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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

1162163165167168187

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    None of which suggests that they are actually prohibitionists.

    Look, you don't like them. I get it.

    But you don't have to make up reasons for not liking them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    None of which suggests they are not.

    It is an entirely reasonable and valid suspicion of such an organisation based on what they have said. It is reasonable to draw conclusions in politics etc based on what is not said.

    Nothing you have said on the thread refutes that as a general point or its specific application here.

    The best you could up with was nonsense about Putin and AAI whose irrelevence only served to prove the point.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    If you want to base your political analysis on speculation and guesses, work away. It's not conducive to sensible discussion though.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    As noted above... It is an entirely reasonable and valid suspicion of such an organisation based on what they have said.

    So of course it can be conducive to 'sensible discussion'. You havent even tried to justify such a pronouncenent or what is 'insensible' about raising it as a concern as to the ultimate end goal of a declared anti alcohol organisation.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    It’s an assumption you’ve jumped to because you don’t like AAI. It has no basis, outside of your imagination.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Nope. No hop skip or jump involved.

    I have explained above why it is an entirely reasonable concern to raise as to the agenda of a declared anti alcohol organisation.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    You didn’t “raise a concern” though.

    You put words into their mouth.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Have I? Or just words they want to speak but wont slash darent as they dont think the time is right yet?

    You dont know what their ultimate agenda is - by your own admission. I have explained my reasoning as to why I think it plausible their anti alcohol agenda could involve prohobition.

    So by your own admission you dont know if I am wrong or putting words in their mouth that incorrectly reflect their views.

    I may be wrong but as explained above it is a reasonsble, defensible and plausible position to take based on what they have declared so far of their anti alcohol agenda.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,597 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Why can I buy a can of 6% Zubr at 4am here in London for a pound but in Dublin I'm treated with kid gloves?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,757 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Because our government hasn't got the message that it's not when you buy drink or how much you pay that does the damage.

    It's how you drink it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,168 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Your one of those people who think Ireland have the most consumption in Europe and drink is increasing despite all of the stats showing the complete opposite.

    People let their personal issues blur the truth. AAI are a fine example of that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,757 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Yes, it's definitely not the home drinkers cans that are causing litter problems around the country, just another little inconvenience we will have to put up with.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    Except the home drinkers who put dozens of empties into plastic bags and dump them in the hedges near me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,757 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Blackguards who are too mean to pay for bins or too stupid to find their way to a bottle bank.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    Grand so, work away with mixing facts and supposition in your future posts, with no distinction between the two. It can only detract from the merit of your posts, but obviously that doesn't matter much to you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,757 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Buying a can for £1 at 4am doesn't do any damage if you just drink it and mind your own business.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,531 ✭✭✭✭MEGA BRO WOLF 5000


    Goddamn had to pay my bar tab tonight. I owed 8 pints to my publican, not that I've a problem, he doesn't take card, all cash so half the time I'm here it's on a tab due to convince.

    Pre "pandemic" it would have been 4.10 x 8 = 32.80.

    Now it's 5.20 x 8 = 41.60.

    "Pandemic" aside and the global shortage nonsense etc.

    I was watching a pathè film on YouTube today where a pint went up by 4c and the uproar that caused in a budget. We've literally witnessed the pint jumping by almost 1/3 in two years and everyone seems absolutely fine with that.

    Purely fuelled by the dipshits that are the VFI, we're getting absolutely roasted at the pub and the offie. And all is ok.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.


    We have to save the rural pub trade tho - FG manifesto



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    They were selling at well below the average price before the pandemic. Figures from the CSO.

    "the average Guinness cost €4.65 and a pint of beer would cost €5.04 prior to the pandemic in May 2019"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    Do we all just get to make up sh1t about anyone we disagree with on this thread?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    No damage done if they buy it at 9 pm when the shops are open, and drink it at 4 am.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Except I haven't done that. And you have provided exactly zero evidence of me doing so with reference to a post on this thread.

    So your accusaation is judged to be without foundation, and therefore without merit.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,523 ✭✭✭The Davestator


    As someone who works with younger people, I can confirm that MUP has increased the consumption of drugs. Its a lot cheaper.

    It has also increased the cross border shopping. So, the AAI can point at the falling off trade figures figures and say MUP worked when it has not.

    The issue is that anyone who goes against it will be branded irresponsible and the first line out of the opposite person will be something about A & E at 1 am even though that has not changed since MUP.

    Mad stuff altogether.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,757 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    That's true as well they are not mutually exclusive statements.

