ALCOPOP sales dropped a third in a year and the number of teen drinkers fell 27 per cent in three after the alcopop tax was introduced.
A study of the effects of the three-year-old tax by the Alcohol Advisory Group, the National Drug Research Council and academics has found teenagers are drinking less as a result.

They have used the findings to renew calls for the Federal Government to set a minimum price for all alcoholic drinks.

They say teenagers are not the only ones indulging in excess drinking.

"If a pricing strategy is to be used to reduce the hazardous consumption and harm ... a comprehensive approach is preferable," the groups said in in the Medical Journal of Australia.

"This should include a comprehensive graduated volumetric taxation system ... Setting a minimum price per standard drink would curtail the alcohol industry's ability to discount prices to increase sales and to shift consumers to cheaper alternatives."

Research by the groups found the alcopops tax, introduced in 2008, pushed down the sale of the popular drinks by more than 30 per cent in 2008-09.

The groups also pointed to the 2008 alcohol and drug survey of teenagers which showed that while the tax had not changed their preference for alcopops, the number of teen drinkers fell 27 per cent in three years.

"The Government acted wisely to introduce the alcopops tax but it was by no means enough," the groups say.

"In the face of thousands of deaths and over $15 billion in social and economic costs each year, our political leaders need to do more to address the unacceptable harm that alcohol continues to cause our society."

The Government has been facing calls to lift the price of alcohol.

The National Alliance for Action on Alcohol, an alliance of 22 health and medical groups, met MPs this month to lobby for alcohol price reform and for the issue to be discussed at the Government's tax summit in October.


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/alcopop-tax-cut-teen-drinking/story-e6frea6u-1226096336931

OH no a policy success that the lib's said was just a big tax. I wonder what B/S they will roll out to cover over that, not hard for them as the electorate has decided that all Toni's lies are true, evidence and expert opinion are only a communist conspiracy to stop them doing what is right.
Silly ideas like a minimum alcohol price won't do we would rather wait till there is such a major health crisis that we can sue the companies instead of taking responsibility. This is the free market remember, free of responsibility, free to rip people off for my own gain, free of social conscience, free for all.

We said drinkers would substitute - seems the study has left out the overall picture of how sales of other products went

When in doubt - use the Swan excuse - GFC, Yasi

nairbe wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 7:48am:

OH no a policy success that the lib's said was just a big tax. I wonder what B/S they will roll out to cover over that, not hard for them as the electorate has decided that all Toni's lies are true, evidence and expert opinion are only a communist conspiracy to stop them doing what is right. Silly ideas like a minimum alcohol price won't do we would rather wait till there is such a major health crisis that we can sue the companies instead of taking responsibility. This is the free market remember, free of responsibility, free to rip people off for my own gain, free of social conscience, free for all.

your a nasty piece of work arent you... the first thing you do is attack the libs.. forgetting of course that they did vote it in.. but forget about that inconvenient truth.

of course pot may now be cheaper..just because sales of a particular product have gone up or down.doesnt really mean its a success..

HOW DO THEY KNOW.. TEENAGERS ARE DRINKING LESS??


SORRY BUT THAT SEEM A HUGE ASK TO ME..

they are saying overall alcohol is on the decline..

if it is done by using a survey.. I am rather sceptical on that score.

like it or not they never detail how they come by these figures...

sales of a product is a good indication for sure. but to say a particular group has dropped.. well short of taking pictures of every purchaser I cant see how they can claim such huge figures..27%drop in teenagers drinking alcopops.

I am happy if that is the case and they havent turned to anything else.....very happy indeed..having teenagers in my family alcohol and drugs scare the hell out of me..so I say well done Labor..

there is also another upside to this and that would be teenage deaths on the road..or causing major accidents..

so well done again.

and as for your snide remarks. nairbe.. grow up! I dont think too many on here will be appalled by this news.. as much as you would like them to be..take a good look at yourself before you point fingers.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 8:03am:

We said drinkers would substitute - seems the study has left out the overall picture of how sales of other products went When in doubt - use the Swan excuse - GFC, Yasi

Labrats and greenies arent very good with thinking outseide their little box. Alcopops sales down, so we must have saved the kids from themselves.

