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.

MungBean

JustinDee wrote: »

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.

I know thats my point, it would increase the money going to the exchequer without increased cost to the consumer. Whether or not the money is directed specifically to services in proportion to that doesnt matter. Its not about schemes its about reducing the cost of the consumption of alcohol to the state which would be done if there was increased intake from the sale of that alcohol.

How would this be risking an increase in alcohol related problems ? The sale and availability of alcohol doesnt change nor does the cost. If it is designed only to redirect the profit from it then how can it create an increase in alcohol related problems ?

zero_hope

Yes it's true, too many people in Sweden and Finland consume an excessive amount of alcohol. Do you think these people would drink less if they had access to booze 24/7/365?

JustinDee

zero_hope wrote: »

Yes it's true, too many people in Sweden and Finland consume an excessive amount of alcohol. Do you think these people would drink less if they had access to booze 24/7/365?

A black market would develop if supply is curtailed/monopolised regardless of price.
What you see as success is too baseless. Where do you see money being directed any differently to help solve alcohol-related problems in Scandinavia or Finland?
At best, all you're proposing is shifting the goalposts (where it is sold)

djpbarry

MungBean wrote: »

I know thats my point, it would increase the money going to the exchequer without increased cost to the consumer.

Couldn't we just increase excise instead?

And how would this state takeover work in practice anyway? Will the state have to compensate all those who own a license to sell alcohol? Or will the sale of alcohol by non-state sponsored entities just be made illegal overnight?

MungBean

djpbarry wrote: »

Couldn't we just increase excise instead?

And how would this state takeover work in practice anyway? Will the state have to compensate all those who own a license to sell alcohol? Or will the sale of alcohol by non-state sponsored entities just be made illegal overnight?

I wouldnt be against higher excise duty on alcohol to be honest but I'd be worried about the knock on affect with the rise in prices and whether it would lead to closing the gap between services cost and intake or driving it into black market sales and being counter productive.

In practice I dont know how exactly it would be managed but I'd assume the nature of the licence would be changed to exclude the sale of products over a certain percentage and/or under a certain price. With only state sponsored outlets selling cheap high percentage products.

djpbarry

MungBean wrote: »

I wouldnt be against higher excise duty on alcohol to be honest but I'd be worried about the knock on affect with the rise in prices...

But there need not necessarily be a rise in prices?

MungBean wrote: »

In practice I dont know how exactly it would be managed but I'd assume the nature of the licence would be changed to exclude the sale of products over a certain percentage and/or under a certain price. With only state sponsored outlets selling cheap high percentage products.

Hang on - you want to raise money for the state to combat the health problems associated with heavy drinking .... by making spirits really cheap?

Benny_Cake

I don't really see how making off-licence sales a state monopoly would really do anything to improve things.It's the culture in this country surrounding alcohol that needs to change and that takes time.An increase in excise or minimum prices would make more sense.

MungBean

djpbarry wrote: »

But there need not necessarily be a rise in prices?

Of course it would, thats the nature of excise duty. Its always passed on to the consumer.

Hang on - you want to raise money for the state to combat the health problems associated with heavy drinking .... by making spirits really cheap?

No. At no point did I mention anything about making spirits really cheap or using that to combat health problems associated with heavy drinking. You sure you quoted the right post .

goose2005

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't really see how making off-licence sales a state monopoly would really do anything to improve things.It's the culture in this country surrounding alcohol that needs to change and that takes time.An increase in excise or minimum prices would make more sense.

It wouldn't make much difference, irish alcohol is already some of the most expensive in the world.

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.

cool story bro

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.

Treating drinkers like pariahs is hardly likely to encourage responsible low-level consumption.

djpbarry

MungBean wrote: »

Of course it would, thats the nature of excise duty.

Is it not possible, in theory at least, for a publican to take the hit of the increase in excise in order to out-compete a rival pub?

MungBean wrote: »

At no point did I mention anything about making spirits really cheap...

You said state sponsored outlets would sell cheap high percentage products?

MungBean wrote: »

...or using that to combat health problems associated with heavy drinking.

But that's your whole argument, isn't it? That the increased revenue received by the state would be used to pay for the costs of alcohol abuse?

MungBean

djpbarry wrote: »

Is it not possible, in theory at least, for a publican to take the hit of the increase in excise in order to out-compete a rival pub?