    As I said earlier it is people's consumption patterns that lead to damage not the place or time of purchase.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    That’s exactly what you have done in stating that AAI are prohibitionists.

    And you’ve gone to great lengths to justify your inventions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Nope. You accused me of mixing fact and supposition, with no distinction between the two. Yet, tellingly, when asked for a post as evidence, you do not provide one

    So you can't find a single post where I, without qualification, stated that. So I reject your accusations as entirely without merit.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    Shall we start here?




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Yes, and it is clear in that post the basis on which I made the statement. So the post you have cited as evidence disproves the allegation you made that I made no distinction between fact and supposition.

    Also, you were asked for the post where I stated, without qualification / as a matter of fact, that they are prohobitionists. Which is something else you accused me of.

    So politely, before you make further accusations against me, find that post.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    There is no distinction or qualification. You make an absolute statement: “it is reasonable to draw the conclusion as to their ultimate goal re: long term in favour of banning of alcohol.” which is pure supposition.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    That's because you deliberately left out the rest of the sentence which distinguished and qualified it! It is not an absolute statement.

    Your posts have jumped the shark into deliberate misrepresentation now.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,541 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    I see it like a football manager saying "our aim is always to win every game, taking it one at a time". But if asked "So you're thinking of winning the league then?" will inevitably reply that it absolutely isn't a consideration at all.

    With AAI, it's much the same imo. They never mention prohibition, but all their aims and ambitions point towards that as the only end-point at which they'd be happy. Not necessarily prohibition in the 1920s Chicago sense, but effective prohibition by virtue of limited selling points, inaccessibility and high prices.

    And I'm kinda fine with that - I disagree with them on almost everything they say/do, but they are entitled to do it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    That’s not a qualification though. It’s an explanation of how you got to your conclusion, but it doesn’t qualify your conclusion as an absolute statement.

    You haven’t made any distinction between facts and supposition, so I’m clearly entitled to assume that the two of those are the absolute same thing to you, right? It’s all about what you haven’t said.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    So not prohibition then. You can call it ‘effective prohibition’ but that’s not prohibition.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    I can tell the difference between facts and supposition. Evidently you cannot.

    I think most posters on the thread can see through these semantic games you are engaging in with your posts to try to shutdown debate of the AAI agenda.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    How have I shutdown debate by dragging it out over three days? All I’m trying to do is have the debate based on facts, not rumours.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Grand so, you accept it is legitimate for us to discuss prohibition as an end goal of AAI and the possibility of further anti-alcohol measures being pushed by them.

    Or are we not allowed to talk about that?

    Because it seems like you won't allow any discussion of a group that is not based on their current declared agenda - which we all know, is not likely to represent a complete declaration of their future agenda.

    Post edited by odyssey06 on

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    You didn’t “discuss prohibition as an end goal”.

    You stated it was their end goal, with no basis for saying so.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Ok so we are allowed to debate it. And presumably in that debate there will be posters who are of the opinion that it is their end goal and state that and list why they have come to that conclusion. So how is this 'debate' possible under your ground rules?

    This is what I stated, clearly laying out the basis for saying so:

    They are an organisation focused only on alcohol. So they are being judged on what they have said. Given what they have said, and in the absence of a firm statement to the contrary, I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion as to their ultimate goal re: long term in favour of banning of alcohol. They dont give speeches / policy positions on Ukraine. Or Global warming. But about alcohol and its availability and accessibility. So entirely valid to draw conclusions about what they do not say about alcohol.

    Let us imagine a party which pitches itself as pacifist and in its agenda say it will cut military spending etc. It does not give any commitment to retain say a nuclear deterrent.  Is a discussion that said party ultimately seeks to get rid of the nuclear deterrent based on 'rumours'? Would there be no basis for saying they plan to get rid of it? I think we can see such a standard would preclude debate of any political topic outside the present exact text of a party \ organisation's agenda or manifesto. You would not allow any such debate until they state it openly? Because apparently we are not allowed to have a debate based on 'rumours'?

    An absurd standard, without merit or foundation, that I completely reject. Any more posts attempting to apply that standard to the discussion will be ignored by me and I doubt I am alone.  

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    You would not have a big enough sample to justify what you are saying about increased drug consumption being linked to MUP. Being in that field, you probably know about poly drug use, which includes alcohol. In Scotland a report published in 2022 did not note a diversion from alcohol spending to illicit drugs.