It is a bit like when police monitor an area that kids normally hang around to try and stop them hanging around there. The kids just move on, so the police can do a labor and say 'yeh a success, the kids are not here, so it worked'.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 8:03am:

We said drinkers would substitute - seems the study has left out the overall picture of how sales of other products went

Yes, you DID
Per USUAL, you were WRONG





Research by the groups found that the alcopops tax, introduced in 2008, pushed the sale of the popular drinks down by more than 30 per cent in a year.

While sales of other spirits rose in the same period, the increase accounted for less than half the fall in alcopop sales.


http://www.news.com.au/national/fresh-calls-to-hike-alcohol-prices/story-e6frfkvr-1226096237836#ixzz1SP9r8rYK

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 8:38am:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:03am: We said drinkers would substitute - seems the study has left out the overall picture of how sales of other products went Yes, you DID Per USUAL, you were WRONG Research by the groups found that the alcopops tax, introduced in 2008, pushed the sale of the popular drinks down by more than 30 per cent in a year. While sales of other spirits rose in the same period, the increase accounted for less than half the fall in alcopop sales. http://www.news.com.au/national/fresh-calls-to-hike-alcohol-prices/story-e6frfkvr-1226096237836#ixzz1SP9r8rYK

Lets see if Buzz can work out why.

SENSES THE DESPERATION! SMELL THE FEAR!

Labor supporters are desperately casting about trying to find a policy - ANY policy that Labor hasnt comprehensively screwed up.

NOT EASY, IS IT?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

SENSES THE DESPERATION! SMELL THE FEAR! Labor supporters are desperately casting about trying to find a policy - ANY policy that Labor hasnt comprehensively screwed up. NOT EASY, IS IT?

NBN, and burying workchoices.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 8:38am:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:03am: We said drinkers would substitute - seems the study has left out the overall picture of how sales of other products went Yes, you DID Per USUAL, you were WRONG Research by the groups found that the alcopops tax, introduced in 2008, pushed the sale of the popular drinks down by more than 30 per cent in a year. While sales of other spirits rose in the same period, the increase accounted for less than half the fall in alcopop sales. http://www.news.com.au/national/fresh-calls-to-hike-alcohol-prices/story-e6frfkvr-1226096237836#ixzz1SP9r8rYK

And what happened to the sales of beer and wine??
e.g.  This week at the bottle shop..10 pack of premixed(alcopop) bourbon and cola..$35.
24 pack of beer..$32.....4 litre cask of wine..$9
Which do YOU think teenagers would buy (or nick from their parents)??

GoddyofOz wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:51am: SENSES THE DESPERATION! SMELL THE FEAR! Labor supporters are desperately casting about trying to find a policy - ANY policy that Labor hasnt comprehensively screwed up. NOT EASY, IS IT? NBN, and burying workchoices.

DESPITE the campaigns run by The Australian and The Telegraph, BOTH the BER and Home Insulation Scheme were innovative, successful and financialy sound

The BER - the largest nation building project undetaken in Australia's history - giving 98.5% value for money
The HIS reducing fires per insulation by around 80% - a result of a FIRST installation national compliance standard

And BOTH were major factors in leaving Australia relatively unscathed throuh the GFC - that gave similar economies (and still DOES) double digit unemployment figures

I was reading some industry stuff the other day, and it made mention about the increased volume in the sale of cask wines and so forth.

If you make one too expensive, they just find an alternative.

Soon kids will learn to drink beer again as it will be seen as the cheaper alternative.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 9:10am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:38am: Maqqa wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:03am: We said drinkers would substitute - seems the study has left out the overall picture of how sales of other products went Yes, you DID Per USUAL, you were WRONG Research by the groups found that the alcopops tax, introduced in 2008, pushed the sale of the popular drinks down by more than 30 per cent in a year. While sales of other spirits rose in the same period, the increase accounted for less than half the fall in alcopop sales. http://www.news.com.au/national/fresh-calls-to-hike-alcohol-prices/story-e6frfkvr-1226096237836#ixzz1SP9r8rYK And what happened to the sales of beer and wine?? e.g.  This week at the bottle shop..10 pack of premixed(alcopop) bourbon and cola..$35. 24 pack of beer..$32.....4 litre cask of wine..$9 Which do YOU think teenagers would buy (or nick from their parents)??

