Should the alcohol content in drink be reduced?

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 04:32PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

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.

I don't accept that this proposal would interfere with a person's ability to do what they want with their body. They could still bring home a bucketload of spirits and get as plastered as they want at home. Or just even drink a load of shorts in the pub. Or even just drink a few more pints in the pub. My take on this proposal is that for most people it would make it easier for them to drink less alcohol over a longer period of time. Surely this is preferable to people drinking more?

ShooterSF wrote: »

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.

The state forces its beliefs on people in a lot of ways. I agree that there should be more education around the dangers of alcohol but such is the situation now in Ireland that I'm not sure how effective it would be on its own.

ShooterSF wrote: »

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

Look, if there is a way to curb alcohol abuse without inconveniencing people who don't abuse it then I'm all ears. This is only one proposal, and if it leads to a debate then good and well, I'm sure there are better ways out there. I see alcohol abuse as something that should be dealt with, I see measures to curb alcohol abuse as a society protecting its members, not oppressing them.

OneArt · 27-10-2011 04:34PM

Get a better bloody police force if you want social order. If you don't want to get drunk, then don't drink so much. Full stop. Learn to have some bloody self control.

Drink is cheap and widely available in Germany and you can drink on the streets and but the police are terrifying, you're fined for even crossing the road at a red light.

27-10-2011 04:36PM

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%.

Right and we never used to have alcoholics in ireland before, never ever

ffs it's a stupid idea

get stronger fines for being disorderly

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 04:39PM

OneArt wrote: »

Get a better bloody police force if you want social order. If you don't want to get drunk, then don't drink so much. Full stop. Learn to have some bloody self control.

Drink is cheap and widely available in Germany and you can drink on the streets and but the police are terrifying, you're fined for even crossing the road at a red light.

It's not just about social order, it's about people's health and well-being also. We're not talking about Germany here, I doubt Irish people would respond well to a tougher police force while drunk.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 04:39PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Right and we never used to have alcoholics in ireland before, never ever

ffs it's a stupid idea

get stronger fines for being disorderly

So what is the reasoning behind increasing the volume then?

27-10-2011 04:40PM

spider guardian wrote: »

So what is the reasoning behind increasing the volume then?

how would i know? do i look like i work for them?

strobe · 27-10-2011 04:43PM

People that drink to get drunk drink until they reach a level of drunkenness they are happy with (and often then keep going regardless). If they have to drink one bottle of wine or seven to reach that level then that is what they will do.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 04:48PM

bluewolf wrote: »

how would i know? do i look like i work for them?

You quoted me on the statistic that alcohol volumes have gone up. You don't seem to think this is a bad thing just because we had alcoholics back then too. While there is any amount of alcohol available in society there will be alcoholics, I have just proposed something that may reduce the amount of alcoholics NOW.

strobe · 27-10-2011 04:49PM

spider guardian wrote: »

I have just proposed something that may reduce the amount of alcoholics NOW.

It won't though. Why would it? What's your reasoning?

Chuck Stone · 27-10-2011 04:52PM

The slaves are asking for more work.

Sometimes I despair.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 04:53PM

strobe wrote: »

It won't though. Why would it? What's you reasoning?

The less alcohol people are exposed to then maybe they will be less likely to become alcoholics. Emphasis on the maybe, I don't know for sure. This isn't just about reducing the amount of alcoholics, it's about reducing levels of drunkenness

Jesus Shaves · 27-10-2011 04:58PM

Odd Thread: There is already a varying level of alcohol in different brands of beer, wine and spirits

People already have the choice of what alcohol content they want in their drinks and most choose the higher alcohol content products

Are you trying to take away peoples right of choice, sounds very draconian to me, Op must be working for the people in Brussels

strobe · 27-10-2011 05:02PM

spider guardian wrote: »

The less alcohol people are exposed to then maybe they will be less likely to become alcoholics. Emphasis on the maybe, I don't know for sure. This isn't just about reducing the amount of alcoholics, it's about reducing levels of drunkenness