    "Little evidence was found of other negative outcomes following the implementation of MUP. In the qualitative work, few people reported consuming illicitly-produced alcohol, stealing alcohol or committing other crimes to obtain alcohol or the money to pay for it. Few people reported substituting illicit drugs for alcohol and those doing so were often already using other substances before the introduction of MUP."

    Nor is the cross border trade going to divert much from spending on alcohol here. The vast majority of drinkers do not have easy access to Northern Ireland. The Scotland report noted some increase over the border to England, probably similar to here. Not going to impact the figures here to much of a degree.

    "Among people drinking at harmful levels who lived close to the Scotland-England border (e.g. within one hour’s drive), the findings from qualitative interviews in WP2 indicate an increase in purchasing of alcohol across the border in England. Increased cross-border trading included moving the weekly grocery shopping to England, buying alcohol when crossing the border for work or other reasons and travelling to England specifically to make bulk purchases of alcohol. Each of these instances typically required the use of a private vehicle. There was no evidence of people purchasing alcohol in England to provide or sell to others. There was also no evidence of cross-border purchasing among those living greater distances from the Scottish border, including in the Central Belt"

    https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/36398/2/PHS_evaluating-the-impact-of-mup-in-scotland-briefing-paper.pdf



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    And do you really expect all the people involved in illicit trade and crimes etc to own up to it?

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    The knowledge is there, however it was obtained.

    "As someone who works with younger people, I can confirm that MUP has increased the consumption of drugs. Its a lot cheaper."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,141 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Given that drugs are illegal, how is someone with a drug problem meant to access help? And in accessing that help, they know what they say is treated confidentially. And the people providing that help can see numbers increasing.

    Bit different to when they are sat down and asked to fill out a self incriminating survey.

    Whereas why would someone admit to stealing alcohol? Or buying alcohol illegally?

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    You could look at the "What the researchers did" section of the Scotland report to see how they went about it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,168 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Or we could open our eyes and ears.


    The AAI lads are an absolutely clueless bunch tbh. So far up their own arses with morality that they actually don't even have a breeze about the subject matter. Publishing reports which prove their own bias but refusing to understand data that crushes their bias.


    Lollipops and rainbows of zero alcohol consumption and no drugs. Its absolute mental stuff. I think at this point they might just enjoy the smell of their own arses, rather than have any notion of cross sectional society. Maybe if they put their efforts into addressing class poverty and institutional inequality they may address the escapism troubled alcoholics are trying to achieve.


    But... that isn't the real goal is it. Never was. A thin frame of morality finger waving and curtain twitching. Self righteousness wrapped in a cloak of tax payer's money to keep them warm. Yum yum



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005


    One of the references used by that research in Scotland was a study of the effect of MUP on cross border alcohol sales. No surprise that the conclusion is that people living near the border account for the majority of the trade. That is the same pattern as has been recorded in Ireland, and MUP will only have a small effect.

    "Conclusions

    These studies indicate that while cross-border purchasing happens, two main caveats apply. Firstly, our findings indicate that cross-border purchases are small relative to the overall purchasing behaviours of the population as a whole. For Scotland, this may indicate that the extent of cross-border purchasing is unlikely to be large enough to offset any impact of MUP on the outcomes set out in the theory of change. Secondly, there appears to be a distance-based effect of cross-border alcohol purchasing shown in the literature, with most cross-border sales occurring in households in close proximity to the border. With the majority of the Scottish population living in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Dundee, a significant degree of cross-border purchasing for households within these cities is unlikely, and the selfreported behaviours of a representative online panel are consistent with this. A further conclusion is that substantial bulk purchasing would be required for individuals to make significant savings whether purchasing in person or online, once travel and delivery costs have been taken into account."

    https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/publications/evaluating-the-impact-of-minimum-unit-pricing-mup-of-alcohol-in-scotland-on-cross-border-purchasing/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,757 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Listen to Prof. Frank Murray and Dr. Sheila Gilheany of AAI tag teaming on Liveline today telling Joe all about how Norway is a good example to us on how to label non alcoholic drink and that we need to raise taxes on drink even higher among other anti alcohol measures they are campaigning for..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,776 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I agree because we have drinking problems in Ireland.

    It's not rocket science.

    People stating an opinion that they believe that AAI might ultimately seek prohibition is fine. That's an opinion.

    People making an unqualified statement that AAI are prohibitionists is entirely unreasonable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,795 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.


    Oops AAI used that bad word on LL (albeit about smoking but you know what their intentions are)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,562 ✭✭✭✭dxhound2005




Advertisement