Should the alcohol content in drink be reduced?

Captain Darling · 27-10-2011 03:01PM

Insurgent wrote: »

People will just drink more.

This. Restraint when it comes to alcohol is not an Irish trait.

Wattle · 27-10-2011 03:03PM

I don't think the strength of the alcohol is the issue. It's people's sheer determination to get as off their faces as possible and the complete irresponsibility of promotions such as below:

26 BROUGHT TO LETTERKENNY GENERAL HOSPITAL ON NIGHT OF CHEAP BOOZE OFFER
October 24, 2011
BREAKING NEWS: Almost 30 young people were admitted to Letterkenny General Hospital suffering from alcohol-related problems in just one night following a 99 cent drinks promotion.

The promotion, which took place at a premises in Letterkenny, has been slammed by the Lord Mayor of Letterkenny, Cllr Gerry McMonagle.

Figures released by the Health Service Executive show that 26 people were brought to Letterkenny General Hospital suffering from the effects of alcohol on Wednesday night last.

Many of those admitted to hospital revealed how they had consumed shots of alcohol which were on offer for just 99 cent each.

Mayor McMonagle has said that he is both alarmed and concerned at the affect of low price alcohol is having on young people.

He said “I would appeal to those involved in selling alcohol to act responsibly and not to go down the road of cheap drink promotions.

“I feel these promotions will only increase our binge drinking culture which will lead to long term health problems for those who avail of cheap alcohol,” he said.

He added said the figures released by the HSE should act as a wake up call to us all, but especially to those in the drink trade.

“It’s important that Vintners and others who sell alcohol look at the dangerous consequences of selling alcohol at seriously low promotional prices.

“I would appeal to those involved in selling alcohol to act responsibly and not to go down the road of cheap drink promotions. I feel these promotions will only increase our binge drinking culture which will lead to long term health problems for those who avail of cheap alcohol”

Cllr McMonagle said he supported the Vintners Federation of Irelands call during the summer for a minimum price for alcohol.

“This was a very positive move and one I believe if adopted would go a long way in preventing binge drinking, but we need more,” he said.

Garda Inspector Kevin Gately recently warned about the dangers of cheap alcohol promotions leading to public order offences across Co Donegal.

Eamon O'Kane, Director of the North West Alcohol Forum, also slammed he low-cost selling of alcohol in Letterkenny.

"Whilst everyone sympathises with the economic pressures facing many alcohol retailers, stock must be taken of the consequences of dangerous promotion.

"I recently presented to Letterkenny Town Council on the need for strategic management of the night-time economy.

"The experience of front line staff in the Emergency Department further evidences this need. The Alcohol Forum remains committed to working with all local stakeholders to address this issue.”

ColeTrain · 27-10-2011 03:03PM

Until you ban alcohol completely then you're always going to have the same problems.

People will find ways around it, moonshine, smuggling etc. Alcoholics will keep drinking and maybe that will leave less and less for their families.

The way you tackle Ireland's drink culture is through education but we don't want to know about it. Maybe the consultant should be looking at banning advertising for a start instead of talking about something that's never going to happen.

foxyboxer · 27-10-2011 03:04PM

1. Reduce Alcohol content
2. Advertise it's health benefits
3. People drink more to achieve 'conditioned' levels of intoxication
4. Profit for Diageo, Publicans, Vintners Federation

ShooterSF · 27-10-2011 03:05PM

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)

So everyone should suffer because some people can't control themselves? Why not let everyone make their decisions and then punish those that break the law? Hell if you want to go down the road of regulating alcohol how about a ban (say 3 months) from drinking if you commit a crime while intoxicated as well as the punishment for the crime. If you're brought to the attention of the law again while being banned and are found to have been drinking, you get sent down for a bit.
That way those of us that can get drunk and yet still obey the law can do so without people around us starting fights or others lumping us in with them.

Giruilla · 27-10-2011 03:05PM

Why not just tackle the problem head on instead of pussyfooting around with lame laws like 'lower the alcohol limit', 'no alcohol sold past 10.30pm'...

fine anyone arrested for disorderly conduct or forced to go to hospital from too much alcohol at least 1000 euro and we'll see a nice improvement in our drinking culture.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 03:06PM

TheZohan wrote: »

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.

That legislation is daft, the only way you can tell if someone is drunk enough to be refused drink is when they are slurring their words or falling around the place, by then it is already too late and the person is too drunk. This country has a destructive relationship with alcohol and people should drink less, yet measures to curb drinking (not outlaw it completely mind you) are dismissed as 'nanny-statism'. If people hate the nanny-state so much then why don't we just get rid of social-welfare and benefits and see then how they get on without their 'nanny-state'.

