Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Economics and public health will always fight.

How much does the drink industry and sweets/buscuits/crisps industry contribute to the economy? We could all be non drinking, green veg rice and chicken clean eating athletes but I imagine that would reduce economic acivity quite a bit.

Look at cars, we are switching to more active methods of transportation for better or for worse (don't want to drag thread off topic - can be discussed in the relevant threads). If it is in the interest of public health for us to reduce car usage and subsequently car purchases, then what is the economic impact? - bikes cost a lot less to buy and maintain then a car. Public transport revenue although going directly to the government would be less in value then motor vehicle related expenditure I imagine.

We restricted smoking indoors and taxed it heavily because public health outweighed the economic activity to an extent. However we didn't ban it completely as if we were to ban it altogether then the tax revenue lost would be a major impact.

It's all about where the money winds up. I would say if our population of 5m all went non-drinking, non-smoking, EV driving, green veg rice and chicken clean eating athletes the big producers of alcohol, tobacco, Cars, chocolate and red meat wouldn't even notice as there are so many more global markets for them to sell into. However, the government would notice a significant tax decrease if this happened.

Your point about the smoking ban is valid. I would add to to it and say that pre-smoking-ban you had more non-smokers getting tobacco related illnesses from second hand smoke. These people were a drain on the health service but weren't actually paying into it because they weren't buying the tobacco products in the first place. The smoking ban reduced the risk of tobacco related illnesses for those who weren't paying into the system so win-win

Specifically on alcohol though. It's like one rule for us and another for them. They want us paying the hefty prices and for the yanks to get it cheaper. Would they (and other applicable EU nations) be willing to scrap MUP if Trump wants it gone so Tennessee whiskey can be sold cheaper here?

Fun fact for you, Trump doesn't drink… I was shocked when I discovered this

Yes and no depending on the person.

Some just can't handle it - friends elderly mother (Mid 70s) waiting on hip replacement and a little unsteady, needs a cane to walk etc. She would have drank most people including a lot of men under the table easily but simply can't now. Even 1or 2 glasses of wine is just too much.

For those who are healthy and can handle it - would be surprised if I found a mid 60 year old well bodied man who doesn't touch drink.

To add*

Younger people seem to drink in a different way - shots/mixers etc as vodka and cokes are a lot easier to get down then pints. Can't skull 10 guiness pints - especially if you hate the taste but vodka and cokes can be downed easily.

A mid week/end week after work drink (1/2 pints) doesn't seem to be a thing? Its only on nights out that drink is drank.

Do they talk to the senior wing of their party, well, ever?

You could seriously be onto something here.

If we actually required Internet companies to comply with the below-cost-selling rules that apply to supermarkets, and got them to charge users for the actual services used, instead of frying their brains with ads, internet usage would be an awful lot more healthy.

Frank amockeen (I didn't catch your surname) on Drivetime now, I'm paying enough for a few bottles of lager, I really don't want to be paying more for these nonsense friggin labels because of sour puss killers of joy like yourself.. I really wish yourself and the AAI crowd would leave us alone to enjoy the little fleeting pleasure we get from a couple of jars the odd evening.. I'm actually paying you indirectly to preach to me and make drink dearer

Yours sincerely, a tired taxpayer

At the time it was brought in there was mounting evidence it was already havin this exact result in Scotland, but vested interests like AAI et al just handwaved it away.

Dr Chris Luke. Irelands very own RFK Jr.

Except for Chris Luke being focused on actual medical evidence and not conspiracy theories.

Medical evidence has done the world a loads of good. People still smoke, take drugs etc.

Culture change is whats needed. MUP has shown that whilst moderate drinkers may reduce consumption - problem drinkers will not stop no matter how expensive.

There is no medical evidence to support MUP stopping problem drinkers from consuming alcohol which was the eventual claimed purpose of the policy.

Also theres no conspiracy theories around MUP its written plain for all to see in FGs 2011 manifesto why it was originally introduced as a policy as you are well aware of and it was only after the unconstitutional nature of such a policy was ponted out that they pivoted to health along with some helpful idiots in AAI and the college of physicians.

Since then there has been zero evidence to suggest it has had any effect on consumption of alcohol as we were already drinking less year over year to begin with and that trend has continued since its introduction so its impossible to categorically equate any reduction in consumption to MUP.

The real problem with anti alcohol zealots is they only want to hear the good and never the bad so if you are going to try argue that it led to a reduction then you also must acknowledge any increase in drug use could very well be a result of MUP as well.

If anything the ones with the conspiracy theories are those on the anti alcohol side who for example still to this day claim we are awash with cheap alcohol despite having the most expensive alcohol in Europe.

Don't say it too loud they'll be putting MUP on a bag of coke soon😉. If the stats were there to show that MUP has worked and has reduced alcohol related health issues the politicians would be boasting from the rooftops about how their policy was genius. They've said fcuk all which tells it's own story.