Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Really though, education? I mean come on, aer people really still unsure as to the effects and possible dangers of alcohol?

We live in a age of free information, yet anytime there is an issue it is the governments job to educate us poor plebs who know no better. THis is the very same 'sophisticated electorate' that is fed up being taken for fools by politicians!

Has any studies actually been done to see how little people actually know about drinking. Not what they say they know, but what they actually know. I simply don't believe that teenagers heading out for their bottle of scrumpy jack don't understand what they are doing.

I think, like smoking, no matter what you inform people, they will either not listen or simply refuse to believe and call it a nanny state conspiracy to avoid having to face the facts.

I know going out that if I drink too much it will lead to a poor sleep that night, probable hangover the next day. But I still do it cause I enjoy it at the time. But I do it fully aware of the information.

So I call bullsh1t on the education nonesense.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I know going out that if I drink too much it will lead to a poor sleep that night, probable hangover the next day. But I still do it cause I enjoy it at the time. But I do it fully aware of the information.

So I call bullsh1t on the education nonesense.

I do the same but I can honestly say as a 16 - 19 year old I didn't even think twice of potential consequences, your invincible at that age or so you like to believe

Leroy42 wrote: »

I totally agree, my point, or at least the point I was trying to make, was it is not down to a lack of education that has the teenager drinking, they know the stuff they just feel invincible (as we wll did, not so much anymore!)

In my opinion, 'education' is a label thrown out to avoid having to actually do something about a problem. It is a way of pushing the problem down the road for someone else to deal with.

And so is hiding the booze behind a curtain, this entire bill is pushing the can down the road similar to pretty much anything the current gov has done since they got in

We need to normalise alcohol towards a european culture however that will take decades and no Government wants to start that process cus they will never see the benefits for themselves of doing so

Deedsie wrote: »

You are entitled to call bull****. I just disagree, some people clearly don't understand or the wouldn't be doing it to the current consumption levels. Smoking has been reduced to under <20% through information campaigns and a removal of advertising. Funny that.

But is it that they don't understand or simply don't care? People who continue to smoke do so even though they know of the risks, many of them seem to think that the risks are either not as big as stated or that they will avoid the worst of it (probability).

The dangers of smoking have been known for years, I certainly knew of them when I was a a teenager, as did my friends. Some of them still choose to smoke (and still do). So it wasn't lack of education.

People 'know' the dangers of speeding, but tell themselves that its other people who can't drive or whatever. its not a lack of knowledge, its using other factors to counteract that knowledge.

I have no evidence to back it up, but I would hazard a guess that in terms of cigs the fall off has way more factors than education. Advertising curtailment, smoking ban, price rises, e-cigs. All these combined to lead to a drop off, I would wager than education is pretty low on that list in the recent past

So I think that people very much do understand, or at the very least have the capability to learn the facts for themselves should they so wish. But they don't. They either know and don't care, or don't care to know.

A campaign of education won't impact on them. They will simply ignore it. It will reinforce the knowledge of those that already know it, and possibly lead to a reduction in their consumption but as they are already aware and willing to take it on board they are probably not, on the whole, the problem area and its simply dealing with the fringes of the issue so make it look like something is being done rather than the real underlying issue

what about problem drinkers like former minister Dr Jim McDaid who can easily afford drink. Should he be charged €25 a can to keep him from driving down the wrong way on duel carriage ways in future ? link

Leroy42 wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that in terms of cigs the fall off has way more factors than education. Advertising curtailment, smoking ban, price rises, e-cigs. All these combined to lead to a drop off, I would wager than education is pretty low on that list in the recent past

And now we will apply the same measures to alcohol. I think advertising bans and price rises will do most. We already have drinking bans in a lot of public spaces, and of course, drink-diving is a big one, since it means no social drinking at all for lots of people.

VinLieger wrote: »

There is no evidence price has any effect on consumption and at least if we are doing it we should be doing it through the excise charge so the government gets all of the price increase. However with MUP they not only boost profits of supermarkets and suppliers but also protect pubs from any price changes.

The whole thing sticks of protectionism.

is that really much of a surprise?

