Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

McMurphy

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I notice in the papers all the time this constant badmouthing of alcohol. One of the latest 'gems' is 5 pints of beer a week causing all types of heart conditions and knocking years off one's life. If some church was saying this, 99% of the people would be crying Taliban and religious extremism but healthocratic killjoys sadly are believed because they are doctors. They are in fact doctors writing tripe because they were no good at the practical part of their profession or are too lazy to bother. Being a real doctor is not glamorous at all but writing biased agenda ridden 'research' with spurious correlation is as cushy as it gets. Write this tripe and then they go out and buy most likely ............ alcohol for themselves!!

As much as it pains me to say it (I'm a Denis O'Brien is a wanker believer) I'm a regular listener of newstalk, (tis a habit I need to work on)

You'd swear alcohol was skag during some of their slots.

(I'm looking at you ciara)

elperello

I heard Prof Frank Murray at it again the other day.
Demanding cancer warning labels on drink cans and bottles.
He said we should lead the way on this.
He finished up by saying we should all support the Public Health Alcohol Bill because it's measures are proven to work.

BuilderPlumber

elperello wrote: »

I heard Prof Frank Murray at it again the other day.
Demanding cancer warning labels on drink cans and bottles.
He said we should lead the way on this.
He finished up by saying we should all support the Public Health Alcohol Bill because it's measures are proven to work.

More of the health Taliban in effect. I said it before and say it again: if a Taliban or Gilead type regime ever took hold in a Western country, it will be healthism fanatics not religious fanatics that will implement such a dictatorship.

Alcohol, sugar, salt, tea, coffee, soft drinks, meat, chips, etc, etc, etc. have ALL being targeted by these killjoy hypocrites of the worst kind. It is sad to see intelligent people who would laugh at a religious nutter saying the same thing following these idiots like Murray blindly.

Murray should be ashamed of himself as he is educated and should know better than to be courting a dangerous new form of fascism. He could soon find out that his ideas he spouts and the theories he helped create could form the basis of a state he could one day live to regret. Serena Joy comes to mind!

BuilderPlumber

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

As much as it pains me to say it (I'm a Denis O'Brien is a wanker believer) I'm a regular listener of newstalk, (tis a habit I need to work on)

You'd swear alcohol was skag during some of their slots.

(I'm looking at you ciara)

These types will argue they are entitled to give their opinions and if anyone tried to silence them, they will play the free speech card. The problem is the alcohol guzzling hypocrites in the media like this Ciara will only air views that are anti alcohol (despite drinking a lot of it themselves!). The other views, the positives about alcohol, do need to be aired too but are not. The media in Ireland do not allow free speech if truth be known. They have agendas and I feel the agenda is to make the pub the only place to drink. This agenda has aligned itself with healthist fascists and that could be their biggest mistake when a healthocratic Gilead or Taliban style regime is set up.

We remember how the Taliban and similar regimes came into power. They first banned alcohol and women's choice of dress because they were traditional warped interpretations of Middle East culture that enough brainwashed people supported. Then, they turned to TV, cards, talking above whispers in public, etc.

Healthists do the same: they first target smoking knowing most people do not smoke anymore. Then, they try and turn people against various other products from alcohol to sugar to soft drinks to salt. The same fanaticism is there and the same attempts at justifications.

BuilderPlumber

Just looked up this Frank Murray. He is indeed a Taliban and Gilead type character. He belongs to an outdated anti alcohol Christian extremist cult called The Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart. It sounds like something out of The Handmaid's Tale, a cousin of The Sons of Jacob.

Murray is passing off the biased intolerant views of a fascist cult as medical science and should be ashamed of himself. He should be struck off the medical council for putting cult based intolerant religious views across as medical science. Because he is a 'liver specialist', he can use his reputation to put across his warped religious views as 'fact'. He is the worst kind.

Leroy42

Ehmm, you do now that these reports are backup up by research, they aren't just made up. You guys are giving opinions, these are research based findings. Present your evidence that alcohol has no negative bearing on health to balance it if you wish.

weldoninhio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ehmm, you do now that these reports are backup up by research, they aren't just made up. You guys are giving opinions, these are research based findings. Present your evidence that alcohol has no negative bearing on health to balance it if you wish.

I don’t think it’s the fact that alcohol has no negative bearing, it’s more the fact that they push the agenda that even moderate or mild drinking is terrible and needs to be stopped

KrustyUCC

Would love to know if Dr Murray can show that the same can of drink is more damaging to a drinker in Ireland than in Spain?

Under this legislation the same can, same formula, same strength will be over 4 times as dear here than in Spain punishing all drinkers here

BuilderPlumber

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ehmm, you do now that these reports are backup up by research, they aren't just made up. You guys are giving opinions, these are research based findings. Present your evidence that alcohol has no negative bearing on health to balance it if you wish.

