Government monopoly on retail alcohol

zero_hope

Ireland should introduce a government monopoly on retail alcohol ie the alcohol that is sold in shops and off licenses. This model has been successful for many years in Sweden and Finland. My rationale behind this is that alcohol costs society alot of money in lost productivity, in crime, injuries etc and therefore in order to collect the money to pay for all this there should be a government monopoly. No you can talk all you want about personal responsibility blablabla, but I shouldn't have to personally cover my hospital bills because I get run over by a drunk driver on a moped.

swordofislam

We really need to shift this country away from its obsession with alcohol. Are you aware that 80% of pub turnover comes from 5% of the population? Publicans are metaphorically vampires feasting on the blood of the Irish people.

nesf

Why don't you explain how such a monopoly works for people?

zero_hope

nesf wrote: »

Why don't you explain how such a monopoly works for people?

In Sweden you have a chain of government owned stores called Systembolaget and in Finland these stores are called Alko. They are the only stores allowed to sell alcohol over a certain percentage. In my experience Systembolaget in Sweden has a much bigger variety of quality wines, beers etc from various countries because they don't have to worry so much about running huge profits. If you walk into a store in Ireland the variety of alcohol you can get is limited to crap beer and crap wine.

nesf

zero_hope wrote: »

If you walk into a store in Ireland the variety of alcohol you can get is limited to crap beer and crap wine.

Eh, have you walked into a semi-decent off-licence in the past 5 years? I've been able to get nice craft beers for bloody ages from my local offies in Cork. Admittedly a much worse selection is available if I'm buying stuff in a rural town but that's to be expected.

JustinDee

zero_hope wrote: »

Ireland should introduce a government monopoly on retail alcohol ie the alcohol that is sold in shops and off licenses. This model has been successful for many years in Sweden and Finland. My rationale behind this is that alcohol costs society alot of money in lost productivity, in crime, injuries etc and therefore in order to collect the money to pay for all this there should be a government monopoly. No you can talk all you want about personal responsibility blablabla, but I shouldn't have to personally cover my hospital bills because I get run over by a drunk driver on a moped.

Are you trying to say that the levels of alcoholism in Scandinavia and Finland are low?
Have you even ever been in the bar areas of the city centre of Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen or Helsinki at night, particularly at weekends? How about a country town like Jaren or Brandbu in Norway or Fjellbacka in Sweden?
Alcohol is a big problem in these countries. Starting the Irish version of Vinmonopolet wouldn't change a thing here.

JustinDee

nesf wrote: »

Why don't you explain how such a monopoly works for people?

It hikes prices and cuts out competitors so it doesn't really help anyone apart from maybe indirect involvement by funding exchequer. VAT already does that here however so no need.

Madd Finn

zero_hope wrote: »

Ireland should introduce a government monopoly on retail alcohol ie the alcohol that is sold in shops and off licenses. This model has been successful for many years in Sweden and Finland.

What's your definition of success?

If there are two nations in Europe where the populace have a reputation for being even bigger piss heads than the Irish, it is surely the Swedes and the Finns.

And probably because of their INSANE social policies with regard to alcohol.

There is an entire industry in Sweden geared towards getting people **** faced while adhering to their restrictive repressive laws on alcohol purchase and consumption. These are the booze cruises which take off from Swedish ports, head into the middle of the Baltic and as soon as you're in international waters, up come the shutters and out flows the cheap, by Swedish standards, drink.

The Swedes and Finns don't drink in a civilised manner like the French, Italians, Spanish or Portugese. They drink to get pissed, a bit like we do.

That's success?

Your arguments are absolutely bonkers.

doolox

...for each person in the country who wants to drink. You already have to have ID, obtainable from the guards to get drink in off licences. I am not clear on what age groups it applies to but I have never been asked for ID, but I know that my local off licence will only accept Garda ID for drink sales, passport or Driving licence will not do.

