TOPIC:

And he got away with stating there is evidence that duty hikes work. This needs to be challenged. These people are parroting each other and assuming that the evidence to support their point is out there, when a good look at the figures doesn't actually support them at all.

Another point that people don't seem to be raising is that punitive taxes mean that the poor have to tow the line, while the rich can afford the freedom to do what they like.

Time was our friends in the drinks industry[/url:39577rv2] would be all over this. Strange that there's not a peep out of them yet.

I'm not sure it's in their interest to point out that this strategy is ineffective. It certainly hasn't done their sales any harm. I think that they are well aware that the publican lobby won't allow the government to raise taxes to the point where their sales will be adversely affected.

"sbillings":1sxhfiei wrote: And he got away with stating there is evidence that duty hikes work. This needs to be challenged. These people are parroting each other and assuming that the evidence to support their point is out there, when a good look at the figures doesn't actually support them at all.[/quote:1sxhfiei]

I fascinated by this. Clearly no one has confronted them with the contradictory data. Not to open the old wound of whether we should be an advocate for beer, but if people like us aren't going to confront this disinformation, who the hell is?

Just noticed another booboo in the data.

The year that shows the greatest drop in per capita consumption of alcohol is 2003 which the report by the HSE claims is mainly due to a rise inn the duty on spirits the drop in spirits sales of 21% (The figures are given in litres of pure alcohol per capita but they resort to different units to make it sound bigger here).

However, what it fails to point out is that while the consumption of spirits dropped by 0.53 litres of pure alcohol per capita, beer consumption also dropped by 0.24 litres of pure alcohol per capita without the benefit of a duty hike.

"sbillings":340h2mt8 wrote: the argument I would be inclined to put forward would not be to remove the laws in question, as they simply will not do that, but simply for our government to accept that binge drinking is a cultural issue, so any solution to it would have to be long term, as you cannot change a culture over night[/quote:340h2mt8]I just noticed that the group is asking for submissions[/url:340h2mt8] from the public. We really ought to put something together, oughtn't we?

Shall I try and write something, incorporating Séan's arguments from his article on consumption and taxation, and the points made in this thread about no quick fixes?

Additionally, does anyone think that restrictions, or even a total ban, on alcohol advertising [i:340h2mt8]isn't[/i:340h2mt8] a good idea?

Alternatively, we'll go with Westbrew's prohibition model and I'll do a letterhead for IrishCraftBootleggers.com.