But how can you think that will work? Say someone normally drinks a liter of 40% vodka a night, a real booze hound. Now say she goes to her regular off license to stock up for her daily drunkening. She walks in and goes "a bottle of Smirnoff there Jim". Jim says, "ahh sorry Mary, we just sold our last bottle of vodka. Literally all we have left is beer and wine". You think she is just going to buy one bottle of 12% wine? That won't get her as drunk as she wants to get. She will buy a couple of bottles of wine or more. Consuming the same amount of alcohol she always does as that is the amount of alcohol it takes to get her as drunk as she likes to get.

Your idea would only work if we fitted chips into peoples heads that made them only capable of drinking 4 containers of alcohol. Then we could set the level of alcohol in a container and hey presto.

Sorry, it's a non-runner man.

If drink is half the strength people will drink twice as much to achieve the same effect. People don't drink X number of drinks regardless of the strenght, they drink how ever many it takes of whatever strength drink they are drinking to achieve the drunkenness they want to achieve. It's why, for instance, someone will drink only one litre of vodka but when the same person is drinking beer they will drink several litres.

ShooterSF · 27-10-2011 05:05PM

spider guardian wrote: »

I don't accept that this proposal would interfere with a person's ability to do what they want with their body. They could still bring home a bucketload of spirits and get as plastered as they want at home. Or just even drink a load of shorts in the pub. Or even just drink a few more pints in the pub. My take on this proposal is that for most people it would make it easier for them to drink less alcohol over a longer period of time. Surely this is preferable to people drinking more?

What would be preferable would be to give them a range of alcohol and let them choose. Also I drink wheat beer which is pretty strong (and like a human being with some personal responsibility I realise that and drink slower). Now wheat beer isn't that popular over here so do we force German brewers to either stop supplying or have to create a whole new drink for a small population of a small country?

The state forces its beliefs on people in a lot of ways. I agree that there should be more education around the dangers of alcohol but such is the situation now in Ireland that I'm not sure how effective it would be on its own.

You're assuming I support the current level of interference the state has in our lives or that because it's already doing it I should accept more?

Look, if there is a way to curb alcohol abuse without inconveniencing people who don't abuse it then I'm all ears. This is only one proposal, and if it leads to a debate then good and well, I'm sure there are better ways out there. I see alcohol abuse as something that should be dealt with, I see measures to curb alcohol abuse as a society protecting its members, not oppressing them.

That sentence actually made my skin crawl. It's the attitude of a tyrant. I know better than you and am here to protect you. I've already along with others suggested harsher penalties for those that break the law intoxicated if we need to curb it.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 05:08PM

darokane wrote: »

Odd Thread: There is already a varying level of alcohol in different brands of beer, wine and spirits

People already have the choice of what alcohol content they want in their drinks and most choose the higher alcohol content products

Are you trying to take away peoples right of choice, sounds very draconian to me, Op must be working for the people in Brussels

In Ireland, most beers you get in the pub are higher than the EU average. I say they could be brought down across the board. It doesn't have to be the government that enforces this, it could be the drinks companies, like the food companies that reduced the amount of saturated fat in their products. If the drink tasted the same what would it matter?

I cannot divulge who I work for, top secret :cool:

Jesus Shaves · 27-10-2011 05:20PM

spider guardian wrote: »

In Ireland, most beers you get in the pub are higher than the EU average. I say they could be brought down across the board. It doesn't have to be the government that enforces this, it could be the drinks companies, like the food companies that reduced the amount of saturated fat in their products. If the drink tasted the same what would it matter?

I cannot divulge who I work for, top secret :cool:

It would matter because the price should be reduced to reflect the lower alcohol content

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 05:27PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

That sentence actually made my skin crawl. It's the attitude of a tyrant. I know better than you and am here to protect you. I've already along with others suggested harsher penalties for those that break the law intoxicated if we need to curb it.

