TOPIC:

I've a scheme that would be simple, effective and highly unlikely to have any chance of being implemented.

I'd propose system whereby a licence holder who sold alcohol to a minor or obviously drunk person had their licence completely and permanently revoked? After all, the vintners associations never tire of telling us how responsible they are about selling their wares so naturally they'd have nothing to fear from such a scheme. In fact as a bonus it'd have the effect of rooting out the rogue elements in their trade who are not being responsible retailers.

Obviously the usual line about responsible selling would actually have to be true...

But surely only the most cynical amongst us would think that it's just self-serving bullshit.

Another thing that would help would be to ban alcohol advertising.

But nothing which would actually have the effect of reducing alcohol sales would actually be implemented. The government just want an excuse to gouge us a bit more, while being seen to be doing something about binge drinking, even if it is ineffective.

Anything that has the possibility of hurting the publicans bottom line would cause the pub owning back benchers to rebel, just as they did when their monopoly was threatened by the Café Bar licence proposal.

Lenihan's job is about acting concerned and being seen to do something, without actually doing anything effective. If, in the process, he can get a few extra quid into the government coffers, so much the better.

Temperence is just not a part of Irish drinking culture. Ministers can add all the taxes they want, it still will not curb the binge drinking habits of those who choose to do it. I suppose the cost of alcohol could be increased to a punative degree, but then the publicans will lose trade and that just won't be on at all.

Those implementing these changes have no understanding of the role of beer among alcoholic beverages. The situation now is not dissimilar to that of Victorian England when men women and children were killing themselves with cheap gin. Beer production was incouraged because it is relatively weak in alcohol and the larger volumes consumed filled people up. I'm not saying those who want to can't get completely rat arsed on beer alone, but it would certainly be beneficial if they were unable to top up with a couple of shots of something strong and nasty at the end of the night.

It will take at least a generation, and more likely two, to eradicate the binge drinking culture. At this stage the only way to do it effectively is to educate children about the dangers, and even then, most of this work will be undone when they see their parents getting hammered.

A ban on alcohol advertising will also be essential to affect a meaningful change in attitudes.

Three things wrong with that plan.

1. It would require hard work and commitment.

2. It isn't a quick fix. So it wouldn't make the minister sound decisive and dynamic in interviews.

3. It might actually work.

"sbillings":194ovnns wrote: Three things wrong with that plan.

1. It would require hard work and commitment.

2. It isn't a quick fix. So it wouldn't make the minister sound decisive and dynamic in interviews.

3. It might actually work.[/quote:194ovnns]

<!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt="" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->

&amp;quot;sbillings&amp;quot;:14fvpna8 wrote: Anything that has the possibility of hurting the publicans bottom line would cause the pub owning back benchers to rebel, just as they did when their monopoly was threatened by the Café Bar licence proposal.

Lenihan's job is about acting concerned and being seen to do something, without actually doing anything effective. If, in the process, he can get a few extra quid into the government coffers, so much the better.[/quote:14fvpna8]

Definitely agree with that