Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

VinLieger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Please stop trying to talk sense or logic.

The mental gymnastics from some posters here is far too much fun to watch.

Talk about mental gymnastics, you've an issue with alcohol but none with red meat, processed meat or the other numerous grade 1 carcinogens consumed on a daily basis.

Or the hypocrisy that alcohol from off licenses is bad but alcohol from pubs is okay and doesn't cause cancer apparently

You either think there should be health warnings for cancer causing food consumed in excess or you don't.

VinLieger

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I didn't "forget" to add anything, I'm basing it on studies, just like people who claim a pint or two is good for you are basing it on studies.

Present those studies that say categorically ANY alcohol consumed is bad for you and that even a small amount has zero health benefits

odyssey06

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I didn't "forget" to add anything, I'm basing it on studies, just like people who claim a pint or two is good for you are basing it on studies.

I did qualify it by saying "fairly likely" instead of putting it across as a fact proven beyond all doubt. Did you forget to add "in my opinion" when you called me incorrect?

Moderate drinking is associated with lower death rates than not drinking or heavy drinking. That's the findings of numerous long running, large sample all risk studies of mortality.

Doctor Jimbob

VinLieger wrote: »

Present those studies that say categorically ANY alcohol consumed is bad for you and that even a small amount has zero health benefits

You're not going to find a study that categorically states anything of the sort. That's why I said "fairly likely" and not "proven beyond doubt". You're not going to find anything categorically stating the opposite either. Do you have any evidence categorically stating that I'm wrong, as you seemed happy enough to state that without evidence?

Doctor Jimbob

odyssey06 wrote: »

Moderate drinking is associated with lower death rates than not drinking or heavy drinking. That's the findings of numerous long running, large sample all risk studies of mortality.

Those studies generally don't take into account WHY though. The people who don't drink may be choosing not to because of preexisting health conditions, for example.

Look, I don't think moderate drinking is going to cause anyone significant harm, I just think the claims that it's doing no harm at all are dubious at best.

xckjoo

VinLieger wrote: »

Present those studies that say categorically ANY alcohol consumed is bad for you and that even a small amount has zero health benefits

This one?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext

VinLieger

xckjoo wrote: »

This one?
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext

They ignored their own results in their conclusion, there's a graph that shows unquestionably the risk only rises when you move to two drinks daily. One drink going by there data poses the same health risks as zero drinks.

xckjoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

As with all news articles on medical studies you need to read the actual article itself and look at the figures. For instance look at Figure 5 in the report. Now it may just be my eyesight but i can see no difference between the risk at 0 units per day and 1 unit per day.

Ya hard to see anything on that with the naked eye. Would need the raw data to tell for definite. The green bar (margin of error I assume) does seem to change though.

VinLieger

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're not going to find a study that categorically states anything of the sort. That's why I said "fairly likely" and not "proven beyond doubt". You're not going to find anything categorically stating the opposite either. Do you have any evidence categorically stating that I'm wrong, as you seemed happy enough to state that without evidence?

We are dealing with labels saying "alcohol can cause cancer" which is a definitive statement. Telling people a definitive statement that is based on "Fairly likely" and then leaving out the key words "when consumed in excess" is bull**** and false information.

ohnonotgmail

xckjoo wrote: »

Ya hard to see anything on that with the naked eye. Would need the raw data to tell for definite. The green bar (margin of error I assume) does seem to change though.

I think it is fair to say that the change in risk from 0 units to 1 is so negligible as to be irrelevant.

southstar

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Those studies generally don't take into account WHY though. The people who don't drink may be choosing not to because of preexisting health conditions, for example.

Look, I don't think moderate drinking is going to cause anyone significant harm, I just think the claims that it's doing no harm at all are dubious at best.

What are you saying now... that the moderate drinkers observed in these studies are in fact reformed beer hounds.. or what?? Do moderate drinkers have poorer life expectancy/outcomes than non drinkers... or better perhaps. What are your opinions based on?

Doctor Jimbob

VinLieger wrote: »

We are dealing with labels saying "alcohol can cause cancer" which is a definitive statement. Telling people a definitive statement that is based on "Fairly likely" and then leaving out the key words "when consumed in excess" is bull**** and false information.

I said I don't agree with the labels though

Doctor Jimbob

southstar wrote: »

What are you saying now... that the moderate drinkers observed in these studies are in fact reformed beer hounds.. or what?? Do moderate drinkers have poorer life expectancy/outcomes than non drinkers... or better perhaps. What are your opinions based on?

Don't know how you got that from my post but carry on sure.