Don't be so dramatic. We already have laws that curb the speed at which we can drive, our right to smoke in the workplace, the hours at which we can drink etc etc. Why is a proposal to reduce alcohol levels such a huge leap? It's like saying a law to reduce the amount of pollutants in the air deprives us of our right to breathe fumes.

We have certain laws in this country, yet Ireland is seen as one as one of the freeest nations in the world. I get the impression you don't like any laws, and would be quite happy to live in anarchy. As long as the state doesn't intrude on our rights of course. Why not go and live in Somalia? They don't have much a government there and seem to be doing just fine.

If that's all it took to make your skin crawl then you need thicker skin.

Also, this would not necessarily have to be a law. The drinks industry could bring this in.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 05:33PM

strobe wrote: »

But how can you think that will work? Say someone normally drinks a liter of 40% vodka a night, a real booze hound. Now say she goes to her regular off license to stock up for her daily drunkening. She walks in and goes "a bottle of Smirnoff there Jim". Jim says, "ahh sorry Mary, we just sold our last bottle of vodka. Literally all we have left is beer and wine". You think she is just going to buy one bottle of 12% wine? That won't get her as drunk as she wants to get. She will buy a couple of bottles of wine or more. Consuming the same amount of alcohol she always does as that is the amount of alcohol it takes to get her as drunk as she likes to get.

Your idea would only work if we fitted chips into peoples heads that made them only capable of drinking 4 containers of alcohol. Then we could set the level of alcohol in a container and hey presto.

Sorry, it's a non-runner man.

If drink is half the strength people will drink twice as much to achieve the same effect. People don't drink X number of drinks regardless of the strenght, they drink how ever many it takes of whatever strength drink they are drinking to achieve the drunkenness they want to achieve. It's why, for instance, someone will drink only one litre of vodka but when the same person is drinking beer they will drink several litres.

If Mary is that determined to get out of her mind with drink then I say let her. She can't be helped. You are saying that all people drink to get to a certain level of drunkenness, I say they a lot of them don't. A lot of it is people who just happen to be drinking while out socialising with their friends etc. I guess this is a fundamental difference here.

strobe · 27-10-2011 05:46PM

spider guardian wrote: »

If Mary is that determined to get out of her mind with drink then I say let her. She can't be helped. You are saying that all people drink to get to a certain level of drunkenness, I say they a lot of them don't. A lot of it is people who just happen to be drinking while out socialising with their friends etc. I guess this is a fundamental difference here.

So you think the people you are talking about, the one's who are damaging their health and causing social problems are getting accidentally drunk and this will stop if beer is weaker? Really? Nonsense, sorry. People know x amount of alcohol will get them drunk, they know y amount will damage their health. They choose to drink that amount regardless.

If these people you speak of above aren't drinking to get drunk then why aren't they drinking 7-up or orange juice while out socialising with friends? Lot's of people like 7-up but they wouldn't sit there and drink 7 pints of it one after the other.

The reason people will sit there and drink 7 pints of beer one after the other on the other hand, is because 7 beers contain x amount of alcohol and that's the amount of alcohol they want effecting them. It's a drug, people use it for it's psychoactive effects. Drugs users will use more of a weaker product to achieve the effects they want to achieve.

ShooterSF · 27-10-2011 05:49PM

spider guardian wrote: »

Don't be so dramatic. We already have laws that curb the speed at which we can drive, our right to smoke in the workplace, the hours at which we can drink etc etc. Why is a proposal to reduce alcohol levels such a huge leap? It's like saying a law to reduce the amount of pollutants in the air deprives us of our right to breathe fumes.

We have certain laws in this country, yet Ireland is seen as one as one of the freeest nations in the world. I get the impression you don't like any laws, and would be quite happy to live in anarchy. As long as the state doesn't intrude on our rights of course. Why not go and live in Somalia? They don't have much a government there and seem to be doing just fine.