When quoting from this site please take time to check up on their list of supporters -

http://alcoholireland.ie/members-of-the-alcohol-health-alliance/

These are the people who burn the midnight oil plotting to make you pay more for your drinks.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, sure - health organizations, largely. The same sort of organizations who fight the tobacco industry.

Who were you expecting, the Spanish Inquisition?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

VinLieger wrote: »

Because its far easier to track alcohol consumption accurately with the use of automated computing and through tax returns as nowadays its based on excise duty reporting. Do you know the exact methodology that was used back then?

There's no information available for how it was tracked in the 60's 70's or 80's so there's very good reason to ask if the numbers compared to today's are actually relateable when they are being used in an argument. Can you prove they are? Ive searched the OECD site reporting these figures and all it leads to is Irelands methodology for recent years and CSO reports which only go back as far as 1996

why would you think it wasn't based on excise duty reporting? it seems the simplest method.

VinLieger wrote: »

Cus I don't base my opinions on assumptions, especially when it comes to how Ireland of the 60's 70's and 80's decided it was best to do things

from a linked page http://alcoholireland.ie/home_news/how-much-are-we-really-drinking/

It says:

How is our per capita alcohol consumption worked out in Ireland?
Alcohol consumption figures for Ireland are calculated on the basis of figures provided by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Central Statistics Office (CSO). The total volume of alcohol consumed, measured in litres of pure alcohol, is based on Revenue clearances data and then this figure is divided by the population aged 15-years-old and above, as defined by the latest Census information available from the CSO.

There isnt a hell of a lot of statistical methodology required to calculate those figures. The ancient greeks would have managed it. There is nothing to say that the methodology has changed over the years. It is you that is making the assumptions.

The local weed dealers must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of this tbh.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, sure - health organizations, largely. The same sort of organizations who fight the tobacco industry.

Who were you expecting, the Spanish Inquisition?

Even the Spanish Inquisition were partial to a drop of wine (not during Lent of course!)

But seriously, they are not all health organisations. I don't appreciate a coalition including Union of Students in Ireland, Barnardos, A Lust for Life, Pavee Point and various local "drugs and alcohol task forces" campaigning to make my few drinks at home more expensive.

Neither do I agree with conflating the debate about drinking with the issue of smoking. A bottle of beer on a fine day or a hot toddy by the fire in Winter never harmed anyone.

elperello wrote: »

Neither do I agree with conflating the debate about drinking with the issue of smoking. A bottle of beer on a fine day or a hot toddy by the fire in Winter never harmed anyone.

No-one that I have noticed is campaigning to have people quit alcohol entirely, so even the anti-booze campaigners are treating them the same way.

At least not yet.

elperello wrote: »

If the Government really wanted to do something constructive they would address the issues that cause people to want use drink or drugs to alter their mental state.

humans have been using substances to alter their mental state since forever. No government will change that.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Maybe I'll try some.of that angel dust and PCP...

I'd stick with the crack cocaine if i were you. You know where you are with a bit of crack.

elperello wrote: »

If the Government really wanted to do something constructive they would address the issues that cause people to want use drink or drugs to alter their mental state.

I have drinks on a Friday and/or Saturday like most other responsible drinkers to help me relax and relieve tension from a hard week of work. How exactly can the government address that?

elperello wrote: »

If the Government really wanted to do something constructive they would address the issues that cause people to want use drink or drugs to alter their mental state.

The point of drinking is not always to "alter your mental state" - in fact, bringing in minimum pricing is going to encourage "mind-altering" states, while just drinking to enjoy a beer or two at home before going to bed will be the behaviour discouraged.

dfeo wrote: »

The attack on small business owners and off-license operators for the benefit of pubs is sickening.

A good chunk of TDs are publicans themselves. The attack on off-licences, small shops, supermarkets and other family businesses to the benefit of a vested interest is exactly like 9th November 1938 (Kristellnacht) where Jewish businesses were attacked by the Nazis.

Despite the fact that I disagree with MUP, and also consider it heavily influenced by the publicans, comparing it to how the Jews were treated by the Nazis is even more sickening!