Can't you READ ?

The UNIT sales of alcohol, OVERALL, have DROPPED

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:10am: buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:38am: Maqqa wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:03am: We said drinkers would substitute - seems the study has left out the overall picture of how sales of other products went Yes, you DID Per USUAL, you were WRONG Research by the groups found that the alcopops tax, introduced in 2008, pushed the sale of the popular drinks down by more than 30 per cent in a year. While sales of other spirits rose in the same period, the increase accounted for less than half the fall in alcopop sales. http://www.news.com.au/national/fresh-calls-to-hike-alcohol-prices/story-e6frfkvr-1226096237836#ixzz1SP9r8rYK And what happened to the sales of beer and wine?? e.g.  This week at the bottle shop..10 pack of premixed(alcopop) bourbon and cola..$35. 24 pack of beer..$32.....4 litre cask of wine..$9 Which do YOU think teenagers would buy (or nick from their parents)?? Can't you READ ? The UNIT sales of alcohol, OVERALL, have DROPPED

No it doesn't say that....it says alcopop sales have fallen and the rise in sales of other SPIRITS have only rise by half of alcopop fall amount.

Beer and wine are NOT classed as spirits..

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:10am: buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:38am: Maqqa wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:03am: We said drinkers would substitute - seems the study has left out the overall picture of how sales of other products went Yes, you DID Per USUAL, you were WRONG Research by the groups found that the alcopops tax, introduced in 2008, pushed the sale of the popular drinks down by more than 30 per cent in a year. While sales of other spirits rose in the same period, the increase accounted for less than half the fall in alcopop sales. http://www.news.com.au/national/fresh-calls-to-hike-alcohol-prices/story-e6frfkvr-1226096237836#ixzz1SP9r8rYK And what happened to the sales of beer and wine?? e.g.  This week at the bottle shop..10 pack of premixed(alcopop) bourbon and cola..$35. 24 pack of beer..$32.....4 litre cask of wine..$9 Which do YOU think teenagers would buy (or nick from their parents)?? Can't you READ ? The UNIT sales of alcohol, OVERALL, have DROPPED

I remember reading the other day that one major club in Sydney sell more coffee than alcohol now.

I think there has been a shift in peoples socialising habits as well.  There appears to be less of a focus on alcohol driven and now more food driven.

Our bar is down or on a par with last year each month which means a decrease in real terms as we have had price increases since then, while our food and coffee is up 10-20% on last year.

Can't you READ ?

The UNIT sales of alcohol, OVERALL, have DROPPED



Let me explain things for you Buzz.

Ten teenagers buy four packs of Alcopops and go to a party. That would cost them about $160.00.

Same teenagers buy two bottles of bourbon and  four bottles of coke. Cost $100.00

So you see Buzz instead of 40 bottles of alcopops being sold there is only two bottles bourbon.

kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 9:37am:

Can't you READ ? The UNIT sales of alcohol, OVERALL, have DROPPED Let me explain things for you Buzz. Ten teenagers buy four packs of Alcopops and go to a party. That would cost them about $160.00. Same teenagers buy two bottles of bourbon and  four bottles of coke. Cost $100.00 So you see Buzz instead of 40 bottles of alcopops being sold there is only two bottles bourbon.

Unit sales are based on alcohol, by VOLUME
NOT a dollar value

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

kingofthecastle wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:37am: Can't you READ ? The UNIT sales of alcohol, OVERALL, have DROPPED Let me explain things for you Buzz. Ten teenagers buy four packs of Alcopops and go to a party. That would cost them about $160.00. Same teenagers buy two bottles of bourbon and  four bottles of coke. Cost $100.00 So you see Buzz instead of 40 bottles of alcopops being sold there is only two bottles bourbon. Unit sales are based on alcohol, by VOLUME NOT a dollar value

And by type..
There are THREE basic classifications: Beer, wine and spirits..

Your link only refers to unit sales of spirits..

gosh I trust this wasnt published by a Murdoch paper.lol


it couldnt possibly be correct if it was.

cods wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 11:50am:

gosh I trust this wasnt published by a Murdoch paper.lol it couldnt possibly be correct if it was.

