Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

_Jamie_

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Most of generation snowflake couldn't drink a seven stone Japanese teenager under the table.

Most ridiculous shoehorning of the term 'snowflake' that I seen so far on boards, and that really is saying something. Drinking levels are decreasing but are still far higher than 40 years and it's not all down to women drinking more. If this youth generation are snowflakes when it comes to drinking, what did that make the youth of the 60s and 70s?

Jimmy Garlic

If this youth generation are snowflakes when it comes to drinking, what did that make the youth of the 60s and 70s?

There was nobody keeping accurate records of anything in Ireland back in the 60s and 70s. Anyone saying that we are doing more or less of this and that then we were 40 years ago is talking through their arse. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. I wasn't around in the 60s and 70s in any case, my youth was spent riding and partying my way through the 90s when people actually interacted with each other.

_Jamie_

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

There was nobody keeping accurate records of anything in Ireland back in the 60s and 70s.

That's convenient. No need to check out statistics on the matter so.

darkpagandeath

_Jamie_ wrote: »

That's convenient. No need to check out statistics on the matter so.

Have you a link ?

_Jamie_

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Have you a link ?

Sure. The statistics contained within come from a study by the Health Research Board, from OECD stats and from CSO stats.

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/how-much-do-we-drink/

darkpagandeath

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Sure. The statistics contained within come from a study by the Health Research Board, from OECD stats and from CSO stats.

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/how-much-do-we-drink/

No thanks that's like linking to the pro cigarette company. This the same study they remove non drinkers from the per capita to make it nonsense ?

_Jamie_

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No thanks that's like linking to the pro cigarette company. This the same study they remove non drinkers from the per capita to make it nonsense ?

No, they consider the figures, both including and excluding non-drinkers. Dismissing something without even reading it smacks of ignorance. Your choice, but you can't say that people didn't provide you with stats. The stats come from three different sources.

darkpagandeath

_Jamie_ wrote: »

No, they consider the figures, both including and excluding non-drinkers. Dismissing something without even reading it smacks of ignorance. Your choice, but you can't say that people didn't provide you with stats. The stats come from three different sources.

They removed 1 in 5.... I have read it before. removing data from scientific research is astonishing. And using data from age 15 to big up the figures.

darkpagandeath

When we consider the fact that at least one in five adults in Ireland don’t drink alcohol, it means that those who do drink are consuming significantly more than the per capita consumption figure shows. - See more at: http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/how-much-do-we-drink/#sthash.Syda8MiX.dpuf

There are several limitations to the per capita alcohol consumption measure. It’s estimated that over a fifth of Irish people do not drink at all, which is not reflected in the per capita figures. So when this is taken into account, those who are drinking are clearly drinking more, on average, than the consumption figures calculated this way indicate. - See more at: http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/how-much-do-we-drink/#sthash.Syda8MiX.dpuf

Tripe great job....

darkpagandeath

Also the binge drinking seems to be removed from the who was it not 3 pints.... That's the whole of the western world having a problem.

darkpagandeath

also Arak would be fairly strong wonder if it counts for muslims ?

Leroy42

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.

VinLieger

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Sure. The statistics contained within come from a study by the Health Research Board, from OECD stats and from CSO stats.

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/how-much-do-we-drink/

You honestly believe statistics and numbers from the 60's 70's and 80's have the same accuracy or correct methodology and should be counted with equal weight as ones taken now or in the last 10 years?

VinLieger

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

VinLieger wrote: »

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

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.

VinLieger

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

NikoTopps

If someone is above the legal drinking age and wants to drinking nothing but alcohol and destroy their liver then that's on them. I don't understand why theI govv want to punish everyone else based on the behaviour of the minority .Nanny state. .

Leroy42

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

Leroy42

NikoTopps wrote: »

If someone is above the legal drinking age and wants to drinking nothing but alcohol and destroy their liver then that's on them. I don't understand why theI govv want to punish everyone else based on the behaviour of the minority .Nanny state. .

Because it is the state, you and me, that are left to pick up the tab. We have to pay for the medical treatment. We have to pay for the social services. If its serious then possibly welfare, and housing and looking after the kids.

2smiggy

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

elefant

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

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

i would hope a modern campaign educating youths about alcohol would take a more mature and nuanced approach to the topic. Not something along the lines of a 'not even once' campaign, but rather that alcohol is perfectly fine in moderation. That having a glass of wine in the evening is fine. Maybe even encourage parents to allow their 16 year old have a glass of wine with dinner as part of the initiative; normalise alcohol.

Re-educating Irish youths about alcohol won't be about ramming it down their throats that it's not good for you. It will be in trying to ease them towards the type of non-binging alcohol consumption that is the norm in other EU countries, who may still have a similar overall intake per person.

I won't hold my breath though.

Zubeneschamali

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

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

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.

ohnonotgmail

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?

_Jamie_

VinLieger wrote: »

You honestly believe statistics and numbers from the 60's 70's and 80's have the same accuracy or correct methodology and should be counted with equal weight as ones taken now or in the last 10 years?

Why would you think that statistical methodology was worse 40 years ago? That makes no sense. Statistical methodology had been in place for a lot longer than 40 years. It's very odd really to think that figures from the 60s and 70s are automatically untrustworthy. What is your reasoning for that?

elperello

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

elperello wrote: »

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

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

Who were you expecting, the Spanish Inquisition?

Leroy42

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

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Why would you think that statistical methodology was worse 40 years ago? That makes no sense. Statistical methodology had been in place for a lot longer than 40 years. It's very odd really to think that figures from the 60s and 70s are automatically untrustworthy. What is your reasoning for that?

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

ohnonotgmail

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.