</p>
Game set and match.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The Law Alcopop taxes plan to halt child drinking
- Thread starter Adz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Game set and match.
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,949
- 39
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- When they're not belting us, NZ
Maybe the government shouldnt be giving every bloke in australia 900 dollars?
they shouldn't. I won't send my money back but i have a good level of savings so it's not going to worry me if i didn't get it. going straight into bank anyway
Ah good, I've never met a bloke who's willing to pay more taxes then the average person.
in this respect it doesn't bother me cause i don't drink much premix minus the Bundy and dry. I certainly drink but prefer red wine or spirits and as i mentioned shopped around for the bundy + dry or just went without and got beer.
How has the tax stopped binge drinking?
I don't think it has nor would it. wasn't there a spike in the sales of straight spirits after the tax came in? and because people can mix these half and half or stronger isn't there a bigger chance of foolish escapades after this mix?
they shouldn't. I won't send my money back but i have a good level of savings so it's not going to worry me if i didn't get it. going straight into bank anyway
Ah good, I've never met a bloke who's willing to pay more taxes then the average person.
in this respect it doesn't bother me cause i don't drink much premix minus the Bundy and dry. I certainly drink but prefer red wine or spirits and as i mentioned shopped around for the bundy + dry or just went without and got beer.
How has the tax stopped binge drinking?
I don't think it has nor would it. wasn't there a spike in the sales of straight spirits after the tax came in? and because people can mix these half and half or stronger isn't there a bigger chance of foolish escapades after this mix?
Niximus
Brownlow Medallist
Edited for accuracy
I did .
Only mine was Johnny Walker and Cola.
Steve Fielding knows like most of us that this tax is just another easy tax grab and more importantly another way out of a serious social problem.
If this went though do you really think the gov would push any further on the problems of youth intoxication?
I think they would have ticked the box and said problem solved.
This is a gov that likes to be seen as doing something.
In this case it wasn't even addressing the problems at hand.
Hopefully they will at some stage take this problem seriously and tackle under age drinking and binge drinking seriously.
Maybe at some stage they may even acknowledge that these same kids have some serious drug issues .
Or we can raise the price of pre mixed drinks and forget about it.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #131
At least now the alcohol industry can stop vandalising beer:
http://www.hoppsy.com/australia/carlton-dry-fusion-with-a-touch-of-lime/
http://www.hoppsy.com/australia/carlton-dry-fusion-with-a-touch-of-lime/
I did .
Only mine was Johnny Walker and Cola.
Steve Fielding knows like most of us that this tax is just another easy tax grab and more importantly another way out of a serious social problem.
If this went though do you really think the gov would push any further on the problems of youth intoxication?
I think they would have ticked the box and said problem solved.
This is a gov that likes to be seen as doing something.
In this case it wasn't even addressing the problems at hand.
Hopefully they will at some stage take this problem seriously and tackle under age drinking and binge drinking seriously.
Maybe at some stage they may even acknowledge that these same kids have some serious drug issues .
Or we can raise the price of pre mixed drinks and forget about it.
I'm beginning to wonder - how will the government 'tackle' the problem of underage drinking? What can the government possibly do? Taxing the shit out of it didn't work. All it did was shift drinkers to another product.
Seriously, what can the government do?
It all starts at home, and that's the problem. Too many binge drinkers in this country and you can tax it, prohibit it, do what you like, the problem remains.
I am not sure that it would solve the problem but I think a reasonable step to take is to force personal responsibility on binge drinkers.
They can pay the full cost of hospital treatment, for vandalism, for police time etc etc.
A very good % of a&e cases are alcohol related, I suspect it would raise quite a bit of cash.
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,949
- 39
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- When they're not belting us, NZ
I did .
Only mine was Johnny Walker and Cola.
Steve Fielding knows like most of us that this tax is just another easy tax grab and more importantly another way out of a serious social problem.
If this went though do you really think the gov would push any further on the problems of youth intoxication?
I think they would have ticked the box and said problem solved.
This is a gov that likes to be seen as doing something.
In this case it wasn't even addressing the problems at hand.
Hopefully they will at some stage take this problem seriously and tackle under age drinking and binge drinking seriously.
Maybe at some stage they may even acknowledge that these same kids have some serious drug issues .
Or we can raise the price of pre mixed drinks and forget about it.
and what has fielding actually done then to "tackle" this problem of binge drinking?
nothing. At least the tax grab could have potentially thrown more money at outreach type of programs that help people with drinking/drug problems.
At least now the alcohol industry can stop vandalising beer:
http://www.hoppsy.com/australia/carlton-dry-fusion-with-a-touch-of-lime/
They were quick off the mark throwing that out into the market place. It's actually reasonably good.