HEHEHEHEHEHEHE

duplicate removed

Fresh calls to raise alcohol prices
July 17, 2011,


The success of the alcopops tax in cutting teen drinking could be used as a model to introduce a minimum price on all alcoholic beverages, drug and alcohol experts suggest.

A study of the effects of the three-year-old alcopops tax by an alliance of representatives from the Alcohol Advisory Group, National Drug Research Council and academics has found teenagers are drinking less as a result.

They used the findings to intensify their calls for the federal government to set a minimum price for all alcoholic drinks, arguing that teenagers are not the only ones indulging in excess drinking.

"If a pricing strategy is to be used to reduce the hazardous consumption and harm - and it is clear that price is the most effective and cost-effective measure we can use - a comprehensive approach is preferable," the groups wrote in an article published by the Medical Journal of Australia on Sunday.

"It should cover all products and aim to reduce the ability of industry to promote cheaper alternatives.

"This should include a comprehensive graduated volumetric taxation system that covers all types of alcoholic beverages and is informed by the relationship between consumption of these products and consequent harm.

"Setting a minimum price per standard drink would curtail the alcohol industry's ability to discount prices to increase sales and to shift consumers to cheaper alternatives."

Research by the groups found that the alcopops tax, introduced in 2008, pushed the sale of the popular drinks down by more than 30 per cent in a year.

While sales of other spirits rose in the same period, the increase accounted for less than half the fall in alcopop sales.

The groups also pointed to the 2008 alcohol and drug survey of teenagers which showed that while the tax had not changed their preference for alcopops, the number of teen drinkers fell 27 per cent in three years.

"Is the alcopops tax working? To the extent possible, probably yes in that (alcopops) are not the only beverage of concern and young drinkers and teenagers are not the only Australians being harmed by drinking," they wrote.

"The government acted wisely to introduce the alcopops tax but it was by no means enough.

"In the face of thousands of deaths and over $15 billion in social and economic costs each year, our political leaders need to do more to address the unacceptable harm that alcohol continues to cause our society."

The government has been facing growing calls to lift the price of alcohol.

The National Alliance for Action on Alcohol, an alliance of 22 health and medical groups, earlier this month met MPs and senators to lobby for alcohol price reform and for the issue to be discussed at the government's October tax summit.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/latest/a/-/article/9860603/fresh-calls-to-raise-alcohol-prices/





 ... and an EXCELLENT next step - the alcoholics "beverage of choice", the $10.00 4L box, priced out of the market

A minimum of around $5.00 per litre has been mentioned

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 12:22pm:

cods wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 11:50am: gosh I trust this wasnt published by a Murdoch paper.lol it couldnt possibly be correct if it was. HEHEHEHEHEHEHE

I post Murdoch materiel, with caution
This article is just basic reporting
It hasn't editorialised under the guise of a news story - as is the common practice by The Australian and the Telegraph, when "reporting" on Labor Government' business

I COULD just as easily gone with the ABC
The ONLY news service without vested interests and news staff that AREN'T bouns by a given political agenda

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 12:43pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 12:22pm: cods wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 11:50am: gosh I trust this wasnt published by a Murdoch paper.lol it couldnt possibly be correct if it was. HEHEHEHEHEHEHE I post Murdoch materiel, with caution This article is just basic reporting It hasn't editorialised under the guise of a news story - as is the common practice by The Australian and the Telegraph, when "reporting" on Labor Government' business I COULD just as easily gone with the ABC The ONLY news service without vested interests and news staff that AREN'T bouns by a given political agenda

well thanks anyway buzz, but just cuz you say what you say about the ABC doesnt make it necessarily so.. but believe what you may and the rest of us will believe what we may..

the murdoch press empire will be crumbling thats for sure.. so that must make you guys very happy..thank god for the SBS thats all I can say.

cods wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 5:35pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 12:43pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 12:22pm: cods wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 11:50am: gosh I trust this wasnt published by a Murdoch paper.lol it couldnt possibly be correct if it was. HEHEHEHEHEHEHE I post Murdoch materiel, with caution This article is just basic reporting It hasn't editorialised under the guise of a news story - as is the common practice by The Australian and the Telegraph, when "reporting" on Labor Government' business I COULD just as easily gone with the ABC The ONLY news service without vested interests and news staff that AREN'T bouns by a given political agenda well thanks anyway buzz, but just cuz you say what you say about the ABC doesnt make it necessarily so.. but believe what you may and the rest of us will believe what we may.. the murdoch press empire will be crumbling thats for sure.. so that must make you guys very happy..thank god for the SBS thats all I can say.