VinLieger

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I said I don't agree with the labels though

Well one of the main reasons cancer labels are being introduced is due to people falsely saying any alcohol causes harm and that is the reason im arguing the point that this cannot be proven and in fact in the vast majority of studies completely incorrect, which is one of the many arguments against the cancer labels.

xckjoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think it is fair to say that the change in risk from 0 units to 1 is so negligible as to be irrelevant.

Not according to the 2 columns worth of people who collaborated on the article and the published it in a fairly prestigious medical journal. I'd trust that over eyeballing a graph.
But at the very least it satisfies the question I was responding to

Present those studies that say categorically ANY alcohol consumed is bad for you and that even a small amount has zero health benefits

It definitely states that any alcohol consumption can be bad and even a small amount has zero health benefits.


This isn't my area of expertise so not going to try and delve into and critique the article. If someone can point us towards a proper critique, I'd like to read it.

Doctor Jimbob

VinLieger wrote: »

Well one of the main reasons cancer labels are being introduced is due to people falsely saying any alcohol causes harm and that is the reason im arguing the point that this cannot be proven and in fact in the vast majority of studies completely incorrect, which is one of the many arguments against the cancer labels.

Where's the evidence of what you're saying? You told me I should add "in my opinion" to my post, yet now you're posting claims of studies being incorrect with no evidence whatsoever and presenting it as fact.

I agree with you that the labels are nonsense. I agree that the harm caused by a drink or two is negligible at best. I don't agree that drinking alcohol in any amount is completely harmless. That's all.

VinLieger

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Where's the evidence of what you're saying? You told me I should add "in my opinion" to my post, yet now you're posting claims of studies being incorrect with no evidence whatsoever and presenting it as fact.

I agree with you that the labels are nonsense. I agree that the harm caused by a drink or two is negligible at best. I don't agree that drinking alcohol in any amount is completely harmless. That's all.

And the results of numerous studies would disagree with you, which is why i said "in your opinion"

Even the one posted above shows this to be incorrect.

Frances Black is one of the main proponents for the cancer labels who has said numerous times any alcohol is bad, if you want an example listen to Newstalk breakfasts show from this morning in the last 10 minutes they discuss it and she specifically claims any alcohol is harmful near the end of the interview.

Doctor Jimbob

VinLieger wrote: »

Frances Black is one of the main proponents for the cancer labels who has said numerous times any alcohol is bad, if you want an example listen to Newstalk breakfasts show from this morning in the last 10 minutes they discuss it and she specifically claims any alcohol is harmful near the end of the interview.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I said, so I really don't know why you're taking issue with my posts.

hatrickpatrick

Watching the debate now on Dail TV, looks like they're trying to ban functions with free bars and the like now as well. or any function supplying alcohol free of charge. Never thought I'd side with the Healy-Raes, but they're the ones talking about how insane that is.

Looks like it's being filibustered fairly well though, I doubt it's going to pass today with the number of amendments which have been proposed. There are 25 proposed amendments, and they're only on numbers four and five now an hour into the debate, and they've three other bills to discuss before 10PM so it seems highly unlikely that they'll get it through today.

elperello

They are going to town now worrying about us.
A bunch of people on 90K a year plus expenses with two bars within a few steps of their plush leather seats.
They want to plaster your cans with bi-lingual warnings.

VinLieger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Watching the debate now on Dail TV, looks like they're trying to ban functions with free bars and the like now as well. or any function supplying alcohol free of charge. Never thought I'd side with the Healy-Raes, but they're the ones talking about how insane that is.

Looks like it's being filibustered fairly well though, I doubt it's going to pass today with the number of amendments which have been proposed. There are 25 proposed amendments, and they're only on numbers four and five now an hour into the debate, and they've three other bills to discuss before 10PM so it seems highly unlikely that they'll get it through today.

What the actual, this thing is just bonkers know, they are literally trying to ban parties now?

Is there a list of the amendments and who proposed them anywhere?

Kivaro

elperello wrote: »

They are going to town now worrying about us.
A bunch of people on 90K a year plus expenses with two bars within a few steps of their plush leather seats.
They want to plaster your cans with bi-lingual warnings.

I would like to plaster our idiotic politicians with bi-lingual warnings.

hatrickpatrick

VinLieger wrote: »

What the actual, this thing is just bonkers know, they are literally trying to ban parties now?

Is there a list of the amendments and who proposed them anywhere?

It won't apply to private functions but probably to any public advertisement of an open or free bar. The kind of things you get sometimes with the openings of new nightclubs or restaurants, the occasional "everyone gets a free pint whenever Ireland scores" promotion, that kind of thing.