The country could easily introduce a piece of paper to allow a person to buy and consume drink. This could be the monopoly power which judges could remove from problem drinkers. Drunk and disorderly? You lose your licence. Kids and wife not fed because you drank all your money? You lose your licence. This could be applied to many offences where drink is used as an "excuse" for the offending behaviour. Rounds or people buying drinks for other people would have to go but barmen are already supposed to check for ID and are used to doing this for the young people so doing it for all age groups is not a big stretch. I have experienced being refused drink for ceratin people when the barman knew them as trouble-makers so it can be done.

It costs the country 3.7 billion euros in drink related health and social costs each year according to some study mentioned on RTE. This cost should be computed each year and set as a target for tax on drinks sales each year so that the full cost of the practice of using ( or abusing ) drink be borne by the users.

Untill heavy drinkers are stopped and challenged early on in their slide towards alcoholism then the problem will not be solved. A drinks licence would be one way to do this.

nesf

doolox wrote: »

...for each person in the country who wants to drink. You already have to have ID, obtainable from the guards to get drink in off licences. I am not clear on what age groups it applies to but I have never been asked for ID, but I know that my local off licence will only accept Garda ID for drink sales, passport or Driving licence will not do.

The country could easily introduce a piece of paper to allow a person to buy and consume drink. This could be the monopoly power which judges could remove from problem drinkers. Drunk and disorderly? You lose your licence. Kids and wife not fed because you drank all your money? You lose your licence. This could be applied to many offences where drink is used as an "excuse" for the offending behaviour. Rounds or people buying drinks for other people would have to go but barmen are already supposed to check for ID and are used to doing this for the young people so doing it for all age groups is not a big stretch. I have experienced being refused drink for ceratin people when the barman knew them as trouble-makers so it can be done.

It costs the country 3.7 billion euros in drink related health and social costs each year according to some study mentioned on RTE. This cost should be computed each year and set as a target for tax on drinks sales each year so that the full cost of the practice of using ( or abusing ) drink be borne by the users.

Untill heavy drinkers are stopped and challenged early on in their slide towards alcoholism then the problem will not be solved. A drinks licence would be one way to do this.

It wouldn't work, it'd be trivial to get a friend to buy your booze for you.

Manach

If this proposal went ahead - how would it combat ways around it, such as trips to the North for alcohol or the likely upsurge in illegal distilling?

Yeah it looks like it's been successful in sweden all right

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/2668332/Alcoholism-in-Swedish-women-increases-by-50pc.html

According to a study by the Swedish National Institute of Public Health, Swedish women are hitting the bottle at an unprecedented rate and in far higher numbers than men.

Figures show that between 2003 and 2007 the number of female alcoholics surged by 50 per cent to 100,000, while alcoholism amongst men rose by 25 per cent to 165,000 during the same period.

Finland too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6106570.stm

Alcohol now Finland's top killer
View of Helsinki
Alcohol consumption has soared in Finland following a tax cut
Alcohol has become the leading cause of death in Finland for men, and is a close second for women, a study says.

Figures for 2005 released by the state statistics agency showed alcohol killed more people aged 15 to 64 than cardiovascular disease or cancer.

OP where are you getting your ideas from?

What I think we need is more freedom to be honest - people should be allowed to buy alcohol in an off licence when they want, the vinters lobbying the govt shouldn't be able to put restrictions on supermarkets just to prop up a dying pub trade, etc etc
If you want people to drink responsibly, attitudes need to change, not more ineffective nanny state controls
This is utterly ridiculous stuff:

VFI Backs Minister’s Stance on Below Cost Selling of Alcohol

19-October-2011



The Vintners’ Federation of Ireland (“VFI”) today backed calls by Minister of State Roisin Shortall to tackle alcohol misuse and specifically the plans to introduce a minimum price at which alcohol can be sold.



The VFI has long called for the Government to look at the pricing strategies of supermarkets in Ireland and to curb the availability of cheap drink which is being sold in an uncontrolled environment and promoted and marketed in an irresponsible fashion.

The VFI, which represents almost 4,500 pubs outside of Dublin, strongly believes that a minimum price for alcohol and tighter regulations around how alcohol is promoted and sold would go a long way towards tackling binge drinking and the associated problems this brings.



