Federal health agency proposes ban on discount booze.

[monkeys437]

I don't drink Cask wine or cheap and nasty bottles, but if they're taxed to increase the price then the $10-$20 bottles (which can be quite good quality) will go up accordingly.

For that reason I'm heavily against it. There are massive taxes on this product already and as the OP says, its really punishing the rest of us who enjoy a few glasses of red at a restaurant/winery just because kids/bogans write themselves off drinking 4L casks.

We make some very good wine in this country we should not be hurting the winemakers by making products less affordable. Wine is NOT fun to get drunk off like beer is and the majority drink it in moderation and enjoy it

 

[BushSSV]

I think they are on the right track with this one. It’s not ‘Nanny State’ to reduce the tax burden on society by increasing the price of a harmful product.

Alcohol is too cheap, and has not kept up with inflation. Everything else has gone up, but not the grog. I have a bottle of Jimmy that I bought for my 18th. I never opened it because it was a ‘symbol of adulthood’. It still has the price on it: $37.90. That’s slightly dearer than today’s price, 20 years later!
A slab of premix is cheaper now than it was in the early nineties. No other product has avoided inflation like the grog has. It needs to go up. While beer and wine have actually gone up, with discounting it is negligible.

Perhaps outlawing discounting would be better than tax – stop the ‘2 bottles of spirits for 60 bucks’. Stop the $65 slabs of premix. Stop the 2 for one deals on beer. Stop Happy hour/cheap night in clubs and pubs. Stop the ‘buy six get two free’ on wine. Since there has been so much comparison with tobacco in this thread – tobacco in cartons is considered to be a mechanism to get people to consume more – then what the hell are all these deals on grog doing? The manufacturer/retailer ‘intends’ for people to drink more. Of course they do. To think otherwise is to ignore basic business principles.

I’ll add this too – what do you think when you see a bloke in the bottle shop buying just a single stubby? You don’t think ‘what a responsible drinker’, do you?

Making smokes dearer HAS cut the smoking rate. It’s nearly halved since the 80s. Do the same with grog. It will reduce drinking – and to say otherwise is to discredit what they’ve done with the smokes. And before you all jump in with “smoking’s different”: it’s not.

There is only about .1% difference between the two on the world ‘burden of disease’ figures (both are less harmful than fatty food; LOL). Smoking never caused anyone to king hit, rape, drive like a spastic or make a stupid decision (like jumping off a roof onto a palm tree, for eg). Alcohol might not be as addictive as nicotine – but it causes many more social problems, which cost us all. And the burden of disease is nearly as bad anyway. Besides all that, the figures are misleading – any smoker in hospital is a ‘smoker in hospital’, even if it’s for a broken leg. If they did the same with alcohol consumption the figures would be much different.

Alcohol is also addictive; for far more people than we care to acknowledge.

As a society we drink too much: “the average Australian drinks 10 litres of pure alcohol each year - equal to about 70 litres of wine or 250 litres of beer - while one in five adults and teenagers drink at levels that cause long-term harm to their health.” (from the article)

That’s 20% of the population – significantly more than smoking.

There are no health benefits to drinking – the red wine myth is based on the ‘French Paradox’ (the French outdrink AND outsmoke everyone, yet live longer). Those theories never claimed any more than a tiny health benefit anyhow, far outweighed by potential problems. Scientists have since debunked those theories, and many have even gone so far as to argue that there is NO safe level of alcohol consumption.

We use alcohol to sterilise stuff because it kills cells and organisms. It does the same to our insides, even if we have a couple of drinks. Police have long argued for 00 on the roads, because too many accidents are caused by people under the legal limit. One drink is enough to cause people to be over-confident and make mistakes, or get angry and bash someone.

TL;DR – make grog dearer and people will drink less, which is good for the hip-pocket of society.

 

[DAKSTER]

But you are. Even if you puff in the middle of a 50 acre paddock smokers have a far far greater risk of any number of cancers and ailments (I'm sure you know what they are) which ends up costing the entire tax paying community via the health system.


How about Govco just ####ing off out of our lives. This government (most actually) have a very long and celebrated history of screwing up everything they touch so really, I'd argue that we would all be waaaaay better off if they just buggered off out of our lives where ever possible.

Alcohol of course comes at no cost to society.. it has no impact at all on the health system, it never affects anyone other than the person drinking, and those effects are confined to a headache the next day..