I'm well aware these reports are research. But that's EXACTLY the trap all people fall into who may not be in the know about research. Taking something as gospel because it is research and not taking into account the agenda and religious, etc. background of the researcher is how intolerant types can legitimise themselves. Research can be biased, exaggerated, done on behalf of someone with an agenda who wants a certain result, oversimplified and can be based on spurious correlation. This Murray is associated with an extremist Christian semi-cult called The Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart which sounds like it could come from The Handmaid's Tale.

Leroy42

weldoninhio wrote: »

I don’t think it’s the fact that alcohol has no negative bearing, it’s more the fact that they push the agenda that even moderate or mild drinking is terrible and needs to be stopped

So you think it is wrong that people publish the results of research because it doesn't fit with your thinking? Only research that backs up your position should be undertaken or published?

These researches are done with a open mind, or at the least a mind open to the results. They are backup with with data. Of course there is always bias in determining the interpretation of the data (even if unconsciously) but the research is available to view, the methods can be examined and if there are holes in it then they are pointed out.

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I'm well aware these reports are research. But that's EXACTLY the trap all people fall into who may not be in the know about research. Taking something as gospel because it is research and not taking into account the agenda and religious, etc. background of the researcher is how intolerant types can legitimise themselves. Research can be biased, exaggerated, done on behalf of someone with an agenda who wants a certain result, oversimplified and can be based on spurious correlation. This Murray is associated with an extremist Christian semi-cult called The Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart which sounds like it could come from The Handmaid's Tale.

So what is wrong with the research. Is it the methods used, the interpretation of the data? I am fully aware that research can be used to show anything and the smoking lobby is proof of that, but simply posting that it is a vast conspiracy is not helpful.

Even a basic understanding of nutrition and health will give you an understanding that taking in empty calories such as in a pint is not good for you. Add to that the effects of alcohol itself and the varied social outcomes of alcohol and surely the onus must be on alcohol to show the benefits and the negatives are pretty obvious.

None of that addresses the benefits of alcohol of which there are many. It is great to enhance sociability. It helps people relax and unwind. Spending time drinking with friends is quite a jolly thing to do. Everything in moderation is what they say, and that extends to focus on health. Relaxing a bit (de-stressing) has been shown to have many positive effects on mental and physical health.

My point is that rather than simply dismiss things that don't agree to ones POV, we need to take these new findings on board and consider them in the context of what we do. Within the report, for example, it says there is no benefits to being tee-total over <5 pints. So 5 pints causes no noticeable impact, and the outcomes from those that consumed less that that were no any better.

So drink 5 pints a week, but limit the times that you consume more than that as it appears to have a negative impact on your health.

Cookie_Monster

But the point here is they are saying those 5 pints in a pub are grand but they same 8 or 9 bottles bought from an offo are a problem that needs dealing with by pricing people out of the market...
It makes no sense, apart from a protectionist pov

mjv2ydratu679c

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ehmm, you do now that these reports are backup up by research, they aren't just made up. You guys are giving opinions, these are research based findings. Present your evidence that alcohol has no negative bearing on health to balance it if you wish.

http://www.thejournal.ie/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-ireland-facts-2932210-Aug2016/

Leroy42

Agreed, cheeky, I'm not arguing that MUP is the way to go. But rather than dismissing reports on the negative effects of alcohol based on nothing more than seemingly a belief that it is all a vast conspiracy is not helpful

We need to approach this is a mature manner. Does alcohol cause harm? It would appear, both anecdotally and based on research, that in various conditions and based on various amounts that it does.

What, therefore, is the best way to deal with the conflicting position of knowing that some level of alcohol can cause harm whilst accepting that some level of alcohol can be a good thing.

I have stated many times that I am against this bill. What I am also against is the almost cult like devotion to the product such that any reasonable debate is tried to be shut down on the basis that it doesn't fit our agenda.

weldoninhio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Agreed, cheeky, I'm not arguing that MUP is the way to go. But rather than dismissing reports on the negative effects of alcohol based on nothing more than seemingly a belief that it is all a vast conspiracy is not helpful

We need to approach this is a mature manner. Does alcohol cause harm? It would appear, both anecdotally and based on research, that in various conditions and based on various amounts that it does.

What, therefore, is the best way to deal with the conflicting position of knowing that some level of alcohol can cause harm whilst accepting that some level of alcohol can be a good thing.

I have stated many times that I am against this bill. What I am also against is the almost cult like devotion to the product such that any reasonable debate is tried to be shut down on the basis that it doesn't fit our agenda.

The govt in Ireland don't do reasonable debate. They have focus groups that find some research that something is bad, then they whack an extra tax on it. There are no education programmes, no nationwide conversations etc. Its bad, lets tax it more. And it's not just drinking alcohol.

