, Scottish equivalent of the Sunday Mirror. I have to laugh at the assertion that it would take 5 years to see the benefit after intially saying 3 months.
Anyhow here's another tit bit I found in the Scottish press about the glory of MUP.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/16198359.why-minimum-unit-pricing-will-not-work/

Reputable Rog

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I've experienced both private and public mental health services, both were exceptional, particularly public services, I've heard similar comments from others, have you experience yourself, and what do you base this 'opinion' on?

I have found public health services generally much better than private services, maybe that's just my experience.

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Everyone who consumes alcohol suffers bad effects from it. How much they are conscious of this harm varies, as does the extent of the harm.
So all alcohol consumers are patients, making mup an effective tool to help them personally, and the harm their ill effects have on those around them, and wider society.

You appear to have a rather extreme prejudice against drink but I'll go a bit of the road with you.

Even if you believe drink is bad you will agree that MUP is a point of purchase intervention.

As such it is the most blunt of blunt instruments.

Take this example below.

Three people buying one bottle of wine each at the checkout. They will all pay the levy to the drinks industry after MUP is introduced.

Customer 1 is going home to host a dinner party to share with 2 other people
Customer 2 is going home to cook a nice French recipe which requires wine
Customer 3 is going home to drink one glass a night for the next 6 nights

None of the people in my example are "patients", need help or are damaging themselves, those around them or wider society.

These people are adults enjoying a legal product in their own homes.

MUP is an unwarranted intrusion into their lives and raid on their finances.

irishproduce

Anyone, when is the MUP coming into effect and when will the labels be on bottles?

elperello

irishproduce wrote: »

Anyone, when is the MUP coming into effect and when will the labels be on bottles?

Nobody knows for sure.

Hotblack Desiato

Quite possibly never.

odyssey06

Deleted User wrote: »

Back in the day, a parental advisory sticker on a tape / CD was a guaranteed way to sell better. It made it cooler.

Making alcohol more expensive and having health warnings would make it seem even cooler.

People don't like to be told what to do and will generally go against the system.

Maybe reverse psychology would work. The Govt say that alcohol is awesome and should be cheaper. Everyone should buy lots of it. Then people might stop.

Exactly... from a debate in England 100 years ago on alcohol legislation:

The habit of self control acquired by the individual is in every respect a better protection than arbitrary enactment (legislation). Prohibition augments desire.
- Lord Stanley

odyssey06

odyssey06 wrote: »

Exactly... from a debate in England 100 years ago on alcohol legislation:

The habit of self control acquired by the individual is in every respect a better protection than arbitrary enactment (legislation). Prohibition augments desire.
- Lord Stanley

Ah come on.

When quoting Lord Stanley you are quoting someone who was not a million miles removed from the people that allowed a whole population to starve to death rather than upset market economics by intervention.

Bottom of the (ale) barrel stuff at this stage.

Hotblack Desiato

Lord Stanley created the National School system in Ireland. If you're going to use history in your arguments, learn it.

hatrickpatrick

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Everyone who consumes alcohol suffers bad effects from it. How much they are conscious of this harm varies, as does the extent of the harm.

Their body, their choice.

So all alcohol consumers are patients, making mup an effective tool to help them personally

Having a health issue does not automatically make you a "patient", you only become a "patient" if you choose to seek medical help for that health issue. If you choose not to, you're simply an individual with an electively untreated health issue.

Honestly, you sound like a religious fundamentalist who declares that every atheist is someone who needs "help" to be "saved" - individual choices be damned.

and the harm their ill effects have on those around them, and wider society.

You still refuse to answer the assertion that only a proportion of drinkers cause ill effects to others, not every single one of them.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I've experienced both private and public mental health services, both were exceptional, particularly public services, I've heard similar comments from others, have you experience yourself, and what do you base this 'opinion' on?

Personal experience. The Mater Hospital in Cork has a hotel atmosphere which I like and not the hospital atmosphere which I don`t like. Treatment is timely and the staff are pleasant. Public hospitals are different, I could comment on them but that would require thinking about those awful places with their smells and super bugs and sour-faced staff and sweltering heat and trolleys and waiting times etc.

Reputable Rog

realitykeeper wrote: »

Personal experience. The Mater Hospital in Cork has a hotel atmosphere which I like and not the hospital atmosphere which I don`t like. Treatment is timely and the staff are pleasant. Public hospitals are different, I could comment on them but that would require thinking about those awful places with their smells and super bugs and sour-faced staff and sweltering heat and trolleys and waiting times etc.

Trolling nonsense once again. I guarantee if there's something seriously wrong with you, it's not the Mater Private you'll be heading, it's CUH.
You can have all the notions you want but health is a common denominator.

realitykeeper

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Trolling nonsense once again. I guarantee if there's something seriously wrong with you, it's not the Mater Private you'll be heading, it's CUH.
You can have all the notions you want but health is a common denominator.