It was a stupid tax anyway, it's been pointed out time and time again that kids will just move onto something else.
When we were growing up, it was a two litre coke, take a fair few swigs and fill the remainder with whatever spirit was handy.
In the 80's those wine coolers came onto the market, the government did the same thing with "wont somebody think of the children" because all of a sudden booze tasted like cordial and they thought it would be served up at primary school.
At least the response was serious and they lowered the alc content to two percent instead of raising the tax, but of course people just moved onto other things.
It's like this history has been completely forgotten and the "alcopops" are a new thing. Two Dogs Lemonade and Lemon Ruskis date back to the start of the 90's.
What I've always been astounded by is that pre-mix bourbon/scotch/bundy & cola/dry etc has been classed as an 'alcopop' and subject to the tax to supposedly stop kids drinking. Yet it's well known that the main demographic that purchases these drinks are older blokes who buy them for the convenience.
Ummm demand that there is a ban on alcohol advertising during day time sports. He is a lone senator for a party that doesn't have many members - he is not the governing party, but rather the balance of power. Whilst I am not fully behind his stance - he has probably tried to do something what he believes makes a difference. I don't for one second buy the notion "that he has not done anything to tackle the problem" - he put forward his view the same way the government has proposed their solutions (which are very questionable also). Do expect to see him going to every bottle-o and stop people buying more than 2 bottles of drink?
Kids will buy what they can afford. They are better off drinking a few alcopops than a couple of bottles of 2 buck chuck !
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,949
- 39
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- When they're not belting us, NZ
what fielding has done is to make alcopops cheaper. that's it. now all the kids can get hyped up on their woodstocks.
and how is banning ads throughout sport going to stop drinking? it's not going to.
What THAT proposal is going to do is protect his voting base and get him re-elected. which means although he dresses up as a sheep, he's really just a wolf like the rest.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #140
Yes it isn't totally horrendous but it was an obvious attempt to get around the alcopop tax.
They were good for camping trips - you don't need to get a mug out, dole out the scotch and coke and so on.
Soon as the price drops I'll be into a carton I think. All this talk of alco-pops has really made me crave one.
So your saying the increasing the price on one type of alcohol will stop kids from drinking - surely you can't think that kids aren't smart enough to drink something else for a fraction of the price. Labour's proposal was done for the exact same reason - tackling a problem by not tackling the problem to appease their voting base.
- Aug 7, 2008
- 8,949
- 39
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- When they're not belting us, NZ
cannot disagree with the bolded bit. I would like to but i can't.
Thats politics sadly - it doesn't take long to grow cynical about any decision by both sides.
Absolutely, be responsible for their own actions, tougher penalties for "Drunken behavior"
Also wait for 20-30 years for a liver damage explosion. I know people who drank from the age of 15 and had major liver complications by 30. If we don't curb this problem now, we will be paying for it later.
- Aug 31, 2007
- 2,917
- 85
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- dowdenphotography.com
I can tell you from working in a bar that it did nothing to stop drinking.
The stats taken are from RTD's and of cause the sales dropped when prices went up. It's because people were buying 700ml bottles and mixing it at home.
That then leads to other issues. a standard drink is a 30ml shot mixed, d you think those at home are really putting 30ml in each drink?
No they're mixing half/half and getting drunker quicker and its leading to the issues we're seeing in the media every weekend.
The tax was f*&%ed from the start, bottle shops started giving away bottles of soft drink, females started drinking more wine @ 12% aol. & drinking got more out of control.
The wrost thing about this tax is those who paid it won't see a cent. It should go to making the streets safer, cleaning up bars, clubs & pubs and better public transport so people won't have to drink & drive because getting home is too hard.
The stats taken are from RTD's and of cause the sales dropped when prices went up. It's because people were buying 700ml bottles and mixing it at home.
That then leads to other issues. a standard drink is a 30ml shot mixed, d you think those at home are really putting 30ml in each drink?
No they're mixing half/half and getting drunker quicker and its leading to the issues we're seeing in the media every weekend.
The tax was f*&%ed from the start, bottle shops started giving away bottles of soft drink, females started drinking more wine @ 12% aol. & drinking got more out of control.
The wrost thing about this tax is those who paid it won't see a cent. It should go to making the streets safer, cleaning up bars, clubs & pubs and better public transport so people won't have to drink & drive because getting home is too hard.
- Banned
- #146
It's just Australia. In Bolivia they have a beer that's 7.2%. ****s you up but I've never seen anything even approaching a fight. The locals just drink until they pass out, no problems whatsoever.
TheMase
Brownlow Medallist
At least now the alcohol industry can stop vandalising beer:
http://www.hoppsy.com/australia/carlton-dry-fusion-with-a-touch-of-lime/
To be absolutely fair, there is a story behind that beer.