BuilderPlumber

I happened upon a copy of the Sunday Independent yesterday and strangely enough have to praise it for once. The article on it says exactly how many of us feel and came out strong against agenda-lead correlated research which stated basically people die and get sick and drink alcohol without mentioning people die and get sick anyway. When you have someone like this Murray spouting biased agendas against alcohol and without any balance and then you find out his association with a group styling itself The Pioneer Total Abstinence Association of the Sacred Heart (which sounds like something from The Handmaid's Tale), enough said. Religious fanatics should never influence research.

MUP legislation comes into effect in Scotland from today.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-43948081

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich

If we don't die from alcohol related diseases, what do the Government think it's ok for us to die from? If alcohol didn't exist, everyone still dies and gets sick!
For a nation that seems to be obsessed with ham, sausages, bacon (every 2nd advert on TV is a guy with a beard going on about ham or families eating ham going to GAA matches), should we not be putting minimum unit pricing on processed pork?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who are the cancer agency of the World Health Organisation, have said that processed meat is now classified as a 'definite' cause of cancer and red meat as a 'probable'.

Where will it end? Can't I just die from liver disease in peace?

KrustyUCC

Calls for it to be brought in England too

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6182952/fears-drink-cost-could-be-hiked-across-england-as-minimum-price-for-alcohol-comes-into-effect-in-scotland-today/

I love the line Chairman Sir Ian Gilmore said: “Minimum unit pricing will save lives, cut crime and benefit the public finances. At the same time, pub prices will be left untouched, and moderate drinkers will barely notice the difference under MUP.

Yeah right

Lets say you buy a bottle of Gin which is 700ml

You drink 2 gins a day which 1.8 units a day and less that the 14 units recommended per week

not exactly huge drinking

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/alcoholic-drinks-units/spirits/

a bottle will last you 10 days and each replcement is costing at least £3 more than it was

it all adds up

Leroy42

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich wrote: »

If we don't die from alcohol related diseases, what do the Government think it's ok for us to die from? If alcohol didn't exist, everyone still dies and gets sick!
For a nation that seems to be obsessed with ham, sausages, bacon (every 2nd advert on TV is a guy with a beard going on about ham or families eating ham going to GAA matches), should we not be putting minimum unit pricing on processed pork?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who are the cancer agency of the World Health Organisation, have said that processed meat is now classified as a 'definite' cause of cancer and red meat as a 'probable'.

Where will it end? Can't I just die from liver disease in peace?

Well start a campaign about meat then. There are plenty of voices calling for a cut back in meat consumption already.

But are you suggesting that we shouldn't have done anything about cigarettes because other things cause people to die? Are you suggesting that seat-belts be abandoned because people still die in car crashes so what the point?

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well start a campaign about meat then. There are plenty of voices calling for a cut back in meat consumption already.

But are you suggesting that we shouldn't have done anything about cigarettes because other things cause people to die? Are you suggesting that seat-belts be abandoned because people still die in car crashes so what the point?

I don't eat a lot of meat, by choice, I'm actually thinking of going veg, but that's by my own choice. I don't think cigarettes should be as expensive as they are, no. Alcohol gives lots of us pleasure and is the fabric of our social lives in Ireland. Just leave it alone, it's one of the most expensive in Europe as is.

Zubeneschamali

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich wrote: »

Alcohol gives lots of us pleasure and is the fabric of our social lives in Ireland. Just leave it alone, it's one of the most expensive in Europe as is.

I'm OK with taxing things which are bad for us to reduce consumption, but that is not what MUP as proposed is trying to do.

It is trying to stop us buying in Lidl and make us buy in the pub instead, which is not even close to health concerns. A real tax to reduce harm would hit alcohol everywhere, no matter how where it is sold, and it would hit Champagne as hard as Galahad.

Leroy42

Very true, Zubebeschamali, and that is the approach that I always try to stick to.

Claiming alcohol is good for society, or what it causes no real harm or it should be left alone because of culture or other bad things, I think, misses the key point that should be argued about this bill.

Namely, that this bill doesn't actually set out to achieve what it is claimed. By targeting only certain drinks, and not doing anything about the pub trade, it totally undermines the 'stated' reason for it.

trying to argue about the evils/benefits of alcohol is always going to end up in a subjective back on forth, with anecdotes and questionable research thrown out to 'prove' one position or the other.

Fundamentally this bill does nothing to deal with large swathes of the problem. Now, if it could be shown to be part of a considered approach, the 1st step in a concerted effort, then I could maybe get on board. But it clearly only targets one particular aspect on does nothing to deal with the most likely outcome that people will simply end up paying more for the product.

And no reason has been given as to why this cannot be done via taxation. Why should the breweries and retailers (vintners mainly) gain from what is effectively a societal issue?

Continue to ask the simple question, what impact will this have an alcoholic intake levels? Given the alcoholic intake is reducing, what increase in the reduction rate is envisaged?