Amendments are here: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2015/120/dail/4/amendment/numberedList/eng/b120c15s-drnl.pdf

It does show who proposed each one, but annoyingly it only refers to lines and pages of the full bill, so open this alongside it to see what each amendment will actually do:

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2015/120/eng/ver_c/b120c15s.pdf

Not going to lie, this latest development seriously pisses me off, one of my favourite christmas events every year involves a club hosting a free bar for about five hours

EDIT: Here's the relevant section:

23. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister may make regulations—
(a) prohibiting or restricting a person from selling or supplying, or causing to be sold
or supplied, an alcohol product at a reduced price or free of charge to any person
on the purchase by that person, or by any other person, of—
(i) one or more other alcohol products (whether of the same or a different kind),
or
(ii) any other product or service,
(b) prohibiting or restricting a person from selling or supplying, or causing to be sold
or supplied, an alcohol product during a limited period at a price less than that
being charged for the alcohol product on the day before the commencement of the
limited period,
(c) prohibiting or restricting a person from doing or permitting, including for the
purposes of promoting that person’s business or any event or activity taking place
in a place other than a place used as an occupied private residence, anything that
is intended or likely to encourage persons in that place to consume alcohol
products in a harmful way,
(d) prohibiting or restricting a person from selling or supplying, or causing to be sold
or supplied, an alcohol product at a reduced price or free of charge in a manner
likely to encourage the consumption of alcohol products in a harmful way,
(e) prohibiting or restricting a person from advertising or promoting, or causing to be
advertised or promoted, the sale, supply or consumption of alcohol products in a
manner specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).

elperello

Kivaro wrote: »

I would like to plaster our idiotic politicians with bi-lingual warnings.

Well they are definitely going to damage your wealth whatever about your health.

Reputable Rog

This has to be my favourite bit of the legislation

Children's Clothing
shall be an offence for a person to— 5
(a) manufacture, for sale in the State, (b) import, for sale in the State, or
(c) sell to a person who is in the State,
an article of clothing intended to be worn by a child, where the article promotes alcohol consumption or bears the name of an alcohol product or the trade mark, 10 emblem, marketing image or logo, by reference to which an alcohol product is marketed or sold.
(2) This section shall not apply to clothing offered for retail sale or supply prior to 12 months after this section comes into operation.
(3) In a prosecution of an offence under this section, the onus of proving that the clothing 15 concerned was offered for retail sale or supply prior to 12 months after this section comes into operation.

No booze sponsored replica shirts but Databet, Boylesports, Mansion casinos, VIctir bet etc is perfectly acceptable.
What a bunch of gomies.

The Rape of Lucretia

VinLieger wrote: »

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're not going to find a study that categorically states anything of the sort. That's why I said "fairly likely" and not "proven beyond doubt". You're not going to find anything categorically stating the opposite either. Do you have any evidence categorically stating that I'm wrong, as you seemed happy enough to state that without evidence?

We are dealing with labels saying "alcohol can cause cancer" which is a definitive statement. Telling people a definitive statement that is based on "Fairly likely" and then leaving out the key words "when consumed in excess" is bull**** and false information.

It is definitive that alcohol can cause cancer. That point is beyond dispute.
So putting it as a warning on all bottle, cans, pub doors, etc is fully justified.
Some of the ignorance of its carcinogenic effect being displayed here shows how important it is to improve public understanding of its effect.

hatrickpatrick

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is definitive that alcohol can cause cancer. That point is beyond dispute.
So putting it as a warning on all bottle, cans, pub doors, etc is fully justified.
Some of the ignorance of its carcinogenic effect being displayed here shows how important it is to improve public understanding of its effect.

It's well known that eating deep fried takeaway food causes cholesterol issues and contributes to obesity, should a large proportion of every bag of chips from the local chipper have to have labels as well?

Pretty much everything people consume as a treat causes health issues of some kind or other - how can we justify discriminating on which ones have to have in-one's-face health warnings and which do not?

odyssey06

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is definitive that alcohol can cause cancer. That point is beyond dispute.
So putting it as a warning on all bottle, cans, pub doors, etc is fully justified.
Some of the ignorance of its carcinogenic effect being displayed here shows how important it is to improve public understanding of its effect.

Study after study has shown that: "Choosing to drink moderately is associated with a decreased risk of some health issues and a lower risk of death."

We should have labels saying moderate drinking is associated with a lower risk of death, if you want full disclosure.

listermint

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is definitive that alcohol can cause cancer. That point is beyond dispute.
So putting it as a warning on all bottle, cans, pub doors, etc is fully justified.
Some of the ignorance of its carcinogenic effect being displayed here shows how important it is to improve public understanding of its effect.

The only ignorance on display here is your stance on alcohol which is that no one should be allowed to drink because any amount is bad for you.


Ridiculously ignorant

OldRio

Cop on people how TROL..The rape of Lu... . gets away with his posts is beyond me. Read the initials. Fecking tiresome in the extreme