Australia has its problems with drink too, although the Irish there seem to bring their love of alcohol with them. Maybe it's the culture that needs to change

danniemcq · 27-10-2011 03:09PM

Wattle wrote: »

I don't think the strength of the alcohol is the issue. It's people's sheer determination to get as off their faces as possible and the complete irresponsibility of promotions such as below:

26 BROUGHT TO LETTERKENNY GENERAL HOSPITAL ON NIGHT OF CHEAP BOOZE OFFER
October 24, 2011
BREAKING NEWS: Almost 30 young people were admitted to Letterkenny General Hospital suffering from alcohol-related problems in just one night following a 99 cent drinks promotion.

The promotion, which took place at a premises in Letterkenny, has been slammed by the Lord Mayor of Letterkenny, Cllr Gerry McMonagle.

Figures released by the Health Service Executive show that 26 people were brought to Letterkenny General Hospital suffering from the effects of alcohol on Wednesday night last.

Many of those admitted to hospital revealed how they had consumed shots of alcohol which were on offer for just 99 cent each.

This sickens me,

They always have it on a tuesday and i'm working at half 7 on wednesday mornings

Podge_irl · 27-10-2011 03:12PM

Little Acorn wrote: »

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.

You do realise lowering the alcohol content will quite drastically affect the taste.

wildgoose · 27-10-2011 03:13PM

...that's just ripping people off. We all know drinkers drink because its an addiction, same as coffee tea or digestive biscuits, every one finds there own level. How about some real changes like those imposed on cigarette companies, now that maybe a relatively intelligent suggestion.

Shakeyspears · 27-10-2011 03:14PM

It's a matter of our relationship with drink. It was found recently in a study that those "drink responsibly" adverts actually had no affects on people's drink and in fact people drank more. People saw the person in the ad with a clear drinking problem but instead of seeing themselves with the problem, they saw it as others people's problem.

Why would Diageo sponsor and advert that would adversely affect their profits? If the Government really wants to change the countries approach to drink theb it will involve a massive cultural shift that involves spending a lot of money. Money which isn't there. It's easier to try and raise money taxing the profits of drinks companies by making them sell more drink.

If you want change introduce children to alcohol sooner in the home. A glass of wine with dinner when the our 15 (or something to that effect). France and Germany don't have the problems with alcoholism that we have because they are introduced to it sooner and taught to respect it.

Plazaman · 27-10-2011 03:16PM

Pfffttt, low alcohol Beer, what next? Sweet free Sugar. :rolleyes:

Livers are bad and must be punished.

bryaner · 27-10-2011 03:17PM

All young lads should only be allowed drink Guinness, they'd be at home tucked up in bed by 10pm every night..

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 03:19PM

wildgoose wrote: »

...that's just ripping people off. We all know drinkers drink because its an addiction, same as coffee tea or digestive biscuits, every one finds there own level. How about some real changes like those imposed on cigarette companies, now that maybe a relatively intelligent suggestion.

Most people aren't addicted to drink, and you don't see people fighting or puking on the streets because they drank too much tea.

Maybe the same measures imposed on drink as cigarettes would be too draconian for some.

danniemcq · 27-10-2011 03:20PM

bryaner wrote: »

All young lads should only be allowed drink Guinness, they'd be at home tucked up in bed by 10pm every night..

and on the loo for most of the morning then

well till they get used to it

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 03:24PM

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

I like to drive my car fast, but because some idiots can't drive properly I have to endure speed limits

yupyup7up · 27-10-2011 03:27PM

to sum up what I think of this thread :
FUCK NO!!!

yoyo · 27-10-2011 03:28PM

Wattle wrote: »

I don't think the strength of the alcohol is the issue. It's people's sheer determination to get as off their faces as possible and the complete irresponsibility of promotions such as below:

26 BROUGHT TO LETTERKENNY GENERAL HOSPITAL ON NIGHT OF CHEAP BOOZE OFFER
October 24, 2011
BREAKING NEWS: Almost 30 young people were admitted to Letterkenny General Hospital suffering from alcohol-related problems in just one night following a 99 cent drinks promotion.

The promotion, which took place at a premises in Letterkenny, has been slammed by the Lord Mayor of Letterkenny, Cllr Gerry McMonagle.

