Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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).

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 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?

elperello wrote: »

They have adjourned the twilight zone without passing the Bill.

Did they say how many amendments they had left to discuss, or when they might try to pass it again?

EDIT: Also, the bill has to go back to the Seanad, I believe it gets re-introduced at committee stage if significant amendments were made in the Dáil but I could stand corrected on this? Copying the UK system as we often do, the Seanad only has two years to debate the bill if it gets passed by the Dáil. If either the Seanad doesn't get it through report stage and back to the Dáil, or the Dáil doesn't accept the Seanad's amendments or even debate them, once it's been passed by the Dáil the government can declare it to be passed once two years have elapsed.

I'm in Italy at the moment. You can get a bottle of wine for less than €2. They have a similar standard of living as ourselves. The streets aren't full of drunks and people are big into hiking, cycling etc. Fit and healthy.
The problem is not the price of a bottle of wine in Aldi. Most of the p**sheads I'm aware of spend their time in pubs and bookies.