Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Hotblack Desiato · 07-10-2018 3:01pm

bnt wrote: »

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:

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.

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-10-2018 6:05pm

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?

Hmmmm.

So the only place people consume alcohol not bought in pubs is in their OWN homes ?

And when they do, they dont go out again until there is no alcohol in their blood ?

kerryjack · 07-10-2018 6:40pm

Alcohol is not all bad its keeping a lot of marriages together like through a bottle of wine into her loosen or up a bit, works the other way as well you need a bit of help as you get older like who wants to have sex with a 50 plus year old. You work hard you pay all your bills you get to friday whats wrong with having a few drinks at home the vintners ass are telling us that people are falling around there own home mad drunk i don't belive that at all. Load of boolocks i think.

odyssey06 · 07-10-2018 7:03pm

kerryjack wrote: »

Alcohol is not all bad its keeping a lot of marriages together like through a bottle of wine into her loosen or up a bit, works the other way as well you need a bit of help as you get older like who wants to have sex with a 50 plus year old. You work hard you pay all your bills you get to friday whats wrong with having a few drinks at home the vintners ass are telling us that people are falling around there own home mad drunk i don't belive that at all. Load of boolocks i think.

I agree with you about the vintners, but not so sure about the first part... in the words of Shakespeare on the effects of drink...
It provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery. It makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.

elperello · 07-10-2018 8:58pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

I agree with you about the vintners, but not so sure about the first part... in the words of Shakespeare on the effects of drink...
It provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery. It makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.

Thank you for adding a bit of class to the thread

Since the Bard's time and before it people have been abusing drink in one way or another.

To think the problems associated with problem drinking can be addressed at the point of purchase is just ignoring history.

If we were really interested in making a difference we would be working out what makes people want to drink too much and cause problems.

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-10-2018 9:03pm

elperello wrote: »

If we were really interested in making a difference we would be working out what makes people want to drink too much and cause problems.

Given that anything is too much, much easier to just reduce the consumption of alcohol. Its a guaranteed cure for the problem.

elperello · 07-10-2018 11:48pm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

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

I got around to reading that study this evening. Thanks again.
I found it interesting.
They studied the effects on a group who started being given drink at home from an average of 12.9 years.
I'm not surprised that they found a bad result among the test group up to the age of 17.8 years.
I would consider that was far too young to be introducing children to drinking anyway.
As I said last night I think about 16 more suitable.
Also worth noting that they were using the definition of binge drinking as anything more than 4 standard drinks ie. two 50 ml cans.

Interested in hearing from anyone else who read it.

Richard Hillman · 08-10-2018 12:11am

This price hike won't be the end of it. They'll notch it up every couple of years by a couple of cents at a time in the name of "health". Then we'll have recycling charge/deposits lumped onto them, with deposit refunds made ridiculously awkward.

In 10 years time, you could be paying close to €4 for a can of Heineken or whatever you're having. And there are no parties opposing it, and media seem to be singing to their tune too.

Hotblack Desiato · 08-10-2018 12:31am

Any time the publicans feel the need for a dig out, MUP will go up.

kylith · 08-10-2018 1:07am

It's also irritating that they're doing this under the guise of health and responsible drinking. Has anyone ever been refused drink in a pub for being too intoxicated? The drunkest I've ever been was on nights out, not in a house.

realitykeeper · 08-10-2018 8:32am

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

They don't kill people either.

Let's ban people.

Let us take a moment to remind ourselves what this thread is about. It is about alcohol Johnny, alcohol! Not killing. Not cars. Not banning. Not people.

Focus!

odyssey06 · 08-10-2018 8:38am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Let us take a moment to remind ourselves what this thread is about. It is about alcohol Johnny, alcohol! Not killing. Not cars. Not banning. Not people. Focus!

You're right of course, even if people bring up drunk driving and cars in the context of alcohol use, we should not lose sight of alcohol.
But has anyone asked the opinion of alcohol in all of this? Does whiskey want to be drunk? Why is it being excluded from making its voice heard in the debate?

realitykeeper · 08-10-2018 8:46am

odyssey06 wrote: »

You're right of course, even if people bring up drunk driving and cars in the context of alcohol use, we should not lose sight of alcohol.
But has anyone asked the opinion of alcohol in all of this? Does whiskey want to be drunk? Why is it being excluded from making its voice heard in the debate?

Nobody is stopping whiskey from posting on boards if it wants to.

kerryjack · 08-10-2018 9:30am

A drunk tank a very basic room in a garda station a place where you wouldn't want to go back to, would be a good idea to sleep it off instead of going to A&E and causing mayhem. If you spent a night lying in **** and puke you would cop your self on the next night you go out.

McMurphy · 08-10-2018 11:37am

realitykeeper wrote: »

Let us take a moment to remind ourselves what this thread is about. It is about alcohol Johnny, alcohol! Not killing. Not cars. Not banning. Not people.

Focus!

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

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.

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-10-2018 6:48pm

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

He's just keepin it real, man.

08-10-2018 7:05pm

kerryjack wrote: »

A drunk tank a very basic room in a garda station a place where you wouldn't want to go back to, would be a good idea to sleep it off instead of going to A&E and causing mayhem. If you spent a night lying in **** and puke you would cop your self on the next night you go out.

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.

JohnCleary · 08-10-2018 7:07pm

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 · 08-10-2018 8:11pm

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

mean gene · 08-10-2018 8:25pm

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

joe40 · 08-10-2018 9:49pm

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 · 08-10-2018 10:18pm

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 · 08-10-2018 10:22pm

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 · 08-10-2018 10:28pm

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 · 08-10-2018 10:33pm

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 · 08-10-2018 11:33pm

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 · 09-10-2018 5:21am

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 · 09-10-2018 8:16am

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 · 09-10-2018 9:03am

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.

Doctor Jimbob · 09-10-2018 9:14am

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.

That's an argument for increasing tax on alcohol, not one for arbitrarily giving the producers of the substance you're so concerned about more money per unit.

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments