Minimum Alcohol pricing to be signed into Law

BuilderPlumber

syklops wrote: »

I like Varadkar, but if this gets signed into law, I will never vote for him again. I think more people need to say this out loud. The proposed increases do not target "cheap alcohol", and it certainly doesnt target the "below cost selling" of alcohol. It just arbitrarily makes alcohol more expensive to buy. And when you make the cheaper alcohol more expensive, you make everything more expensive because more premium brands don't want to be associated with the cheaper brands.

The thing is I am seeing zero resistance to this in the media and the rest of the country seems unaware of its possibility. If like me, you drink 8 cans of Czech or Polish imported beer a week, you will pay more than 300 euros extra next year. Thats more than what the water charges will be. So where is the resistance? Where is the outrage? For a party that is intending to actually run in the general election next year I think it is a daft idea to even consider. That it might get signed into law worries me as to how in touch FG actually are.

There doesn't even seem to be opposition in the opposition. If Sinn Fein and I were to agree on one issue, surely this is the one, but I've heard not a peep out of them.

I hope Leo Varadkar has more sense than going down the kneejerk reaction to a problem road. Ireland has among the most expensive prices for alcohol and all goods as it is and tackling rip off culture (as Eddie Hobbs called it) needs to be considered very seriously.

This is much worse than the water tax for sure and I am sick and tired of hearing all this stuff coming in due to health. It is similar to the Taliban. Problem drinkers are not something we want to see but that should be dealt with as a separate issue than imposing more business damaging legislation.

I was in a couple of pubs over the weekend and to be honest found them dull and boring. No one in them much and this despite it being a day when Ireland won a rugby match. Will making drink more expensive in the supermarket across the way bring more custom to these pubs? No is the answer. Pubs are doing poorly due to a variety of reasons (ranging from no effort being made to drink driving legislation to dearer prices) but pubs also can if they wanted change a few things around. Public liability insurance, and sheer greed, often are the reasons why pub prices are so dear. And upping the prices further when there's a rugby match or whatever further turns people off.

I stopped going to one particular pub because the guy who owns it never stops giving out about the Tesco and Supervalu in the nearest sizeable town. His attitude is that no one has the right to sell drink cheaper than the pub. Plus, he would also say on a Saturday at 11 to the 2 customers left: 'go home now and let me close up. I suppose you have a shtock of that chape Tesco beer to go home to!'. Offputting.

oblivious

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Plus, he would also say on a Saturday at 11 to the 2 customers left: 'go home now and let me close up. I suppose you have a shtock of that chape Tesco beer to go home to!'. Offputting.

Ironically they probably now do!

BeerNut

syklops wrote: »

where is the resistance? Where is the outrage?

rubadub wrote: »

There needs to be more of a fuss made of this

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children is now accepting resistance, outrage and fuss, up to 5th March.

listermint

If you feel strongly enough about it i urge everyone to contact their local TDs and others that they have had contact with in the past.

I have contacted personally various TDs in my consituency and to date most of the response ignored all the facts of the matter (which i had provided) studies and including the pending case in the EU for scotland.

Each response i got completely ignored the studies and were very much pro this measure in typical politician speak deflecting back with items such as range of measures and pricing being decided on by a council of members. (as if they had already passed it)

Without enough people getting on their backs about this it will pass. And everyone will regret their inaction or failing to raise their voice on it.


Remember, this will not just impact the bottom of the market. It is the start of Major price increases across the board.

Ireland yesterday was listed as 5th most expensive place to live in Europe behind all the Scandinavian countries and nordic but those guys enjoy better public services.

We will catch right up to the top of the list without any services to match the money we are spending.

I urge folks to open their mouths and speak even if its by email.

BeerNut

IMO contacting individual TDs about national policy is a waste of time: they have no influence on it. It's possible to catch the ear of Department officials, but generally only if you're already a large and/or powerful organisation with a lot at stake in the issue. But the pre-legislative scrutiny phase linked to above is the way for ordinary citizens to have their opinions heard by the people who actually make a difference in the policy and legislative process.

jobbridge4life

BeerNut wrote: »

IMO contacting individual TDs about national policy is a waste of time: they have no influence on it. It's possible to catch the ear of Department officials, but generally only if you're already a large and/or powerful organisation with a lot at stake in the issue. But the pre-legislative scrutiny phase linked to above is the way for ordinary citizens to have their opinions heard by the people who actually make a difference in the policy and legislative process.

Large scale campaigns to bring mass pressure on individual TDs can have a significant impact, especially when many Government backbenchers will already be concerned for their seats in the upcoming election.

BeerNut

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Large scale campaigns to bring mass pressure on individual TDs can have a significant impact

Example?

listermint

BeerNut wrote: »

Example?

The oul wans giving out about their pension a few years back. The were not really lobbyist, Just oul wans.

squonk

Perhaps if a sample submission or a statement of some facts was provided in a sticky or somewhere on this thread that's convenient it would help many get theri acts together. Personally I know what to say in a submission to a TD however there are many good facts presented here that would help also to back up a good argument. Perhaps also a draft submission letter could be provided? It would help us all stay on message and ensure that we are all presenting the same points.

Saruman

Next time there's a water protest, get to front with banners about our concerns. A timely snap and "100,000 people protest over further alcohol restrictions" are the headlines.
The government will be only too happy for that to happen rather than face the water charges music.

WallsToTheBall

Looking like a great time to get into homebrewing lads!





(Until the govt. devise a plan to tax the bejeebus out of grains and hops and kits that is...)

WallsToTheBall

Oh nuts...just read the talk on Beoir about how "supply" of alcoholic beverages under minimum pricing might affect homebrew meets (and competitions maybe?) and even sample-trying of beers in brewpubs and breweries, that could be dire if in anyway enforced. I wonder if barter (beer for beer) counts as supply, I recall reading how beer-selling over the internets can be made quasi-legal by instead of trading for currency trading for other beers of equal value in countries that otherwise you need a licence to sell alcoholic beverages and all.

Flex

squonk wrote: »

Perhaps if a sample submission or a statement of some facts was provided in a sticky or somewhere on this thread that's convenient it would help many get theri acts together. Personally I know what to say in a submission to a TD however there are many good facts presented here that would help also to back up a good argument. Perhaps also a draft submission letter could be provided? It would help us all stay on message and ensure that we are all presenting the same points.

I submitted an email on this a few days ago, tried to keep it factual and critiqued the governments plan of action with referenced data and studies. I was actually very surprised when I saw things like our consumption versus western Europe. Made no reference to Fine Gaels manifesto promising this to publicans. If you find any of the data useful then please feel free to use it. Apologies for the format and so on, just copied and pasted from a word document.

The Case Against Minimum Unit Pricing and Review of the Public Health (Alcohol) 2015 Bill

In my document below I will attempt to make my case against minimum unit pricing and the present strategy on alcohol by the government by addressing consumption levels in Ireland, binge drinking and problem drinkers. Please forgive the short length, I have tried to be very concise.

OECD and WHO Comparisons on Consumption in Ireland

• Ireland drinks less than many European nations, including Germany, Austria, France and more.
  
• Consumption levels in Ireland have dropped by nearly 30% since the peak in the early 2000’s, and has continued to decline (including during a period when excise on drinks was reduced)
  
• Ireland consumes 11.6 litres a year versus the OECD average (and government target) of 9.2 litres. The reason the OECD average is so low is because it includes Turkey and Israel, where average consumption is just over 1 litre per year.
  
• Without these outliers, taking Ireland and 12 other western European nations, Ireland’s average consumption is within 12% of the western European average. Table below.
  
• Further, according to the WHO, Ireland’s consumption is projected to be 10.9 litres for 2015, within 5% of the 10.4 litre average below

.

Country Litres consumed Adj. Consumption
AVERAGE 10.4 10.7
France 12.6 12.6
Austria 12.2 12.2
Germany 11.7 11.7
Ireland 11.6 11.6
Portugal 11.4 11.4
Spain 11.4 11.4
Belgium 10.8 10.8
Denmark 10.6 10.6
Finland 10.1 10.1
United Kingdom 10 11.6
Netherlands 9.4 9.4
Sweden 7.4 9.2
Norway 6.6 6.6


Also, according to the WHO, the UK consumes 11.6 litres a year, however a significant amount is listed as ‘unrecorded’ (as is also the case with Sweden, WHO figure of 9.2 litres). The table above takes the OECD figures, however adjusting the UK and Sweden to take account of ‘unrecorded consumption’ gives an average of 10.7 litres per year for western Europe. Keeping in mind Ireland is projected to consume 10.9 litres in 2015, this means Ireland’s consumption is average for a western European nation and projected to continue falling.

References to above data here http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=HEALTH_STAT# and here http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msb_gsr_2014_3.pdf

Binge Drinking

To a lot of people binge drinking conjures images of a person staggering around, mumbling incoherently, vomiting, etc. So hearing of high binge drinking sessions was shocking. However, the HSE definition of binge drinking is just three cans of standard beer in a single day for a man (less for a woman). If you have ever drank more than two pints of beer then (for the purpose of the HSE statistics) you were recorded as being a binge drinker. This is an incredibly misleading and disingenuous measure to allow for hyperbolic statements and to guilt people into thinking we have a bad drinking culture in Ireland.

Reference to definition of ‘binge drinking’ here http://www.hse.ie/go/alcohol/

Problem Drinkers

Price increases do not work on problem drinkers, this is a proven fact. Due to an alcoholics low elasticity of demand, they are not deterred by prices (common sense alone would tell us that). This study, for example, shows problem drinkers have a “reported mean elasticity of = -0.28” meaning a 100% increase in the price of drinks would reduce their consumption by only 28%. Price increases don’t address that issue, they simply punish the vast majority who enjoy drinking responsibly.

Referenced report shown here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19149811/

The steering group report into the cost of alcohol abuse to the country published in 2012 is out dated and redundant. It references data nearly a decade old. Since then consumption levels have dropped by approximately 20%. Further, the study relies very heavily on assumptions and guess work, as do the studies it references (which they freely admit).

Nonetheless, it is proven extensively that price increases don’t address the issue of problem drinkers and will not address the adverse effects those individuals have on the country.

Conclusion

Based on the above it is accurate and right to say that in Ireland our consumption levels are not high, we do not have a bad drinking culture and price increases do not work on addressing the issue of problem drinkers, they simply punish everyone.

In Ireland we already have the second highest taxation on drinks in Europe, proving further that prices are not a major deterrent.

As an alternative suggestion, people should take responsibility for their own actions.
• If a person is found to be drunk and disorderly, they should face heavy fines and penalties, along with any other types of behaviour which cause the emergency services to waste their time treating/dealing with them.
• If a person is found to be drunk and disorderly, the last bar they were sold alcohol in should be fined.
• If an off trade premises sells alcohol to a minor they should face heavy fines
• If underage people are found to be drinking at home, the homeowners/parents should be fined
• If people are found to drink to excess at home and cause trouble they should face heavy fines

Basically, the onus being on the individuals at fault, not on every person in the country.

I think the addition of calorie information and so on to products is excellent and fully support it as it enhances the information people have when making decisions.

I dislike the idea of structural separation in off trade premises, it seems like a measure to humiliate people who choose to enjoy drinking by making them walk off into the ‘shady back area’ of the shop.

Yours sincerely,
X

BaZmO*

Flex wrote: »

I submitted an email on this a few days ago, tried to keep it factual and critiqued the governments plan of action with referenced data and studies. I was actually very surprised when I saw things like our consumption versus western Europe. Made no reference to Fine Gaels manifesto promising this to publicans. If you find any of the data useful then please feel free to use it. Apologies for the format and so on, just copied and pasted from a word document.

Just out of interest, what do you think the definition of "binge drinking" should be?

Flex

BaZmO* wrote: »

Just out of interest, what do you think the definition of "binge drinking" should be?

Thats an interesting question actually. Ive just really taken issue with the term being inappropriate.

My issue comes with the definition being called 'binge' drinking. Just for me personally, and I know from friends and so on, it seems to immediately cause this image of pissing in the street, vomiting, starting fights, possibly needing hospitilisation, drinking way beyond an already excessive amount. Ive often drank more than the definition and never been drunk. The definition of 'binge' is inconsiderate, unrestrained and excessive over-indulgence. I like O Haras Leann Follain, the 6% stout, and have occasionally had a couple of bottles of it while staying and watching an old Arnie film from the 1980s or something, I wasnt 'binging' on those occasions, but would be recorded as having done so based on the present defintion. And, anecdotally, when Ive been drinking with others (not just in Ireland, but in GB, the USA, etc.), Ive never seen anyone have 2-3 pints and need to be sent home/taken away or end up in a drunken stuper.

Sorry, going off on a tangent. Regards (what Id consider) binge drinking, I honestly dont think I could give it a measurable quantity, different people have different tolerances. For me, 3 cans of beer isnt a binge drinking session. Binge drinking is the most dangerous kind of excess, like I outlined above.

When considered in conjunction with our consumption levels being very middle of the road for western Europe despite whats usually heard about our consumption, it comes across as trying to stir a frenzy, and promote this image of Ireland having a dreadfully unhealthy relationship with drinking to allow for things like minimum pricing to go unchallenged as theyre deemed necessary.

Again, sorry for the long post, and effectively saying I honestly couldnt give a measurable quantity. What would yours be?

BaZmO*

Flex wrote: »

My issue comes with the definition being called 'binge' drinking. Just for me personally, and I know from friends and so on, it seems to immediately cause this image of pissing in the street, vomiting, starting fights, possibly needing hospitilisation, drinking way beyond an already excessive amount. Ive often drank more than the definition and never been drunk. The definition of 'binge' is inconsiderate, unrestrained and excessive over-indulgence

Merriam Webster defines it as “a short period of time when you do too much of something”

Flex wrote: »

Ive often drank more than the definition and never been drunk.

Would you have driven your car?

Flex wrote: »

Sorry, going off on a tangent. Regards (what Id consider) binge drinking, I honestly dont think I could give it a measurable quantity, different people have different tolerances.

So you know what it isn’t but don’t know what it is?
Would you accept a medical professional’s definition of it?

Flex wrote: »

Binge drinking is the most dangerous kind of excess, like I outlined above.

It’s not really though, well not according to the medical professionals that define what it actually is.

Flex wrote: »

Again, sorry for the long post, and effectively saying I honestly couldnt give a measurable quantity.

See that’s the problem, saying that it’s a disgrace that they’re calling it “binge drinking” when it doesn’t suit your definition of what a binge is. The definition of a binge is just doing anything to excess and in the opinions of the medical professionals the guidelines tell you what that amount is.

Getting back to the original point of this thread though, I doubt that the real reason for the introduction of minimum pricing is a health one. I’d say it has more to do with the lobbying from the Vintners and another move to get people back into pubs.

syklops

BaZmO* wrote: »

Getting back to the original point of this thread though, I doubt that the real reason for the introduction of minimum pricing is a health one. I’d say it has more to do with the lobbying from the Vintners and another move to get people back into pubs.

I agree with your sentiment, but did you have to come across as a prick to make that point?

BaZmO*

syklops wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment, but did you have to come across as a prick to make that point?

First of all, personal abuse is not tolerated on this forum, so consider yourself lucky I'm thick skinned and that I don't take this any further.

With regards to the "point" I was making, I wasn't making any point, I was just questioning the poster's definitions of what binge drinking constitutes. I think they were fair questions to ask. I apologise to the poster if the comments were deemed rude but they certainly weren't meant that way. I'm genuinely interested in what people think "binge drinking" should be defined as when it already has a definition. Like most Irish people I was initially surprised when I heard the definitions, thinking they were ridiculously high, but I'm not a Doctor so what would I know.

Flex

BaZmO* wrote: »

Merriam Webster defines it as “a short period of time when you do too much of something”



Would you have driven your car?



So you know what it isn’t but don’t know what it is?
Would you accept a medical professional’s definition of it?



It’s not really though, well not according to the medical professionals that define what it actually is.



See that’s the problem, saying that it’s a disgrace that they’re calling it “binge drinking” when it doesn’t suit your definition of what a binge is. The definition of a binge is just doing anything to excess and in the opinions of the medical professionals the guidelines tell you what that amount is.

Getting back to the original point of this thread though, I doubt that the real reason for the introduction of minimum pricing is a health one. I’d say it has more to do with the lobbying from the Vintners and another move to get people back into pubs.

Sorry in advance for not replying point by point, but I'm on my phone now and it's very awkward to do so. Sorry for any perceived brevity in my post as well

I put binge into Google for a definition and what came back was unrestrained and excessive over indulgence of something. Without gettig to official definitions, that's always been my interpretation of binge drinking; dangerous levels of consumption. It's very misleading and inappropriate given the quantities necessary to qualify for it

I absolutely wouldn't drive my car if I had consumed any alcohol at all, never mind if I had binge drank

Regards a medical professionals definition. Being honest, no I wouldn't defer to their judgement just because of their profession. How have they reached their finding? How is there a one size fits all measurable amount? You want me to put a number on it but I can't and wont, not right now anyway

I'm 5'10 and just over 14 stone, making me technically obese, even though I've low body fat levels. I eat over 4000 calories a day typically, nearly twice the recommended guidelines for healthy consumption, my binge eating habit hasnt harmed me. What works for me moght be a quantity another man is physically unable to consume regilarly without illness. I'll try to elaborate on this later when I'm home, I feel I'm not articulating myself well here.


I have to cut this shirt as I have to head now. Regards yourself and skyllops exchange after, sincerely took no issue with your tone. I put my opinion and critique out for feedback. Perhaps I focused too heavily on the consumption level and problem drinker arguments to make my case. I appreciate your critique regards my position on binge drinking, I'll look into it and try find data to back up my position further

Padraig Mor

Flex wrote: »

I submitted an email on this a few days ago, tried to keep it factual and critiqued the governments plan of action with referenced data and studies. I was actually very surprised when I saw things like our consumption versus western Europe. Made no reference to Fine Gaels manifesto promising this to publicans. If you find any of the data useful then please feel free to use it. Apologies for the format and so on, just copied and pasted from a word document.

That's a great rebuttal; I'll use elements of it if you don't mind. I sent the following to my local government TDs and Leo Varadkar a few weeks ago' but think I'll include some of your data too. The link referred to is http://liveatthewitchtrials.blogspot.ie/2015/02/irish-alcohol-consumption-in-2020.html

I have read with dismay today the details (both confirmed and speculated) of the proposed Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015, likely to soon be known as the Minimum Alcohol Pricing Bill. This Bill contains a range of measures designed to reduce the public health impact of alcohol consumption. While some of the measures are to be welcomed – especially the inclusion of calorie count data on labels (the one aspect I feel may cause many people to reconsider their alcohol consumption), the implementation of a minimum price per unit of alcohol is, by contrast, an unnecessary and unwelcome step. I say this for the following reasons:

1. Alcohol consumption has been falling in Ireland for many years. Since the year 2000, alcohol consumption per capita in Ireland has dropped approximately 20%. Further, statistical analysis of the available figures (link here) suggests that alcohol consumption, on current trends, will drop below the government’s target consumption levels ANYWAY – in the absence of the proposed pricing measures.

2. Ireland already has some of the highest prices in the world for alcohol yet our consumption remains high, at least by binge drinking standards. If ‘low prices’ are a principal cause of problematic drinking, how it that many of our European neighbours, despite significantly lower pricing, drink much less than the Irish? This also underlines the dishonesty in referring to the likes of ‘20 bottles of beer for €15’ as being priced “very low”. The simple fact is that, in most countries, this price would be considered excessive.

3. There has been widespread criticism by talking heads, including government politicians, of ‘below cost selling’ of alcohol by supermarkets (although I have yet to hear any criticism by consumers). This is also the phrase used in page 26 of Fine Gael’s last manifesto (which pledges to “support Irish pubs”). This flies in the face of simple fact – most of the ‘cut price’ alcohol sold in supermarkets is NOT sold below cost but at a profit. If the government wished to ban below cost selling of alcohol, they could simply do so. The fact that the proposed legislation goes much further, and introduces a minimum price for alcohol makes clear that the government is not concerned with below cost selling, rather with supporting the cartel – like activities of many Irish publicans.

4. The proposed legislation, in effect if not in name, almost exclusively targets alcohol sold at off licences, yet has little effect on pubs (although I’m sure our publicans will take advantage of the situation to add another few bob to the price for themselves). It is outrageous to imply that binge drinking is solely a problem associated with off licence consumption. While there are some exceptions, binge drinking (and extreme binge drinking) has been wholeheartedly promoted, facilitated and welcomed by publicans the length and breadth of the country, particularly those who cater mostly to younger people. The fights and sometimes extreme violence seen on our streets at 2am are not the result of someone having a few cheap Dutch Gold at home, but are mostly associated with those who have been frequenting ‘local pubs’ which purport to be a “safe environment” for alcohol consumption. It would be far more effective to allocate Garda resources to tackling public drunkenness, and to enforce legislation preventing pubs serving alcohol to the clearly inebriated. That many pubs have found the last few years’ trading difficult is (despite the claims of the publicans) down to (some) Irish people finally refusing to be ripped off and staying at home instead. This legislation, despite the lofty pronouncements, is solely designed to punish these people and put more money into the pockets of publicans. That Wetherspoons (the publicans’ bete du jour) can sell alcohol – at a profit – at prices vastly below those of ‘local pubs’ just shows the extent to which our publicans are ripping us off.

syklops

Padraig Mor wrote: »

That's a great rebuttal; I'll use elements of it if you don't mind. I sent the following to my local government TDs and Leo Varadkar a few weeks ago' but think I'll include some of your data too. The link referred to is http://liveatthewitchtrials.blogspot.ie/2015/02/irish-alcohol-consumption-in-2020.html

That is an exceptional piece of penmanship. Well done!

Padraig Mor

syklops wrote: »

That is an exceptional piece of penmanship. Well done!

