Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Options
1…107108110112113…308

Comments

  • Options
    #3272
    oceanman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #3273
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3274
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,965 ✭✭✭✭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.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #3275
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,408 ✭✭✭✭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.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #3276
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3277
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


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


  • Options
    #3278
    kerryjack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3279
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3280
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,408 ✭✭✭✭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.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #3281
    kerryjack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3282
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3283
    CinemaGuy45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3284
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3285
    CinemaGuy45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3286
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,500 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3287
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,859 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #3288
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,408 ✭✭✭✭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.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #3289
    kerryjack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭kerryjack


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


  • Options
    #3290
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    The health fascists and Official Ireland seem to want to drive men away from socialising via alcohol to socialising through a 5km group run through the park followed by a quick jaunt to a Starbucks for a chat about out feelings and mental health. And Everyone lives until they are 100.

    This nonsense has gone too far. I want to get mildly drunk, eat what I want, get into a bit of mischief and die when I'm 75.


  • Options
    #3291
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    The health fascists and Official Ireland seem to want to drive men away from socialising via alcohol to socialising through a 5km group run through the park followed by a quick jaunt to a Starbucks for a chat about out feelings and mental health. And Everyone lives until they are 100.

    This nonsense has gone too far. I want to get mildly drunk, eat what I want, get into a bit of mischief and die when I'm 75.

    We need to find the middle ground

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.irishexaminer.com/sport/other-sports/chugging-along-on-the-beer-mile-462111.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3292
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,500 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    The health fascists and Official Ireland seem to want to drive men away from socialising via alcohol to socialising through a 5km group run through the park followed by a quick jaunt to a Starbucks for a chat about out feelings and mental health. And Everyone lives until they are 100.

    This nonsense has gone too far. I want to get mildly drunk, eat what I want, get into a bit of mischief and die when I'm 75.

    I'm guessing your not 74 then :)


  • Options
    #3293
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,935 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    The taxpayer subsidised pints?

    Tip or the iceberg, sure another week or two and it's the 'Halloween Break', followed by the Christmas sabitical in a few more weeks.

    Why this carry on the tolarated and paid for is absolutely amazing. The absolute blatant disregard for the tax payer is amazing, how there hasn't been uproar is beyond me. The fact the alcohol legislation took 1000 days is a sign of how little work is done in the Dail.

    One thing is for sure, I will never ever ever in my life vote for FG or FF, or any of them independents again along with the green party or Labour.

    I personally want them out.


  • Options
    #3294
    squawker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭squawker


    Start home-brewing lads, when everything is up an running you will be looking at 30c a pint

    And it tastes all the sweeter while vaping my own DIY nicotine liquid

    F-you Nanny state


  • Options
    #3295
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    squawker wrote: »
    Start home-brewing lads, when everything is up an running you will be looking at 30c a pint

    And it tastes all the sweeter while vaping my own DIY nicotine liquid

    F-you Nanny state

    They'll be taxing that soon too if the vintners tell them to.

    Just watch.


  • Options
    #3296
    squawker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭squawker


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    They'll be taxing that soon too if the vintners tell them to.

    Just watch.

    That's what the Internet is for ;)


  • Options
    #3297
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    squawker wrote: »
    That's what the Internet is for ;)

    Just on that, was excise raised on alcohol today in the budget?


    Anyone?


  • Options
    #3298
    squawker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭squawker


    Nope, smokes got a 50c increase


  • Options
    #3299
    CinemaGuy45
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭CinemaGuy45


    Johnny Dogs wrote: »
    They'll be taxing that soon too if the vintners tell them to.

    Just watch.

    Nah they will just raid these houses and say they are bomb-making factories.
    Partially true the next morning if you drink too many of them. :D


  • Options
    #3300
    McMurphy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,365 ✭✭✭✭McMurphy


    squawker wrote: »
    Nope, smokes got a 50c increase

    And the health budget went almost 1bn over budget:confused:

    Yet they'll increase the bottom line of the lads making the gargle.

    If the health facade wasn't a facade.......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3301
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,218 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    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.

    Which is fine. The judgemental attitude of a few non-drinkers stinks though.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



Advertisement