Figures released by the Health Service Executive show that 26 people were brought to Letterkenny General Hospital suffering from the effects of alcohol on Wednesday night last.

Many of those admitted to hospital revealed how they had consumed shots of alcohol which were on offer for just 99 cent each.

Mayor McMonagle has said that he is both alarmed and concerned at the affect of low price alcohol is having on young people.

He said “I would appeal to those involved in selling alcohol to act responsibly and not to go down the road of cheap drink promotions.

“I feel these promotions will only increase our binge drinking culture which will lead to long term health problems for those who avail of cheap alcohol,” he said.

He added said the figures released by the HSE should act as a wake up call to us all, but especially to those in the drink trade.

“It’s important that Vintners and others who sell alcohol look at the dangerous consequences of selling alcohol at seriously low promotional prices.

“I would appeal to those involved in selling alcohol to act responsibly and not to go down the road of cheap drink promotions. I feel these promotions will only increase our binge drinking culture which will lead to long term health problems for those who avail of cheap alcohol”

Cllr McMonagle said he supported the Vintners Federation of Irelands call during the summer for a minimum price for alcohol.

“This was a very positive move and one I believe if adopted would go a long way in preventing binge drinking, but we need more,” he said.

Garda Inspector Kevin Gately recently warned about the dangers of cheap alcohol promotions leading to public order offences across Co Donegal.

Eamon O'Kane, Director of the North West Alcohol Forum, also slammed he low-cost selling of alcohol in Letterkenny.

"Whilst everyone sympathises with the economic pressures facing many alcohol retailers, stock must be taken of the consequences of dangerous promotion.

"I recently presented to Letterkenny Town Council on the need for strategic management of the night-time economy.

"The experience of front line staff in the Emergency Department further evidences this need. The Alcohol Forum remains committed to working with all local stakeholders to address this issue.”

:rolleyes:Sure isn't it not the Off Licenses who need a standard price set, publicans are very responsible persons :rolleyes: . Goes to show what a joke this country is though, put up the cost of off license drink and this kind of carry on will still happen in pubs.
Also if anything I've noticed some beers have been reduced in alcohol in recent years:
Stella 5.2-5.0%
Fosters 4.3-4.0%
Tuborg 4.5-4.0%
Are some I can think of, theres probably more!

Nick

bryaner · 27-10-2011 03:28PM

danniemcq wrote: »

and on the loo for most of the morning then

well till they get used to it

All part of the initiation..:D

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 03:29PM

ColeTrain wrote: »

Until you ban alcohol completely then you're always going to have the same problems.

People will find ways around it, moonshine, smuggling etc. Alcoholics will keep drinking and maybe that will leave less and less for their families.

The way you tackle Ireland's drink culture is through education but we don't want to know about it. Maybe the consultant should be looking at banning advertising for a start instead of talking about something that's never going to happen.

Before the smoking ban came in a sizeable amount of people did not think it was a good idea, now most people think it is. If you had suggested it in the years before it came in you would have been laughed out the door

ColeTrain · 27-10-2011 03:33PM

spider guardian wrote: »

Before the smoking ban came in a sizeable amount of people did not think it was a good idea, now most people think it is. If you had suggested it in the years before it came in you would have been laughed out the door

What so maybe let people drink their 4% beer in the comfort of their own home but not in public?

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 03:35PM

ColeTrain wrote: »

What so maybe let people drink their 4% beer in the comfort of their own home but not in public?

They can do whatever they want in their own homes.

ShooterSF · 27-10-2011 03:36PM

spider guardian wrote: »

Before the smoking ban came in a sizeable amount of people did not think it was a good idea, now most people think it is. If you had suggested it in the years before it came in you would have been laughed out the door

Who didn't think it was a good idea? People might have been against it from a business point of view or from a selfish one but most people realised that smoking affects those around you who would rather not smoke. Now if you went out tonight for a few cokes and people kept pouring some of their beer into your coke I'd object to that too.
And yes people are against nanny-ism. Social welfare unlike what you're suggesting is there to help those in need not take away a person's liberty because you know what's best for them.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 03:45PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Who didn't think it was a good idea? People might have been against it from a business point of view or from a selfish one but most people realised that smoking affects those around you who would rather not smoke. Now if you went out tonight for a few cokes and people kept pouring some of their beer into your coke I'd object to that too.
And yes people are against nanny-ism. Social welfare unlike what you're suggesting is there to help those in need not take away a person's liberty because you know what's best for them.

Plenty of people didn't think it was a good idea, not just the vested interests but members of the ordinary public too. Do you not remember the furore before it was introduced?