However, the VFI has warned that a blanket increase in excise is not the best method and the focus should be on cheap alcohol which is often sold as a loss leader by multiples and which is made easily available and promoted in a wholly irresponsible way.



Gerry Mellett, president of the VFI said; “We welcome this debate on alcohol pricing but driving up the price of drink across the board is not the answer.



“The focus must be on those who deliberately push down the price of drink such as the supermarkets that offer volume led promotions and sell alcohol like bananas or cornflakes on special offers which only encourages irresponsible consumption.



“Well over half of the alcohol sold in Ireland is now sold outside of the pub, often in the uncontrolled environment of the supermarkets.

In other words "we want our business back".

marketty

swordofislam wrote: »

We really need to shift this country away from its obsession with alcohol. Are you aware that 80% of pub turnover comes from 5% of the population? Publicans are metaphorically vampires feasting on the blood of the Irish people.

So if only 5% of the population are heavy drinkers and providing 80% of pub business how do you deduce that the rest of the country is obsessed with alcohol?

Laminations

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah it looks like it's been successful in sweden all right

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/2668332/Alcoholism-in-Swedish-women-increases-by-50pc.html



Finland too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6106570.stm



OP where are you getting your ideas from?

What I think we need is more freedom to be honest - people should be allowed to buy alcohol in an off licence when they want, the vinters lobbying the govt shouldn't be able to put restrictions on supermarkets just to prop up a dying pub trade, etc etc
If you want people to drink responsibly, attitudes need to change, not more ineffective nanny state controls
This is utterly ridiculous stuff:




In other words "we want our business back".

It would help matters if you actually understood what the OP was saying. Nowhere did they suggest this would make people drink responsibly or that Swedes and Finns drink responsibly. Their suggestion of a government monopoly is merely to pay for the problem of alcohol, not to address it. That's a 3.7 bn cost to the state in Ireland - if the state received all profits from alcohol sales they'd likely cover this cost. It is a separate argument from any policy to get people to drink less or to drink responsibly. And precisely because it doesn't address the problem id see it as a sticking plaster and wouldn't agree with it on its own.

MungBean

JustinDee wrote: »

Are you trying to say that the levels of alcoholism in Scandinavia and Finland are low?
Have you even ever been in the bar areas of the city centre of Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen or Helsinki at night, particularly at weekends? How about a country town like Jaren or Brandbu in Norway or Fjellbacka in Sweden?
Alcohol is a big problem in these countries. Starting the Irish version of Vinmonopolet wouldn't change a thing here.

It would change as regards what he actually said and not what you invented. The states intake would increase to cover the cost to public services that arises from alcohol abuse.

I'm not saying it would work but you could at least argue the point he made instead of inventing one.

murphaph

Any links for this 3.7bn? It seems a gigantic number. It's well over 10% of our entire annual tax take.

Seaneh

The difference between how much sales if alcohol take into the states funds and how much alcohol related sicknesses, injuries and social issues cost the state should be looked at, but the same goes for tobacco.

Why the state is subsidising these industries ( which it effectively is by allowing them to be a drain in state funds) is a mystery and needs to be addressed.

Alcohol and tobacco should cost enough to pay for the drain they are on the state!

MungBean

I dont see why it wouldnt work, Sweden and Finland same as most other countries probably have as big a problem as us in relation to alcohol abuse. The difference this would make would be to make the alcohol industry here kind of self sufficient in that more profits gained from the sale of alcohol went towards the cost to the state of dealing with the problems that arise from it.

People are not restricted in what they drink, the government monopoly would only be on sales so the same variety would still exist and people wouldnt be limited any more than they are now.

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

It would help matters if you actually understood what the OP was saying. Nowhere did they suggest this would make people drink responsibly or that Swedes and Finns drink responsibly. Their suggestion of a government monopoly is merely to pay for the problem of alcohol, not to address it.

Yes, and do any of us really think the govt getting extra profits from the problem of alcohol is going to use those profits for alcohol-related problems? Really? I'd rather lower prices and pay my own health insurance

It is a separate argument from any policy to get people to drink less or to drink responsibly. And precisely because it doesn't address the problem id see it as a sticking plaster and wouldn't agree with it on its own.