I left out the bit about threatening to vote Fianna Fail! :pac:





Also, on the topic of just what constitutes a 'binge', it's simply a confusion of definition which is being used to the advantage of Varadkar and the publicans. I take no issue with the WHO declaring three pints as a binge - hey, they're the experts. The problem is that, as seen in many of these threads on Boards, the vast majority of Irish people see a 'binge' as something far more extreme - falling down in the road drunk, or variants thereof. Thus, when Varadkar and the rest of the publicans' lobby decry our rate of binge drinking, the picture formed in the minds of the average person is rather different than that supported by the data, giving an impression of a problem which doesn't match reality.
I suggest we rename the 'Irish style' binge - so the WHO can keep 'binge' for their three pints, and the Irish can now refer to a 'bender' (or even a 'right bender') for a full on session!

odyssey06

If the medical professionals involved are being this fast and loose with language, I would not be surprised if they are doing likewise with the research that backs it up... the one thing tends to go with the other in my experience. People who are precise with language are precise in their other habits.

And if medical professionals say X is a binge does it make it so? No - their qualifications are in the realm of medicine, not language. They are free to come up with a term that accurately describes what they mean by excessive drinking, but that does not, in and of itself, make it a binge.

BuilderPlumber

odyssey06 wrote: »

If the medical professionals involved are being this fast and loose with language, I would not be surprised if they are doing likewise with the research that backs it up... the one thing tends to go with the other in my experience. People who are precise with language are precise in their other habits.

And if medical professionals say X is a binge does it make it so? No - their qualifications are in the realm of medicine, not language. They are free to come up with a term that accurately describes what they mean by excessive drinking, but that does not, in and of itself, make it a binge.

Medical professionals can be paid to say anything. Just find correlation between alcohol consumption and 'something bad' and bob's your uncle. The fact that other factors were present such as - depending on the circumstance - cocaine, mental illness, fatty foods, stress, etc. is largely ignored.

The government and the vintners are very much aligned. They can pay some medical person to come out and say that 'drinking to excess, especially in uncontrolled environments, is bad for one's physical and mental health. Examples ....'. We imply this means home drinking and not pubs.

True, pubs are doing very poorly at the moment and from late 2013 to date, I have never seen them as bad at weekends. I used to go out 2/3 nights at the weekend but now often don't stir out at all and the odd time I do, I regret it. Rural pubs are gone and I am afraid to say as I noted often before the publicans themselves are part of the problem. They make no effort and the smoking ban, recession, emigration, cheap supermarket drinks, drink driving laws, etc. are all easy justifications for them. The fact that the publican is a surly man always grumbling, who sells dear drink and does not welcome one into his premises has nothing to do with it of course!

BaZmO*

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Medical professionals can be paid to say anything. Just find correlation between alcohol consumption and 'something bad' and bob's your uncle. The fact that other factors were present such as - depending on the circumstance - cocaine, mental illness, fatty foods, stress, etc. is largely ignored.

The government and the vintners are very much aligned. They can pay some medical person to come out and say that 'drinking to excess, especially in uncontrolled environments, is bad for one's physical and mental health. Examples ....'. We imply this means home drinking and not pubs.

100% agree with this, however, why would they be paid to say that drinking more is bad? It doesn't make sense. Surely it'd make more sense for them to say that threshold for binge drinking is way more than the current given number?

Out of interest, are there any health organisations that dispute the binge figures?

Flex

BaZmO* wrote: »

100% agree with this, however, why would they be paid to say that drinking more is bad? It doesn't make sense. Surely it'd make more sense for them to say that threshold for binge drinking is way more than the current given number?

Out of interest, are there any health organisations that dispute the binge figures?

Been doing a little bit of reading on it, although Id largely defer to what Padraig Mor and odyssey said above around the use of the term 'binge drinking' to be a very loaded term, and one thats being used to push through minimum pricing. If the guideline wants to be more than 2 pints is harmful than thats their prerogative, calling it binge drinking is hyperbolic though, in my view. And Im in agreement with your earlier post regards this being done not as a health issue, but to win the support of the Vintners.

Anyway, regards the definition, only briefly looked into it this evening. From what I can see theres not a great deal of consensus on it. From what I gather the US has it as being if a person consumes 5 standard drinks within 2 hours anytime during a 2 week period. So it seems more about pacing ones self and not necking drinks

Looking on the NHS website for the UK they seem to class it as 8 standard drinks (just under 4 pints) but once again says its if its drank in a very short time frame, and says 'this definition does not apply to everyone because the tolerance and the speed of drinking in a session varies from person to person', so seems to emphasise the pacing of the drinking.