No, given a choice of services, private is better than public every time. The fact that not all services are provided privately is a consequence of the existence of the public service. Supposing Supervalu had to pay tax to supplement the running of Dunnes Stores or vice versa. That would hardly be an even playing field. The money used to fund the HSE is astronomical and private hospitals have to help fund this competitor. Or, on a smaller scale, if one barber shop had to send some of it`s profit down the street to another barber shop. Obviously the shop that has to do the subsidizing will close and the local monopoly will go to the protected barber shop that will have have no incentive to compete. Service with a scowl no doubt.

Venezuela is an example of what happens when a country chooses public over private.

realitykeeper

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Or imagine if a company had to increase prices for its product to match that of products seen as more premium, reducing its market share as the incentive to buy it over its premium competitors is now gone. This legislation is going to do exactly the same thing as you're complaining about in your examples, yet you support it. Why?

Nobody is forcing the cheap plonk manufactures to give money to the manufacturers of expensive beverages. Those who manufacture cheap stuff can target a low income country instead or they can improve their product so it is worth the MUP here.

Reputable Rog

realitykeeper wrote: »

Nobody is forcing the cheap plonk manufactures to give money to the manufacturers of expensive beverages. Those who manufacture cheap stuff can target a low income country instead or they can improve their product so it is worth the MUP here.

If you want disparage people of lesser means why don't you find a new thread or start a new thread with all your alter egos?

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

Personal experience. The Mater Hospital in Cork has a hotel atmosphere which I like and not the hospital atmosphere which I don`t like. Treatment is timely and the staff are pleasant. Public hospitals are different, I could comment on them but that would require thinking about those awful places with their smells and super bugs and sour-faced staff and sweltering heat and trolleys and waiting times etc.

I spent a week in CUH recently and had the complete opposite experience. The ward was a pleasant place to be, no bad smells etc. Doctors, nurses and porters were brilliant.

PopePalpatine

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I spent a week in CUH recently and had the complete opposite experience. The ward was a pleasant place to be, no bad smells etc. Doctors, nurses and porters were brilliant.

But there weren't any austere-looking nuns? How could it be a proper hospital without that miserable shower wanting to rub salt on your wounds?

Capt'n Midnight

How much did wine sales fall when they added a euro per bottle ?

realitykeeper

Reputable Rog wrote: »

If you want disparage people of lesser means why don't you find a new thread or start a new thread with all your alter egos?

What a strange set of values. There is nothing morally wrong with being poor. There is a lot wrong with being a drunkard and the wanton indulgences of the flesh.

realitykeeper

Deleted User wrote: »

I spent a week in CUH recently and had the complete opposite experience. The ward was a pleasant place to be, no bad smells etc. Doctors, nurses and porters were brilliant.

and yet people will not stop complaining about the chaos in A&Es, the years of waiting for treatment and the never ending torrent of scandals. Don`t get me wrong, I don`t use the HSE because I value my health too much for that so the only problem I have with them is the money I have to pay them and the manner in which they waste it.

What really annoys me is the incessant complaining by people who use the service. If they would simply stop complaining, the news could be so much more interesting. Perhaps you could convince them the HSE is wonderful and they should keep a stiff upper lip instead of complaining all the time.

dense

Deleted User wrote: »

Back in the day, a parental advisory sticker on a tape / CD was a guaranteed way to sell better. It made it cooler.

Making alcohol more expensive and having health warnings would make it seem even cooler.

People don't like to be told what to do and will generally go against the system.

Maybe reverse psychology would work. The Govt say that alcohol is awesome and should be cheaper. Everyone should buy lots of it. Then people might stop.

Something I've noticed is that it seems to be getting more difficult to buy smaller quantities of beer at an off licence.



Years ago there was always the fairly harmless little six packs of chubby bottles, now it's hard to find a pack that contains less than 8× 500ml cans in some places.



The same thing happened with cigarettes, 10s were outlawed on some flaky scientific basis, yet paracetamol quantities were regulated downwards for health reasons, whilst we now have 25 packs of cigarettes available....



There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the messages being promoted.



Surely simply banning the sale of "slabs" of beer and 8 packs would be a basic first step to reducing "over consumption"?

dense

dense wrote: »

Something I've noticed is that it seems to be getting more difficult to buy smaller quantities of beer at an off licence.



Years ago there was always the fairly harmless little six packs of chubby bottles, now it's hard to find a pack that contains less than 8× 500ml cans in some places.



The same thing happened with cigarettes, 10s were outlawed on some flaky scientific basis, yet paracetamol quantities were regulated downwards for health reasons, whilst we now have 25 packs of cigarettes available....



There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the messages being promoted.



Surely simply banning the sale of "slabs" of beer and 8 packs would be a basic first step to reducing "over consumption"?

On that note, it always amuses me that its cheaper to buy a larger bottle of spirit. Take a bottle of Jameson. RRP is about 29 euros. Can sometimes be found on special offer for 24 or 25. How much is a half bottle? 17 euros.

Anyway, it has been showed here and elsewhere that this move is nothing to do with reducing consumption, but rather forcing people back to pubs.