INDEED !
I've always said there ISN'T a god
But NOW I'm not so SURE ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 9:17am:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:54am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:51am: SENSES THE DESPERATION! SMELL THE FEAR! Labor supporters are desperately casting about trying to find a policy - ANY policy that Labor hasnt comprehensively screwed up. NOT EASY, IS IT? NBN, and burying workchoices. DESPITE the campaigns run by The Australian and The Telegraph, BOTH the BER and Home Insulation Scheme were innovative, successful and financialy sound The BER - the largest nation building project undetaken in Australia's history - giving 98.5% value for money The HIS reducing fires per insulation by around 80% - a result of a FIRST installation national compliance standard And BOTH were major factors in leaving Australia relatively unscathed throuh the GFC - that gave similar economies (and still DOES) double digit unemployment figures

as determined by a govt that defines 'value for money' as paying less than 3 times what priavet companies would pay. Hard to take it seriously. ANd is a 'value for money' building that a school didnt need and didnt want still a good thing? to labor supporters it appears that anythgin that involves spending billions of govt money on is a good thing. Sorta explains why everytime labor comes to power it leaves a wrecked economy and huge debt.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 6:22pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:17am: GoddyofOz wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:54am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:51am: SENSES THE DESPERATION! SMELL THE FEAR! Labor supporters are desperately casting about trying to find a policy - ANY policy that Labor hasnt comprehensively screwed up. NOT EASY, IS IT? NBN, and burying workchoices. DESPITE the campaigns run by The Australian and The Telegraph, BOTH the BER and Home Insulation Scheme were innovative, successful and financialy sound The BER - the largest nation building project undetaken in Australia's history - giving 98.5% value for money The HIS reducing fires per insulation by around 80% - a result of a FIRST installation national compliance standard And BOTH were major factors in leaving Australia relatively unscathed throuh the GFC - that gave similar economies (and still DOES) double digit unemployment figures as determined by a govt that defines 'value for money' as paying less than 3 times what priavet companies would pay. Hard to take it seriously

That is the same with ALL public works
As it ALWAYS has been
I don't KNOW the answer

When a government outhouse gets built, at a cost of $500,000, it doesn't mean the contractor was handed a cheque for that amount

The BULK of it is paperwork between government departments billing each other, back and forth, for paperworks and permits

Building costs, under the BER, were NO different than they were a months prior to its commencement

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 6:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 6:22pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 9:17am: GoddyofOz wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:54am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2011 at 8:51am: SENSES THE DESPERATION! SMELL THE FEAR! Labor supporters are desperately casting about trying to find a policy - ANY policy that Labor hasnt comprehensively screwed up. NOT EASY, IS IT? NBN, and burying workchoices. DESPITE the campaigns run by The Australian and The Telegraph, BOTH the BER and Home Insulation Scheme were innovative, successful and financialy sound The BER - the largest nation building project undetaken in Australia's history - giving 98.5% value for money The HIS reducing fires per insulation by around 80% - a result of a FIRST installation national compliance standard And BOTH were major factors in leaving Australia relatively unscathed throuh the GFC - that gave similar economies (and still DOES) double digit unemployment figures as determined by a govt that defines 'value for money' as paying less than 3 times what priavet companies would pay. Hard to take it seriously That is the same with ALL public works As it ALWAYS has been I don't KNOW the answer When a government outhouse gets built, at a cost of $500,000, it doesn't mean the contractor was handed a cheque for that amount The BULK of it is paperwork between government departments billing each other, back and forth, for paperworks and permits Building costs, under the BER, were NO different than they were a months prior to its commencement

but they built buildings for schools that were closing. They built $500,000 canteens too small to be used. They knocked downt 3 classrooms and built... 3 classrooms.  They built a$250,000 library for a school with 1 student.

the BER was many things... good value for money it wasnt. because it the commonly used meaning of the term, NEED features into the equation.

Just another hopelessly managed labor screwup.