And as predictable, the pointless "whataboutery" contributions and unhelpful contributors start from here, as sure as night follows day.
Alcohol Minimum Pricing
- Thread starter Majka.21
- Start date
- Status
And if you did would you blame the sausages?
iamaspinner
Registered User
- Messages
- 289
I'd be worried about what they'd be doing to me.
do you mean the sausages or the people that ate the sausages ?
iamaspinner
Registered User
- Messages
- 289
The sausages and the people after eating them!
RetirementPlan
Registered User
- Messages
- 429
This puts you just into the 'increasing risk' category of drinking (subject to a few assumptions);
Increasing Risk Feedback Video
www.youtube.com
According to the HSE, hazardous drinking can cause the following problems:
- accidents or injuries
- hangovers
- having less energy
- feeling low or depressed
- increased anxiety
- risk-taking
- problems with sleeping
- having unsafe sex
- memory loss due to blackouts
- strained relationships due to arguments or fights
- impact on friendships, family, work or studies
- impotence (problems getting or keeping an erection)
- weight gain
- financial problems
- high blood pressure
- liver disease
- digestive problems
- heart disease
- several Cancers
As with all health issues, not everyone will experience these problems, and certainly not all these problems, but that's the end result.
Disclosure: I'm not too far away from you, probably one less night of drink a week, which puts me in the low risk category, rather than increasing risk.
A&E's around the country full of gluttons who overdid it at 3 am on Sunday morning. Sausage related accident's and violence on the streets and in the home. We should have a MUP of €1.70 for your average size sausage.
The comparison with BBQ steaks and sausages are an utter farce. The accute and chronic effects of binging on BBQ'd meats compared to alcohol abuse on our health system, our relationships and our society (anti-social behaviour, wanton destruction, litter), are not even in the same league. Beyond comparison I would say. It's a really unhelpful argument being put forward by those arguing against MUP.
Last edited:
The effects you describe - A&E, accidents and violence on the street - how much of that is pub and nightclub related?
And won't be affected by MUP?
Weren't A&Es quieter with pubs and nightclubs closed?
It's entirely reasonable to compare the health risks of low to moderate consumption of alcohol with other risks such as processed foods, or red meat, especially when one of the arguments put forward for MUP is to reduce overall alcohol consumption. Even though the association of overall alcohol consumption with alcohol related harm is weak to non - existent.
This is totally inappropriate language and an awful way to describe people who drink too much..
I'm this thread is not clised.
iamaspinner
Registered User
- Messages
- 289
I never said all who drink too much or too little behave like that!
Of course it is a very complex issue.
Perhaps my comment has been misunderstood.
I posted information from the HSE around alcohol so that it could be taken into account in the context of this thread's discussion, which is entitled "Alcohol Minimum Pricing". But then we went into the comparison rabbit hole.
In my humble opinion, it doesn't help this or any debate to compare pears and apples, e.g. alcohol v sausages, cigarettes v red meat or asbestos v bbq.
Powderfinger
Registered User
- Messages
- 22
I take it they're not coeliacs?
FF, FG, SF and Labour all voted for this, and I think the Social Democrats.
The only people I'm aware of speaking out against it is economist Sean Barrett who I think was a senator at the time and voted against it.
all the opposition parties are now basically left wing and are all in favour of alcohol control and other nanny state initiatives. Wasn't Roisin Shorthall the first to instigate this a decade ago.
Its interesting though how times have changed, a century ago the control of alcohol was a conservative church led initiative with the pioneer association being a huge movement in Ireland. Also in the US it was the Republicans that introduced prohibition with the Democrats firmly against it, because it was essentially anti libertarian.
Now we have Scotland bringing in MUP but the Tories in England rejecting it, in Northern Ireland I think SF in favour but the DUP against. However surely SF will not be able to resist playing the populist card now if they see how unpopular it is here. Maybe they will jump ship and abandon MUP in the North aswell in order to benefit from it here
How much is caused by drink bought from off licenses and supermarkets? Far, far, far more than BBQ food. It's a ridiculous comparison.
Baby boomer
Registered User
- Messages
- 735
Let's agree (solely for the purposes of argument, mind) that alcohol is entirely A Bad Thing and must be Severely Discouraged by government policy. The question arises as to whether MUP is a particularly good or efficient way to do so.
I say it isn't because:
- It will have absolutely zero effect on the pub trade because they are already above MUP level. If proof were needed, note that the publican lobby (normally so vocal against anti alcohol measures) has enthusiastically cheerled MUP. Bear in mind also that the Irish pub is th main transmission medium of our alcohol culture.
- It will have little effect on the chronic alcoholic who will somehow or other find the money to keep on drinking.
- It transfers about €100m per annum from consumers to supermarkets. Nothing will go towards education, treatment or other harm reduction measures.
- It will lead to increased cross border and duty free purchases. And possibly an increase in illegal importation.
- It smacks of targeting "the poor" who, unlike their betters, can't really be trusted with personal responsibility. Apparently.
- It is an infantilising measure that further transfers social control from the citizenry to the Government.
It does have one major advantage though - it allows our policians to preen their egos because Something Had To Be Done and they did it. It is the very epitome of badly thought out public policy and reflects very poorly on our elected representatives and on us the electorate who keep electing them.
I say it isn't because:
- It will have absolutely zero effect on the pub trade because they are already above MUP level. If proof were needed, note that the publican lobby (normally so vocal against anti alcohol measures) has enthusiastically cheerled MUP. Bear in mind also that the Irish pub is th main transmission medium of our alcohol culture.
- It will have little effect on the chronic alcoholic who will somehow or other find the money to keep on drinking.
- It transfers about €100m per annum from consumers to supermarkets. Nothing will go towards education, treatment or other harm reduction measures.
- It will lead to increased cross border and duty free purchases. And possibly an increase in illegal importation.
- It smacks of targeting "the poor" who, unlike their betters, can't really be trusted with personal responsibility. Apparently.
- It is an infantilising measure that further transfers social control from the citizenry to the Government.
It does have one major advantage though - it allows our policians to preen their egos because Something Had To Be Done and they did it. It is the very epitome of badly thought out public policy and reflects very poorly on our elected representatives and on us the electorate who keep electing them.
Last edited:
I have some relatives in Germany and somebody mentioned above the cheapest 0.5 cans are about 30 cent. That is correct. I think if a politician there would propose something like MUP he would be laughed at. Here in our Banana Republic it doesn't seem to be a big problem to artificially double the price for a bottle of beer. And in comparison the price for Alcohol was never really cheap here.
Germany is a sophisticated, mature society
Really? I don't smoke, I would prefer to live in a universe in which it was never discovered ... it doesn't mean I necessarily agree with all restrictions on smoking OR consider that all anti-smoking measures will pan out in practice...
So an interesting thought experiment is: would MUP have made sense for tobacco? Only a small proportion of the extra price (VAT) going to the government, the rest going to retailers and producers of tobacco products. Purchasers of expensive cigars unaffected, consumers of shag or roll your own (?) tobacco most affected. People who consumed 'on sale' tobacco in 'coffee shops' unaffected.
So why does it make sense for alcohol...
- Status