Looking more at ours, it seems to imply 3 pints in a 24 hour period is a binge session, regardless of pacing. Interestingly, just googling articles on our own consumption levels, up to 2012 21 standard drinks a week (equating to approx 10.9 litres of alcohol a year, where we're projected to be in 2015) was regarded as a low risk quantity, but it was reduced in February of that year to 17 standard drinks (equating to 8.9 litres a year). Doesnt seem to have been any reasoning given for it, was just an edict from the head civil servant in the Department of Health.

listermint

Flex wrote: »

Been doing a little bit of reading on it, although Id largely defer to what Padraig Mor and odyssey said above around the use of the term 'binge drinking' to be a very loaded term, and one thats being used to push through minimum pricing. If the guideline wants to be more than 2 pints is harmful than thats their prerogative, calling it binge drinking is hyperbolic though, in my view. And Im in agreement with your earlier post regards this being done not as a health issue, but to win the support of the Vintners.

Anyway, regards the definition, only briefly looked into it this evening. From what I can see theres not a great deal of consensus on it. From what I gather the US has it as being if a person consumes 5 standard drinks within 2 hours anytime during a 2 week period. So it seems more about pacing ones self and not necking drinks

Looking on the NHS website for the UK they seem to class it as 8 standard drinks (just under 4 pints) but once again says its if its drank in a very short time frame, and says 'this definition does not apply to everyone because the tolerance and the speed of drinking in a session varies from person to person', so seems to emphasise the pacing of the drinking.

Looking more at ours, it seems to imply 3 pints in a 24 hour period is a binge session, regardless of pacing. Interestingly, just googling articles on our own consumption levels, up to 2012 21 standard drinks a week (equating to approx 10.9 litres of alcohol a year, where we're projected to be in 2015) was regarded as a low risk quantity, but it was reduced in February of that year to 17 standard drinks (equating to 8.9 litres a year). Doesnt seem to have been any reasoning given for it, was just an edict from the head civil servant in the Department of Health.

Its about changing the goal posts. Consumption is down across Ireland. But when you have an agenda to serve up. And the agenda is clear from FG publican backing. 'Deal with supermarket prices to force footfall back to the pub' It does not matter one bit what the stats say. Grab the jumper move it in a bit more and tell them to take another shot. If they get it in, grab the jumper again and drag it in.

When you are heavily funded and heavily involved with one of the Vintners associations you will move the goalposts to suit your end goal. This is what is occurring in Ireland and its quite clear as day.

BuilderPlumber

Flex wrote: »

Been doing a little bit of reading on it, although Id largely defer to what Padraig Mor and odyssey said above around the use of the term 'binge drinking' to be a very loaded term, and one thats being used to push through minimum pricing. If the guideline wants to be more than 2 pints is harmful than thats their prerogative, calling it binge drinking is hyperbolic though, in my view. And Im in agreement with your earlier post regards this being done not as a health issue, but to win the support of the Vintners.

Anyway, regards the definition, only briefly looked into it this evening. From what I can see theres not a great deal of consensus on it. From what I gather the US has it as being if a person consumes 5 standard drinks within 2 hours anytime during a 2 week period. So it seems more about pacing ones self and not necking drinks

Looking on the NHS website for the UK they seem to class it as 8 standard drinks (just under 4 pints) but once again says its if its drank in a very short time frame, and says 'this definition does not apply to everyone because the tolerance and the speed of drinking in a session varies from person to person', so seems to emphasise the pacing of the drinking.

Looking more at ours, it seems to imply 3 pints in a 24 hour period is a binge session, regardless of pacing. Interestingly, just googling articles on our own consumption levels, up to 2012 21 standard drinks a week (equating to approx 10.9 litres of alcohol a year, where we're projected to be in 2015) was regarded as a low risk quantity, but it was reduced in February of that year to 17 standard drinks (equating to 8.9 litres a year). Doesnt seem to have been any reasoning given for it, was just an edict from the head civil servant in the Department of Health.

3 pints in a 24 hour period is clearly never a binge and this is madness bordering on the Taliban attitude. It means in effect that everyone who drinks is a so-called binge drinker.

The other definitions of binge drinking do make more sense. For example, 10 shots of whiskey taken in 2 hours is much much worse than 24 cans of beer drunk slowly over the course of a day!