If that's all it took to make your skin crawl then you need thicker skin.

Also, this would not necessarily have to be a law. The drinks industry could bring this in.

Ok just to fix your impression,

Speeding Law - Agree with the idea (if not always it's implementation) as one person's reckless driving endangers other people.

Smoking in the workplace - Agree totally, not only on the grounds that you force your choice on others but also that recreational drug use in the workplace is unprofessional.

Hours at which we can drink - Against. Over this already, Has no bearing on other people what time you drink unless you break other punishable laws by interfering in other's lives.

Law on pollutants - Agree. Impacts others.

Seeing a pattern yet? I do not support anarchy. I believe our state should only get involved when a person is negatively effecting other's lives. Give people as much liberty as you can whilst preventing them from taking liberty from someone else.

As for the idea of the drinks company bringing it in why would they? The alcohol levels of a drink are often a by product of how the drink is made. Unless they come up with a better tasting lower volume drink I doubt it'll happen.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 05:58PM

strobe wrote: »

So you think the people you are talking about, the one's who are damaging their health and causing social problems are getting accidentally drunk and this will stop if beer is weaker? Really? Nonsense, sorry. People know x amount of alcohol will get them drunk, they know y amount will damage their health. They choose to drink it regardless.

If these people you speak of above aren't drinking to get drunk then why aren't they drinking 7-up or orange juice while out socialising with friends? Lot's of people like 7-up but they wouldn't sit there and drink 7 pints of it one after the other.

The reason people will sit there and drink 7 pints of beer one after the other on the other hand is because 7 beers contain x amount of alcohol.

The only way to completely cut out alcohol-related problems completely is to get rid of alcohol altogether. That's not going to happen. You seem to put a lot of faith in people's knowledge about alcohol, and whether they consciously make a decision to get to a certain level of drunkenness. Not all people do. If people were imbibing alcohol at a slower rate I think they would spend longer in the 'merry' zone and would be less prone to drinking quickly.

This is all about habit, if this measure was brought in tomorrow people would drink quicker, no doubt. But over time I think people would get back into the habit of enjoying their drink without worrying about whether they are getting drunk quick enough. I know you are going to disagree with this but this is my opinion. The consultant on the radio thought so too.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 06:11PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok just to fix your impression,

Speeding Law - Agree with the idea (if not always it's implementation) as one person's reckless driving endangers other people.

Smoking in the workplace - Agree totally, not only on the grounds that you force your choice on others but also that recreational drug use in the workplace is unprofessional.

Hours at which we can drink - Against. Over this already, Has no bearing on other people what time you drink unless you break other punishable laws by interfering in other's lives.

Law on pollutants - Agree. Impacts others.

Seeing a pattern yet? I do not support anarchy. I believe our state should only get involved when a person is negatively effecting other's lives. Give people as much liberty as you can whilst preventing them from taking liberty from someone else.

I see where you are coming from. But I would argue that alcohol abuse does negatively affect other people's lives. It destroys families, causes social disorder, causes health problems for which the state must pay to have treated. Are these not problems that society should try and deal with? I agree with harsher penalties for people who commit offences but will it work? What about people who do not commit offences but go on to damage themselves and others anyway? I am not out to interfere with people's rights, but to try and tackle a problem that has been the scourge of this country for too long. If there is a better way then fine.

ShooterSF wrote: »

As for the idea of the drinks company bringing it in why would they? The alcohol levels of a drink are often a by product of how the drink is made. Unless they come up with a better tasting lower volume drink I doubt it'll happen.

Well McDonnell's started providing healthier (at least on the face of it) meals after public pressure, why not the drinks companies? I don't know much about the brewing process for beer but I'm sure there's a way of doing it. A lot of the higher volume beers aren't that nice anyways

wildgoose · 27-10-2011 06:24PM

spider guardian wrote: »

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.