They got it out quick, but not for the reasons you think.
Coca-Cola Amatil are in partnership with SAB Miller in a 50/50 in a company called Pacific Beverages.
They brought a beer into Australia called "Miller Chill" which was infused with lime and salt.
Ten days later, Carlton responded by bringing this product out. This beer was created in around 10 days. They brought this product out as a 'block' between Corona and Miller Chill. They wanted to stop Miller Chill from leeching off Corona.
To a great amount, they succeeded as well.
It's made me crave more than one.
Some interesting stats here for the UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article5920322.ece
The terrible cost of not raising drink prices
It's clear: if alcohol is more expensive, lives are saved and crime falls. So why the resistance?Magnus Linklater
Can you be “lukewarm” about a proposal that would save lives and cut crime? Can you indulge in a philosophical discussion about governments and how far they should interfere with our lives, when people are dying of diseases that could be prevented? Gordon Brown says that he is “lukewarm” on proposals to introduce a minimum pricing strategy to curb alcohol, but he knows, because Sir Liam Donaldson, his Chief Medical Officer, has told him, that the statistics show overwhelmingly that putting up prices would cut the number of alcohol-related deaths - and dramatically at that.
Here is the equation. Over the past 30 years, in real terms, beer has become 36 per cent cheaper in pubs, and 139 per cent cheaper to buy at off-sales premises; as a result, total consumption has risen by more than a fifth, with the biggest increase among women and the young. In that time, alcohol-related deaths in Britain have more than doubled, from fewer than 4,000 a year to more than 8,700; the social cost has been enormous. Drink is the cause of nearly half of all violent incidents; in nearly a million assaults last year, the aggressors were believed to be drunk.
All the research shows that there is a straight correlation between the price of alcohol and its use. When Sheffield University carried out its definitive review last year of the effect of increasing the price per unit of alcohol on sales and consumption, it came up with a striking model and some equally striking conclusions. A minimum price of 40p per unit, it estimated, would reduce hospital admissions by 40,000; it would cut crime by 3,800 cases a year; it would save the Government more than £1 billion in social costs; above all, it would reduce the number of deaths by anything up to half.
For Sir Liam, who has been immersed in figures such as these, the argument is a simple one. By increasing the price per unit, you bring down consumption and the number of deaths; you reduce binge drinking and crime; you start the process of making our town centres places you might want to go to at the weekend, rather than avoid.
That is the argument that the Scottish government, too, has bought. It is pressing ahead with moves that would push the price of a bottle of wine up by as much as a pound, and make strong, cheap drink such as white cider and full-strength lager less affordable and less available. Its argument is that we can no longer stand back and hope that other measures will do the trick. We know education programmes don't work and timid slogans such as “drink responsibly” will not turn the tide.
So what is there to argue about? If there is a principle at stake here, surely it has been drowned in the rising tide of crime and disease that is making this country a by-word for alcoholic excess. Mr Brown, along with most of the opposition parties, objects that raising the price of alcohol would hit moderate consumers and the less well-off. Better to try educating the bingers rather than penalising them, he believes. This is, of course, a good libertarian argument. It says that the nanny state must be held back lest it impede the inalienable right of every citizen to drink himself to death, if that is what he is minded to do.
But how far do you allow this argument to run? It was deployed against the smoking ban and when compulsory seat-belts were introduced. But who would claim today that neither of these, in terms of saving lives, was justified? Intriguingly, the drinkers themselves seem to have begun to understand this. Some fascinating work by Fiona Measham, of the University of Lancaster, who conducts her research in the clubs and pubs of Manchester, suggests that binge drinking has peaked, and that the desire to get legless every weekend as a matter of routine is less appealing than it once was. Part of the reason for that is that social trends go in cycles. “Every big splurge is time-limited,” she says. “The next generation doesn't want to follow the example of the previous one, so the worst excesses are being contained.”
Raising the price of alcohol, then, far from meeting with resistance, would be going with the grain of present trends. The only obstacles to implementing reform are the policymakers. As Professor Martin Plant, of Bristol University, author of Binge Britain and probably our leading expert on alcohol, points out, the gap between science and politics on this matter is “as wide as the Grand Canyon”. He and his fellow experts know what the figures reveal, and conclude that the case for increasing the price of alcohol is well-nigh incontrovertible.
If this was just some urbane discussion on The Moral Maze, we might indeed balance the philosophical with the practical. But this is now a matter of life and, increasingly, death. We cannot stand back and allow the market to dictate events, not least because the market is slewed in favour of those who disrupt society rather than those who hold it together. I suspect that the real reason for the objections to minimum pricing comes from the drinks industry rather than from conscience. And that is a lousy reason for letting the mayhem continue.