There has been of late a sort of anti-alcohol attitude coming from the top in many places. Of course, a lot of vested interests are being protected here and there too. Here are some examples of the anti-drink attitude:

-A minority of Irish people (mainly youths) get hammered at weekends. It is shown on our screens constantly of these people falling all over the place. Then, the statement 'Ireland has a major drink problem' ...
-It is a universally accepted myth that alcohol is forbidden by BOTH Islam and Mormonism. Neither religion bans alcohol actually. The Koran warns of drunkenness but it and other Islamic texts also mentioned very often alcohol as part of celebration. The book of Mormon mention wine as being used in religious celebrations too. Agendas dictate again that with Islam in particular, a certain image has to be given. The fact that alcohol is not haram in Islam is not recognised and the banning of alcohol myth is a two edged sword - propaganda for those who hate Islam and alcohol!
-'Home drinking is less responsible than in licenced premises that is pubs'. Sure, we can all point to violent domestic incidents where someone was killed with drink being involved. BUT the drink was only one factor. Clearly, the other factors include the person, his/her medical condition, what the fight was about and the misuse of other substances like cocaine or heroin. Clearly, there are certain people who should not drink and who become someone else after doing so. BUT we all should not be tarred with the same brush. All drinkers being violent is like saying all Muslims are in ISIS or all Germans are Nazis or all Cambodians are the Khmer Rouge etc.

The Irish attitude to legislating drink is what is the problem. If some had their way, there would be no sports events, no music festivals, nothing as their main sponsors would be taken away. Jobs and business would be lost and the economy would suffer drastically. And no we don't have alternative sources of funding for such events like in Norway either. Getting rid of problem drinking and problem drinkers is a very noble and essential cause BUT this is not what is being done. What will happen? Drink will become more expensive (whether to a lesser or greater extent) and perhaps those puritans who want to ban sponsorship will get some (or all of their way) thus at best reducing sports and festivals and at worse maybe ending most of them due to lack of support. And guess what? The problem drinkers and drinking will continue as ever because it is antisocial and not money related anyhow. Such drinkers will buy it anyway and probably from illegal sources from dissident IRA and other gangs anyway! So it will also encourage even more smuggling and criminality! Tiochfaidh Ar Law, Nidgie!

rubadub

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Thus, when Varadkar and the rest of the publicans' lobby decry our rate of binge drinking, the picture formed in the minds of the average person is rather different than that supported by the data, giving an impression of a problem which doesn't match reality.

I was posting before wondering how much binge drinking goes on in the Dail bar, perhaps it should be banned there.

I am pretty sure I saw binge drinking with as low a definition as 3 bottles (1.74 pints).

If the WHO want to call 3 pints binge drinking thats fine by me. I will just be aware that the term no longer necessarily has negative connotations I once considered it to have, so its sort of backfiring on them if they think they are shaming people into cutting down or something.

Also a 25stone man having 3 pints is a lot different than a 4ft thin woman.

Just like when I hear the term "obese" I no longer picture people barely able to get out of the house. Now they have terms like class 1, 2, 3 or morbidly obese or super morbidly obese.

People are photos of some obese people.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The problem drinkers and drinking will continue as ever because it is antisocial and not money related anyhow. Such drinkers will buy it anyway and probably from illegal sources from dissident IRA and other gangs anyway! So it will also encourage even more smuggling and criminality!

+1, there are proposals of €30 for a bottle of spirits, currently bottles of rum & vodka can be got for 12.69, so a €17 saving is certainly tempting. There will not only be smuggling but illegal alcohol, much of which is not drinking alcohol at all, or has other industrial alcohols added, one of the reasons prohibition was done away with, there were numerous cases of death & blindness due to people drinking industrial alcohol passed off as homemade. (not to be confused with poitin made from fermented grains/sugar/fruit).

Also drug use will surely increase for younger people. At the higher proposed limit of €2.75 a can I can imagine many young people just taking pills & smoking instead, so a big loss in tax revenue, but some might see that as a good thing to have youngsters taking (usually) less harmful recreational drugs than alcohol.

Brendan Bendar

listermint wrote: »

Its about changing the goal posts. Consumption is down across Ireland. But when you have an agenda to serve up. And the agenda is clear from FG publican backing. 'Deal with supermarket prices to force footfall back to the pub' It does not matter one bit what the stats say. Grab the jumper move it in a bit more and tell them to take another shot. If they get it in, grab the jumper again and drag it in.

When you are heavily funded and heavily involved with one of the Vintners associations you will move the goalposts to suit your end goal. This is what is occurring in Ireland and its quite clear as day.

Agreed, there is a huge push to get punters into the jaws of the overpriced publicans again.