Wrong! wrong! Wrong! They are addicted. Why do you think its so pervasive. Until you understand the differences in how the human body responds to, and metabolizes alcohol(and other chemicals) then you will never understand why people drink and drink to excess. Everybody's metabolism responds in slightly different ways to all sorts of chemicals and hence there reactions are different. Did you know some people drink 4 or 5 pots of tea in 2-3 hrs, is that not an addiction? Just because they dont puke or fight in the streets just means the effects are not apparently negative.

For starters how about imposing a ban on alcohol advertising (tv, and at sports events) same as for cigarettes and include similar warnings about the destruction of of health and families. How is that draconian

thesultan · 27-10-2011 06:33PM

I love the way these laws are adhered to by people who always come from cities with little awareness for country folk. Outside Dublin or Cork most people do not have endless taxi's, buses, Dart's or trains to shuffle them to and fro. It's the thing the morning that's the killer. Do everything right. Drive to the pub, Don't drive home and then collect the car in the morning yet one is scared ****less if you could be caught out.

spider guardian · 27-10-2011 06:33PM

wildgoose wrote: »

Wrong! wrong! Wrong! They are addicted. Why do you think its so pervasive. Until you understand the differences in how the human body responds to, and metabolizes alcohol(and other chemicals) then you will never understand why people drink and drink to excess. Everybody's metabolism responds in slightly different ways to all sorts of chemicals and hence there reactions are different. Did you know some people drink 4 or 5 pots of tea in 2-3 hrs, is that not an addiction? Just because they dont puke or fight in the streets just means the effects are not apparently negative.

For starters how about imposing a ban on alcohol advertising (tv, and at sports events) same as for cigarettes and include similar warnings about the destruction of of health and families. How is that draconian

Well with cigarettes some countries have proposals to remove all logos from cigarette boxes and have them kept underneath the counter. Not really sure where I am going with this but I suppose there might be an argument for restricting advertising of drink.

I'm not sure why you are bringing other addictions into this, an addiction to tea is not in the same league as alcohol!

Maybe you are right about more casual alcohol usage being an addiction. I guess if the effects of using it are harmful then it could be classed as such

Jesus Shaves · 27-10-2011 06:36PM

wildgoose wrote: »

Did you know some people drink 4 or 5 pots of tea in 2-3 hrs, is that not an addiction? Just because they dont puke or fight in the streets just means the effects are not apparently negative.

Wrong wrong wrong!

Until you understand the differences in how the human body responds to, and metabolizes tea(and other chemicals such as caffeine) then you will never understand why people drink and drink to excess.

booboo88 · 27-10-2011 06:50PM

spider guardian wrote: »

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

down with that silly talk..... if i wanted to stay sober, i would just drink soft drinks

wildgoose · 27-10-2011 06:59PM

darokane wrote: »

Wrong wrong wrong!

Until you understand the differences in how the human body responds to, and metabolizes tea(and other chemicals such as caffeine) then you will never understand why people drink and drink to excess.

In case you did not understand the point let me enlighten.
The term addiction is also sometimes applied to compulsions that are not substance-related, such as compulsive shopping, sex addiction/compulsive sex, overeating, problem gambling, exercise/sport and computer addiction. In these kinds of common usages, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences, as deemed by the user themselves to their individual health, mental state, or social life. There may be biological and psychological factors contributing to these addictions.[10]

In other words addiction can be used to describe a vast variety of response to stimuli. The key is a person's level of addiction, and of course that is dependent on a persons metabolism. When we approach the subject in this manner we will throw more light on the correct repose.

wildgoose · 27-10-2011 07:10PM

a discussion on the merits of lowering the level of alcohol, speed limits increasing check points making driving while intox laws more sever is pointless because the human body will seek its level of gratification. Until this point is worked its only then that real success can be achieved.

YFlyer · 27-10-2011 07:50PM

Look Tubridy is a light weight..........

Should the alcohol content in drink be reduced?

Comments