Well I'm glad to hear that part anyway.
I think it might be better to stop the crime and so forth in the first place, not have yet another plan to increase prices for dubious or no benefits.

In addition, it doesn't appear the monopoly was for diverting profits into health issues anyway:

The alcohol monopoly was created in the Swedish town of Falun in 1850, to prevent overconsumption and reduce the profit motive for sales of alcohol. It later went all over the country in 1905 when the Swedish parliament ordered all sales of vodka to be done via local alcohol monopolies.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_monopoly

It was as we thought - to prevent overconsumption. Which didn't work at all.

MungBean

bluewolf wrote: »

Yes, and do any of us really think the govt getting extra profits from the problem of alcohol is going to use those profits for alcohol-related problems? Really? I'd rather lower prices and pay my own health insurance

The state would be benefiting from the sale and have increased intake. They dont have to directly channel it into a program for that to be beneficial.

Well I'm glad to hear that part anyway.
I think it might be better to stop the crime and so forth in the first place, not have yet another plan to increase prices for dubious or no benefits.

But that also would increase the amount spent on dealing with issues arising from alcohol abuse. Its not a plan to increase prices, its a method of taking the profit out of alcohol abuse and using it to deal with the issues of it while still giving people the freedom to be responsible for themselves.

In addition, it doesn't appear the monopoly was for diverting profits into health issues anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_monopoly

It was as we thought - to prevent overconsumption. Which didn't work at all.

Regardless of why it was implemented in other countries I think the diverting of profits in the case of alcohol to cover the cost to the state of alcohol abuse would go some way to helping provide for the services.

Possibly freeing up money the state can invest in addressing other issues such as responsibility but thats a separate discussion I think.

nesf

MungBean wrote: »

Regardless of why it was implemented in other countries I think the diverting of profits in the case of alcohol to cover the cost to the state of alcohol abuse would go some way to helping provide for the services.

The State already does that through excise duty though. Quite effectively too.

JustinDee

MungBean wrote: »

It would change as regards what he actually said and not what you invented. The states intake would increase to cover the cost to public services that arises from alcohol abuse.

I'm not saying it would work but you could at least argue the point he made instead of inventing one.

I didn't "invent" anything. Before you take the smartalec line of reply, at least know what you're talking about.
Do you even know how the Vinmonopolet or Systemboelaget works or how the respective governments earn revenue from the sales of grog via these outlets?
It is via taxation that they yield revenue. Taxation that applies to any grog sold anywhere (such as beer in supermarkets in Norway for examples and bars/restaurants). The monopolies were set up to reduce alcohol consumption and limit choice. All they did was grow the black market in illegal alcohol production and spur smuggling on.
There's a reason sellers at Svinesund do so well.

Your suggestion is that a government takes the risks in increased consumption of alcohol, increased intake in distilled copycat alcohol, and a growth in criminality surrounding alcohol via smuggling and production. All that to pay for . . . alcohol-related problems.
That is the equivalent of cutting your testes off to take your mind off a nosebleed.

If you're going to lecture people who have lived in Scandinavia and Finland what its like in Scandinavia and Finland, try and get a little more behind it.

MungBean

JustinDee wrote: »

I didn't "invent" anything. Before you take the smartalec line of reply, at least know what you're talking about.
Do you even know how the Vinmonopolet or Systemboelaget works or how the respective governments earn revenue from the sales of grog via these outlets?
It is via taxation that they yield revenue. Taxation that applies to any grog sold anywhere (such as beer in supermarkets in Norway for examples and bars/restaurants). The monopolies were set up to reduce alcohol consumption and limit choice. All they did was grow the black market in illegal alcohol production and spur smuggling on.
There's a reason sellers at Svinesund do so well.

None of which was mentioned by the OP as a reason for introducing it yet was the basis for the argument you claimed he was making.

"My rationale behind this is that alcohol costs society alot of money in lost productivity, in crime, injuries etc and therefore in order to collect the money to pay for all this there should be a government monopoly"

The bit of the OP which you ignored in favour of inventing a point to argue with.

