Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Should the alcohol content in drink be reduced?

  • 27-10-2011 02:26PM
    #1
    spider guardian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭spider guardian


    Was listening to Ryan Tubridy (I know, I know) on the radio this morning, he had a consultant on who was talking about alcohol-related illnesses. The consultant noted that years ago in Ireland it was rare to find a bottle of wine with more than 6% volume, these days the average is around 13%. Also he mentioned a gradual increase in the volume in beer, although I have no exact figures.

    There have been threads on boards about minimum prices of alcohol (one here), seems most people are against such a move.

    My question then is do you think it would be a good idea to reduce the alcohol content across certain types of drinks? I could see this having benefits for people's health and bringing about a reduction in social disorder, along with having an effect on other unpleasant side-effects of alchol consumption.

    Of course you could argue that people would just drink more, but I think that's a simplistic argument myself. Personally I go out and have a few pints, I don't think to myself "well I'm having 300ml of alcohol tonight". I find for myself that the line between enjoying alcohol and being well-drunk can be a thin one at times, a lower alcohol content might help people to better control their drinking.

    You could also argue that it would be nanny-statism at its worst, but is it unreasonable to expect the state to look after you when in hospital sick and at the same time give-out when they take measures to prevent you getting sick?


«1345

Comments

  • #2
    Immaculate Pasta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Immaculate Pasta


    NO


  • #3
    Fishooks12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,318 ✭✭✭Fishooks12


    Cans of 8.5% apafol brau would be illegal than

    Lovely rocket fuel that it is

    So NO


  • #4
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,038 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Higher I say Higher!!


  • #5
    Saila
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,751 ✭✭✭Saila


    yeah so you have to spend even more on a nite out to get the same level of drunkness :confused:


  • #6
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,506 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Oh ffs...


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    spider guardian wrote: »
    Was listening to Ryan Tubridy (I know, I know) on the radio this morning, he had a consultant on who was talking about alcohol-related illnesses. The consultant noted that years ago in Ireland it was rare to find a bottle of wine with more than 6% volume, these days the average is around 13%. Also he mentioned a gradual increase in the volume in beer, although I have no exact figures.

    There have been threads on boards about minimum prices of alcohol (one here), seems most people are against such a move.

    My question then is do you think it would be a good idea to reduce the alcohol content across certain types of drinks? I could see this having benefits for people's health and bringing about a reduction in social disorder, along with having an effect on other unpleasant side-effects of alchol consumption.

    Of course you could argue that people would just drink more, but I think that's a simplistic argument myself. Personally I go out and have a few pints, I don't think to myself "well I'm having 300ml of alcohol tonight". I find for myself that the line between enjoying alcohol and being well-drunk can be a thin one at times, a lower alcohol content might help people to better control their drinking.

    You could also argue that it would be nanny-statism at its worst, but is it unreasonable to expect the state to look after you when in hospital sick and at the same time give-out when they take measures to prevent you getting sick?

    I think I should be allowed drink Amy Winehouse.


  • #8
    spider guardian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭spider guardian


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    I think I should be allowed drink Amy Winehouse.

    She would be well-preserved I'd imagine


  • #9
    petes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,382 ✭✭✭petes


    spider guardian wrote: »
    Of course you could argue that people would just drink more,

    People will just drink more.


  • #10
    spider guardian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭spider guardian


    Saila wrote: »
    yeah so you have to spend even more on a nite out to get the same level of drunkness :confused:

    Maybe you would be better off at a lower level of drunkenness :confused:


  • #11
    Voodu Child
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,706 ✭✭✭Voodu Child


    It should be increased so that people fall over unconscious after one drink. If you only have time for one drink before you pass out then you won't be able to drink as much so your health will increase.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    westies4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,456 ✭✭✭westies4ever


    I've tried the lower alochol wines available but they just taste watery so I'd have to say no.


  • #13
    Celly Smunt
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭Celly Smunt


    move to america?


  • #14
    Little Acorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,531 ✭✭✭Little Acorn


    I don't think that is a bad idea actually. Obviously quite a lot of people would just spend more to get drunk, but it might be good for people who don't really want to get too drunk but happen to fly through their drinks, or for people who just like the taste of certain drinks.
    I think there are already non alcoholic beers, and drinks which have fairly low alcohol levels. I guess it might be good though if your favourite drink happened to be a high alcohol level, because if it was lowered you could drink and enjoy more of it without feeling too strong of an effect.
    I must admit though, that anytime I drink, I expect and want to feel some sort of affect. Never want to be too drunk, but definitely tipsy. I would have to spend a lot more money to achieve this if this happened.


  • #15
    foxyboxer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,528 ✭✭✭foxyboxer


    Would it not be better to, you know, drink 3 pints instead of 6 for example?