No-one ever drives drunk and kills innocent people, no-one ever king hits and kills a random passer-by outside a nightclub.

No-one ever bashes their mates, wives, or kids while drunk. No-one ever uses alcohol as a tool for effective rape.

No-one ever destroys their liver, kidneys, or stomach with alcohol. Alcoholics are a figment of our imagination, because it isn't at all addictive..

Alcohol is harmless of course, so no-one has ever died of alcoholic poisoning, or drowned in their own vomit.

No-one would ever dream of drinking to excess, so of course 5L casks of wine are being purchased due to their high quality rather than their ability to get the drinker very drunk very cheaply.

And of course you don't smoke, so you have no objection to Govco's interference on that front.

 

[Julie]

Personally, I smoke but I don't drink. They are both unnecessary and either harmful or potentially harmful. When I smoke, I do it where my fumes affect no-one. When people get drunk, they neither know or care who they are affecting.

Tax them both or neither would be my opinion. Make them both illegal would be even better, the negative effects of both substances are well proven. Unfortunately prohibition of anything doesn't work, it creates a black market.

Casks only exist to allow people to get drunk cheaply. There are no positive aspects to being drunk. Ban them. Drink less, drink better quality, if you feel you must drink at all.

You can't really compare smoking cigarettes to drinking alcohol. Even just one smoke is bad for you and even if you smoke it near no one else others can still be negatively affected by your habit, the chemicals stay on your clothes, hair and skin and a certain percentage of the population can be very sensitive to these chemicals, triggering adverse health effects. The same can not be said for alcohol. Studies have shown that a glass of wine can acually be beneifical to ones health, it can be good for the heart and some medical authoritories are encouraging people to do so. Also if someone is indulging in wine in moderation they are not negatively effect other people unlike smokers. Of course when people drink excessively its not going to be good but there is a safe level of drinking unlike smoking where no level is safe.

 

[BushSSV]

You can't really compare smoking cigarettes to drinking alcohol. Even just one smoke is bad for you and even if you smoke it near no one else others can still be negatively affected by your habit, the chemicals stay on your clothes, hair and skin and a certain percentage of the population can be very sensitive to these chemicals, triggering adverse health effects. The same can not be said for alcohol. Studies have shown that a glass of wine can acually be beneifical to ones health, it can be good for the heart and some medical authoritories are encouraging people to do so. Also if someone is indulging in wine in moderation they are not negatively effect other people unlike smokers. Of course when people drink excessively its not going to be good but there is a safe level of drinking unlike smoking where no level is safe.

One cigar after the missus giving birth does not cause cancer in the smoker or anyone around them.
One drink might cause them to drive home and hit a tree, or they might be king-hit by someone else who's had a 'bit too much'.
There are risks involved with both activities.

Those 'health benefit' studies have been debunked; scientists no longer assert such nonsense. There is no safe level of drinking. There is no gaurantee that one drink will not change your life. Just ask that nightclub girl in the UK (yes I know it was the nitrogen, but she made the decision to have that drink after consuming others).

http://www.decanter.com/news/wine-n...perts-slam-myth-that-red-wine-is-good-for-you

 

[DAKSTER]

I clearly remember listening to a radio interview a few weeks ago with a girl who had been hospitalised and almost died after drinking just 2 of those alcoholic sports drinks. No Nitrogen involved either, just a couple drinks. The combination of the stimulants in the drink and the depressant alcohol can be deadly for some. There is no safe level of drinking, 2 drinks can kill you instantly - 2 cigarettes wont.....

 

[Troy711]

The tax on premixed drinks didn't work so how will this work? Next thing you know they will tax the sale and consumption of alcohol by people who haven't eaten within the last 2 hours.

 

[Julie]

One cigar after the missus giving birth does not cause cancer in the smoker or anyone around them.
One drink might cause them to drive home and hit a tree, or they might be king-hit by someone else who's had a 'bit too much'.
There are risks involved with both activities.

Those 'health benefit' studies have been debunked; scientists no longer assert such nonsense. There is no safe level of drinking. There is no gaurantee that one drink will not change your life. Just ask that nightclub girl in the UK (yes I know it was the nitrogen, but she made the decision to have that drink after consuming others).