Why not slap a tariff on products and divert that tariff to treatment and education?

weldoninhio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Very true, Zubebeschamali, and that is the approach that I always try to stick to.

Claiming alcohol is good for society, or what it causes no real harm or it should be left alone because of culture or other bad things, I think, misses the key point that should be argued about this bill.

Namely, that this bill doesn't actually set out to achieve what it is claimed. By targeting only certain drinks, and not doing anything about the pub trade, it totally undermines the 'stated' reason for it.

trying to argue about the evils/benefits of alcohol is always going to end up in a subjective back on forth, with anecdotes and questionable research thrown out to 'prove' one position or the other.

Fundamentally this bill does nothing to deal with large swathes of the problem. Now, if it could be shown to be part of a considered approach, the 1st step in a concerted effort, then I could maybe get on board. But it clearly only targets one particular aspect on does nothing to deal with the most likely outcome that people will simply end up paying more for the product.

And no reason has been given as to why this cannot be done via taxation. Why should the breweries and retailers (vintners mainly) gain from what is effectively a societal issue?

Continue to ask the simple question, what impact will this have an alcoholic intake levels? Given the alcoholic intake is reducing, what increase in the reduction rate is envisaged?

Why not slap a tariff on products and divert that tariff to treatment and education?

The percentage drop that they claim that this will cause is exactly in line with the rate that alcohol consumption is dropping at the moment WITHOUT the MUP. So even if it makes 0% difference, it will look like its worked according to their figures. It was posted in the thread earlier I think.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now, if it could be shown to be part of a considered approach, the 1st step in a concerted effort, then I could maybe get on board.

It is indeed just one part of a plan as spelled out in FGs 2011 manifesto:

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs.

Even here they tossed in a line about "the impact on alcohol consumption", which mysteriously went down when they imply it is going up, but the intent is clear. Prop up pubs, especially rural pubs.

Leroy42

And TBH, I am not totally against an idea to help save the Irish pub. It is a key part of our culture, a key part of our tourism.

We are more than happy to spend money on the arts and culture, on sport etc, the pub is part of what makes Ireland, well Ireland.

But this bill doesn't do that. Something targeted, like the 9% VAT idea, would be better. Maybe helping rural pubs to reinvest, through a scheme like the home efficiency scheme, would help in that regard. The VFI could undertake a review in each town/village to see what pubs have a viable future and what ones are simply past being able to meet the demands of the modern consumer.

Investment in transport, smoking rooms (the pub close to me, people simply stand in the doorway, hardly a welcoming sight to possible customers), the funding of culture nights (live music, talent nights, poetry and reading clubs etc etc.) They may not bring in much trade of themselves, but they keep the pub in the centre of the community.

Be more welcoming to new customers. Have sampling menus more available so that people can try out new products without costing an arm. Use the designated driver scheme to give the driver free tea/coffee/soft drinks.

So in one way I do understand that there is something do be done, but feel that this bill is a lazy and wrongheaded way of going about it. It fails to force the publicans to address the serious issues that are causing them to lose business and come up with ways to become relevant again.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in one way I do understand that there is something do be done, but feel that this bill is a lazy and wrongheaded way of going about it.

I don't for a minute believe it will work to drive people into pubs. But politicians have to be seen to be doing something to help the Vintners, and this is something, so they will do this (even though it won't work).

As far as I can see, the only people who will actually gain are the discounters, who will be obliged to sell more expensive alcohol and pocket a higher margin (even though their volume will fall a bit).

SEPT 23 1989

I heard this morning that the price of a bottle of vodka in Scotland will go from 10 to 13 pounds

that will put an end to problem drinking alright

Zubeneschamali

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I heard this morning that the price of a bottle of vodka in Scotland will go from 10 to 13 pounds

that will put an end to problem drinking alright

I suspect that when it doesn't work, they will start cranking up the Minimum Price.

KrustyUCC

The logic they will use is to point to figures that consumption is down x amount so it we increase x by y amount then consumption will fall more

hatrickpatrick

According to a report in The Times a few weeks ago, our Alcohol Bill has been delayed until at least July due to criticism from the European Commission around labelling etc.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-objections-to-delay-alcohol-bill-until-july-hbbzkgt68

The government’s proposed alcohol bill is to be delayed for another three months after Italy and Portugal raised objections to new amendments.

Ireland was required to renotify the European Commission about its Public Health Alcohol Bill in January because of changes to the legislation. Amendments added as the bill went through the Seanad last year include warnings of the risk of cancer, which must take up a third of the label, and a watershed for advertising.

Ireland will not be able to make the bill law until July 20 at the earliest to allow member states time to discuss the bill and to prevent the adoption of a law that could be incompatible with EU rules. Denmark, France, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, and the…

Article truncated due to the paywall, but it sounds like the legislation may be in genuine trouble over this.