MungBean

JustinDee wrote: »

If you're going to lecture people who have lived in Scandinavia and Finland what its like in Scandinavia and Finland, try and get a little more behind it.

Where have I done this ??

This is just you inventing stuff to argue with. Show me how I have lectured you (or anyone else) on what its like to live in Scandanavia or stop lying and inventing argument and discuss the point at hand. If you cant do that then go pontificate somewhere else.

JustinDee

MungBean wrote: »

None of which was mentioned by the OP as a reason for introducing it yet was the basis for the argument you claimed he was making.

"My rationale behind this is that alcohol costs society alot of money in lost productivity, in crime, injuries etc and therefore in order to collect the money to pay for all this there should be a government monopoly"

The bit of the OP which you ignored in favour of inventing a point to argue with.

I asked a question with my first reply. Nothing invented.
Don't lecture others about something, judging by your posts, you are just not in the races with.

Leave the modding to the mods, instead of the pulpitising.

MungBean

nesf wrote: »

The State already does that through excise duty though. Quite effectively too.

True enough I suppose, but if the gap in revenue generated by that and the cost to the state is significant as alluded to earlier in the thread (I dont know if it is) then I think this government monopoly would be more appealing to me than raising intake through Tax on the product increasing the cost to the customer which would lead to further issues.

JustinDee

MungBean wrote: »

True enough I suppose, but if the gap in revenue generated by that and the cost to the state is significant as alluded to earlier in the thread (I dont know if it is) then I think this government monopoly would be more appealing to me than raising intake through Tax on the product increasing the cost to the customer which would lead to further issues.

The thing is that the monopoly and the high-end tax go hand in hand. Thats how they work and how the revenue is raised. The fact that they're in controlled monopolies is due to another reasoning, as I've mentioned earlier.

MungBean

JustinDee wrote: »

I asked a question with my first reply. Nothing invented.
Don't lecture others about something, judging by your posts, you are just not in the races with.

Leave the modding to the mods, instead of the pulpitising.

You didnt ask you implied.

"Are you trying to say that the levels of alcoholism in Scandinavia and Finland are low? "

And then you went about arguing that point ignorint the point that was actually made. It has nothing to do with my posts only to do with you ignoring the point made by the OP in favour of one you created yourself.

I wasnt back seat modding merely trying to keep people arguing off topic points from derailing the thread. Ya see some people actually want to discuss the topic.

MungBean

JustinDee wrote: »

The thing is that the monopoly and the high-end tax go hand in hand. Thats how they work and how the revenue is raised. The fact that they're in controlled monopolies is due to another reasoning, as I've mentioned earlier.

But in relation to what the OP is proposing the controlled monopolies would be for the purpose of directing the profit to the state to generate extra intake.

That profit as it is goes elsewhere. In a controlled monopoly it would function as extra tax and be seen as tax but it wouldnt raise the cost to the consumer as it would if the extra intake were to be taken without a controlled monopoly.

JustinDee

MungBean wrote: »

You didnt ask you implied.

"Are you trying to say that the levels of alcoholism in Scandinavia and Finland are low? "

And then you went about arguing that point ignorint the point that was actually made. It has nothing to do with my posts only to do with you ignoring the point made by the OP in favour of one you created yourself.

I wasnt back seat modding merely trying to keep people arguing off topic points from derailing the thread. Ya see some people actually want to discuss the topic.

It was a question and you are backseat modding. I've since replied you ***nicely*** and I hope this satisfies your high standards of anonymous debate on the internet.

JustinDee

MungBean wrote: »

But in relation to what the OP is proposing the controlled monopolies would be for the purpose of directing the profit to the state to generate extra intake.

That profit as it is goes elsewhere. In a controlled monopoly it would function as extra tax and be seen as tax but it wouldnt raise the cost to the consumer as it would if the extra intake were to be taken without a controlled monopoly.

In a monopoly it goes to the Exchequer as well, the very same destination coffer as tax revenue.
Also, risking an increase in alcohol-related problems (as outlined earlier) to tackle existing alcohol-related problems will never happen.