Australian medical experts slam 'myth' that red wine is good for you | Daily wine news - the latest breaking wine news from around the world | News | decanter.com

I clearly remember listening to a radio interview a few weeks ago with a girl who had been hospitalised and almost died after drinking just 2 of those alcoholic sports drinks. No Nitrogen involved either, just a couple drinks. The combination of the stimulants in the drink and the depressant alcohol can be deadly for some. There is no safe level of drinking, 2 drinks can kill you instantly - 2 cigarettes wont.....

It is going to be a very very rare event for one standard alcoholic drink to kill someone. Maybe an allergic reaction but that can happen with anything. I think the issue is being confused here, no one has said that driving under the influence is a good idea, having a glass of wine at home with dinner and staying in would be very highly unlikely to hurt anyone. As for combining alcohol with other drugs or substances that is a different issue too. Its not the alcohol alone that is going to kill someone its the combination and we are talking about alcohol here not alcohol nitrogen cocktails or alcohol laced with guarana and what not. For the majority of people 2 drinks will not kill them, there will be other issues at play and if you are going to use that logic then 2 cigarettes may just kill someone it could easily trigger a fatal asthma attack.

I think it really comes down to the individual, there is nothing wrong with alcohol itself as opposed to cigarettes. I could enter a room where there was a lit cigarette and a glass of wine on the table, the wine isn't going to do me any damage but the cigarette may well do. If there were smokeless cigarettes that did not have putrid stinky smoke invading my breathing space then thats a different story but they are not smokeless they are omit offensive dangerous smoke unlike alcohol where if consumed sensibly is not going to effect others.

 

[markbaja]

I reckon tax the hell out of it. Make the cheap **** $2.50 bottles of wine at Aldi more like $15-20, and all else to go up accordingly. Trust me, the husband of an alcoholic, who has to explain to the kids why Mum, was doing the things she was doing.

And to those who think it's just a drink, explain that to someone who grew up in alcoholism around her, and now suffers every time there is a party and she can't have anything.
And as for the whole smoke versus drinking thing, why did they make a huge song and dance about banning advertising smokes on race cars, putting smokes in plain packaging, hiding them in cupboards and "sexing" them down a lot, when race cars advertise alcohol (in it self the biggest joke of all with all the drink driving campaigns going on), alcohol is easily accessible, bright colourful, and sexed up to the hills with all the advertising.

I say it can't come soon enough this proposed rise.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BushSSV]

2 cigarettes may just kill someone it could easily trigger a fatal asthma attack.

can you find an actual real-life news story about such a thing?

I think it really comes down to the individual

agree - a petit woman and a giant of a man have vastly different levels of 'safe' consumption.

I could enter a room where there was a lit cigarette and a glass of wine on the table, the wine isn't going to do me any damage but the cigarette may well do. If there were smokeless cigarettes that did not have putrid stinky smoke invading my breathing space then thats a different story but they are not smokeless they are omit offensive dangerous smoke unlike alcohol where if consumed sensibly is not going to effect others.

So, because you don't like smokes, they are worse than alcohol - that's what this statement reads like. As far as your health goes, if that room you just entered happens to be in a city, you've already breathed in more carcinogens from the putrid air outside than you are going to get from the ciggie. You wanna talk about stinky smells - what about the distillery stench resulting from a night on the p155...

The problem here is that, as a society (worldwide, not just aus), we still hold on to the belief that alcohol is somehow a good thing. That it's ok in 'moderation'. What's 'moderation' anyway? The above small girl / giant man would obviously have different levels of 'moderation'. It's a 'cover word' for : "What I'm doing is OK - it's those OTHER people doing the wrong thing. Bogans drink too much - I don't".

Alcohol does not discriminate by income, socio-status or religion. A rich person can be just as affected by the stuff as a homeless person.

And if 'moderation' is key, why have a legal drinking age? Why not lower it? Give it to the kids - it's good for them apparently (in moderation LOL). Why not let workers have a couple at lunch time? Let them drive heavy machinery, operate on a person, work out some-one's finances - it's OK they only had a little bit...

We don't allow such practices because, in truth, we all know that one drink affects our physiology. And not for the better.

We need to start treating alcohol for what it is - P155, grog, drink, space-juice, giggle-water, Booze, Hard Stuff, Hooch, poison, Shine, Swish, Vino; choose any epithet and it will have a negative connotation. Why is that so if the stuff is not bad?