  • #16
    InkSlinger67
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,756 ✭✭✭InkSlinger67


    Would increase smuggling so, no


  • #17
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    spider guardian wrote: »
    Maybe you would be better off at a lower level of drunkenness :confused:

    don't think so, i'm an angry sober


  • #18
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    spider guardian wrote: »
    The consultant noted that years ago in Ireland it was rare to find a bottle of wine with more than 6% volume, these days the average is around 13%.

    No mention of Poitín?


  • #19
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    I listened to Tubridy for approximately 5min today, first time ever listening to his morning show. That guy is seriously out of touch with reality, he's a sad excuse for a radio presenter and makes no apologies for it. At least Gerry Ryan could at least pretend he had an idea of what was going on in society, that muppet Plank Tubridy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Such a facetious moronic way of going on.


  • #20
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    TheZohan wrote: »
    I listened to Tubridy for approximately 5min today, first time ever listening to his morning show. That guy is seriously out of touch with reality, he's a sad excuse for a radio presenter and makes no apologies for it. At least Gerry Ryan could at least pretend he had an idea of what was going on in society, that muppet Plank Tubridy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Such a facetious moronic way of going on.

    Chance the gardener was more in touch with reality than Tubridy.......... and he was simple.


  • #21
    spider guardian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭spider guardian


    foxyboxer wrote: »
    Would it not be better to, you know, drink 3 pints instead of 6 for example?

    Well wouldn't it be better if we didn't drink at all? Too many people are incapable of controlling their alcohol intake, why not make it harder for people to get too drunk? Most people would still enjoy the same amount of pints with a lower level of alcohol.

    (Making a lot of assumptions here I know)


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    brummytom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,572 ✭✭✭✭brummytom


    So people would drink more to get just as drunk as they usually do? But many alcoholic drinks are fizzy... that's bad for your teeth. Did you know 101% of deaths are caused by teeth?


    More drink!


  • #23
    spider guardian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭spider guardian


    TheZohan wrote: »
    I listened to Tubridy for approximately 5min today, first time ever listening to his morning show. That guy is seriously out of touch with reality, he's a sad excuse for a radio presenter and makes no apologies for it. At least Gerry Ryan could at least pretend he had an idea of what was going on in society, that muppet Plank Tubridy was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Such a facetious moronic way of going on.

    I don't care for Tubridy at all, it was the consultant that was on his show that I thought made a few interesting points


  • #24
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    spider guardian wrote: »
    Too many people are incapable of controlling their alcohol intake, why not make it harder for people to get too drunk? Most people would still enjoy the same amount of pints with a lower level of alcohol.

    Worked well for cannabis.............


  • #25
    spider guardian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭spider guardian


    mikom wrote: »
    Worked well for cannabis.............

    Believe it or not I would be in favour of legalising cannabis, I believe alcohol to be a more harmful substance and so would be in favour of controlling it more


  • #26
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    spider guardian wrote: »
    Well wouldn't it be better if we didn't drink at all? Too many people are incapable of controlling their alcohol intake, why not make it harder for people to get too drunk? Most people would still enjoy the same amount of pints with a lower level of alcohol.

    (Making a lot of assumptions here I know)

    Why not just make the lids harder to take off then?


  • #27
    spider guardian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭spider guardian


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    Why not just make the lids harder to take off then?

    You mean the caps?


  • #28
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    spider guardian wrote: »
    I don't care for Tubridy at all, it was the consultant that was on his show that I thought made a few interesting points

    We already have legislation in the country to stop drunk people buying more drink, it needs to be enforced by pub owners. The system the have in Australia works for the most part. All bar staff must pass a RSA(Responsible Serving of Alcohol) course to work behind a bar, if they don't have this they can't legally serve alcohol and if a bar person serves a drunk person and are found out or reported both they and the bar get fined. When I worked in bars over there I used to tell punters to go for food or coffee or go home and come back another time. We don't need any more nanny statism in this country, might as well raise the legal drinking age to 25, that would be far more effective than diluting the alcohol.


  • #29
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    spider guardian wrote: »
    You mean the caps?

    I'm sorry, I was watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy last night, and they were drinking tins of Harp.


  • #30
    danniemcq
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    spider guardian wrote: »
    Well wouldn't it be better if we didn't drink at all? Too many people are incapable of controlling their alcohol intake, why not make it harder for people to get too drunk? Most people would still enjoy the same amount of pints with a lower level of alcohol.

    (Making a lot of assumptions here I know)

    its the same with everything, be it drink or any type of drugs some people can handle it some can't

    why persecute those who actually like the taste of some strong beers becuase some young ones get hammered and throw up in streets or end up hurting themselves or others


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Jagle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 870 ✭✭✭Jagle


    danniemcq wrote: »
    its the same with everything, be it drink or any type of drugs some people can handle it some can't

    why persecute those who actually like the taste of some strong beers becuase some young ones get hammered and throw up in streets or end up hurting themselves or others

    we need to educate and stop accepting the level of drink young people, and i mean 18-22 year olds are consuming, yes underage people drink, but they shouldbt be so thats a different matter altogether


Advertisement
Advertisement