Seeing as we already have laws on when people can drink, the level of intoxication at which they can be served, not allowing them to drive while drunk, minimum age at which they can drink then why would it be such a huge stretch to lower the alcohol content? People would not have their liberty to get drunk taken away from them, it would simply be made more difficult.

Also, it needn't be a law. The drink companies could voluntarily lower the alcohol. Highly unlikely I know

woodoo · 27-10-2011 03:46PM

Yes i'd like to see beer, cider, ales and stouts come down from avg 4.3% to avg 3.5% in the EU. Also bring wine down to below 9%. Spirits down to 30%.

Also a ban on all happy hours and drinks promotions. Then the likes of this wouldn't be happening as much: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1025/1224306446550.html

ShooterSF · 27-10-2011 03:49PM

spider guardian wrote: »

Plenty of people didn't think it was a good idea, not just the vested interests but members of the ordinary public too. Do you not remember the furore before it was introduced?

Not really. Most people kicking up were either smokers who didn't want to be inconvenienced and publicans. Anyway, just because one proposal with genuine reasons to be proposed causes a fuss does not mean any propossal that causes one will be good.

Seeing as we already have laws on when people can drink, the level of intoxication at which they can be served, not allowing them to drive while drunk, minimum age at which they can drink then why would it be such a huge stretch to lower the alcohol content? People would not have their liberty to get drunk taken away from them, it would simply be made more difficult.

Or, we take a look at those laws and why they exist and perhaps chuck out the nonsensical one which states what time you can be served alcohol. And it's not a liberty "to get drunk" but rather do drink what they like.

ShooterSF · 27-10-2011 03:52PM

woodoo wrote: »

Yes i'd like to see beer, cider, ales and stouts come down from avg 4.3% to avg 3.5% in the EU. Also bring wine down to below 9%. Spirits down to 30%.

Also a ban on all happy hours and drinks promotions. Then the likes of this wouldn't be happening as much: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1025/1224306446550.html

So in that case you blame the drinks promotion and force everyone elese that controlled themselves on the night to miss out rather than blame the 29 idiots that couldn't control themselves?

Sigh. Somedays are harder than others to respect humanity.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 04:06PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not really. Most people kicking up were either smokers who didn't want to be inconvenienced and publicans. Anyway, just because one proposal with genuine reasons to be proposed causes a fuss does not mean any propossal that causes one will be good.

And perhaps people who would kick up over this proposal are drinkers who drink too much. Doesn't make it a bad proposal.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Or, we take a look at those laws and why they exist and perhaps chuck out the nonsensical one which states what time you can be served alcohol. And it's not a liberty "to get drunk" but rather do drink what they like.

Perhaps the time law is a nonsensical one. Maybe it does cause people to binge drink in the lead up to closing time. So why not get rid of it and in addition to the lower alcohol proposal you would have less people on the streets at the same time, and more sober to boot.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So in that case you blame the drinks promotion and force everyone elese that controlled themselves on the night to miss out rather than blame the 29 idiots that couldn't control themselves?

Sigh. Somedays are harder than others to respect humanity.

I think the same thing when I see the behaviour of drunk people at night.

ShooterSF · 27-10-2011 04:13PM

spider guardian wrote: »

And perhaps people who would kick up over this proposal are drinkers who drink too much. Doesn't make it a bad proposal.

I'd object on the grounds that you are interfering with another person's liberty to do what they want with their body. The same reason that even though I have never touched illegal recreational drugs in my life I'd support legalising them.

Perhaps the time law is a nonsensical one. Maybe it does cause people to binge drink in the lead up to closing time. So why not get rid of it and in addition to the lower alcohol proposal you would have less people on the streets at the same time, and more sober to boot.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see people get into less of a state regularly on nights out but it will only be through dialogue with them that I would hope to change their minds not forcing my beliefs on them.

I think the same thing when I see the behaviour of drunk people at night.

And yet only one of is calling for laws to be enforced to stop what they see as shameful humanity.

woodoo · 27-10-2011 04:23PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

So in that case you blame the drinks promotion and force everyone elese that controlled themselves on the night to miss out rather than blame the 29 idiots that couldn't control themselves?.

Yes i think we need a much more sensible approach to alcohol and selling 99cent shots is asking for trouble.

I would favour a min price for alcohol too in supermarkets. It would be great if it was EU wide but failing that i'd say it would need to be lead by the UK for it to have much effect here.

Should the alcohol content in drink be reduced?

Comments