I think if excise duty was increased it would be generally accepted that the cost increases. The odd pub may take the hit to make a point but highly unlikely and supermarkets or off licences certainly wouldnt which is what the monopoly would be aimed at. Taking over the sale of cheap alcohol thats available from supermarkets and off licences currently, not pubs. Thats my view of how it would be anyway.

You said state sponsored outlets would sell cheap high percentage products?

There is already cheap products available in off licences and supermarkets. I'm not saying it should be made cheaper just shifting the sale to state sponsored outlets to redirect the profit. I never mentioned making it any cheaper as a means to achieve anything.

But that's your whole argument, isn't it? That the increased revenue received by the state would be used to pay for the costs of alcohol abuse?

Well no. Its about redirecting the profit from alcohol sales to the exchequer. Alcohol is a great cost to the state but this isnt necessarily about using the increased revenue to combat specific problems its just lessening the drain that it is on the state.

I agree with others that say its part of the culture and it cant be solved any time soon. I also agree people should have a certain freedom to be allowed to drink responsibly and that as a part of the culture people shouldnt be punished for doing so with high prices.

I think a state monopoly on the sale of what is considered cheap easily available alcohol would reduce the cost to the state while allowing people retain the freedom they currently have or taking the money directly out of their pockets and pushing them towards the black market as an excise increase may do.

RandolphEsq

Like with any addiction if the person does not want to quit then you cannot force them. As a nation of Irish people, we do not have to wish to quit therefore the government cannot wholeheartedly push through measures to reduce our addiction to alcohol.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Molloys Clondalkin

I just have to have a rant here,
thi is a quote from the first page of this thread from a vfi spokesperson

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.

I having been on the retail side with a well known chain :rolleyes: can tell you its not just the supermarkets, evry month these guys are sending out crap literature to shops and off licences saying join us were going to knock out the competition from supermarkets etc..

I can tell you now its not just Supermarkets that use beer as a loss leader EVERY off licence does it. and I have some figures to back that up.
In the hope of getting you to buy ciggies right down to crazy mark ups on crisps and snacks to extortionate sp? prices on things as simple as ice.

To see a que of people at the door at ten thirty in the morning and then they come back 3 times or more a day, to see the "regulars" piss themselves while downing wine outside the front door and not being able to cross a road dealing with people who urinate all over the floor thats just the start.
want more ??
Women in thier 30's and 40's coming in twisted with thier kids getting more vodka and driving home, people smashing bottles over other peoples heads outside then coming in to get a few cans, people kicking in doors when the shutters come down cause they couldnt leave five mins earlier...

This country has a serious drink problem and its not just from "a few".
We need to start educating kids in primary school then have a national price on alcohol the same in pubs and off sales across the board a new code of conduct on off licences to hold them more accountable.

Sure theres a lot of people who can drink responsibly but theres an awful lot more who cant its something we have to accept and stop sweeping under the carpet.

Tomorrow when ive had some sleep Ill post ways in which to help (not cure as thats way way off yet).

ps Sorry about the spelling and grammer its late ive been working very hard all day and im bone tired, I just thank god im out of that game.

Del2005

The OP wants a special alcohol tax to cover the cost of alcohol abuse.

Why not just make sick people pay for their own health care? I'm sick of my tax money paying for sick people to lie around in hospital while I have to work.
Then we could make anyone who injures themselves playing a sport pay extra taxes when they go back to work.

Then if we still decide to get sick or injured, they could just cut our tax credits or stick a special levy on our income till our bills have been covered!

Ellis Dee

There are a few good things about the Alko monopoly in Finland. There is a very big range, which is more or less the same in every outlet in the country, the prices are the same everywhere, there is lot of printed material about products, and the amount of sugar in wine is displayed on the shelves (good for diabetics). In addition, buying in such large quantities puts the company in a strong position, but this does not benefit the consumer, because most of the price of booze is tax anyway.

On the negative side, the Alko company has a large number of sinecure positions, which are allocated to party faithful, and I fear it would be even worse in Ireland. It is also impossible to buy anything after 8 pm on weekdays or after 4 pm on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays and certain public holidays.

The abolition of duty free within the EU a few years ago was actually good news for those who like to get their booze cheaper. Instead of being able to bring back a certain limited amount duty free, you can now buy as much as you can carry in ordinary shops in Estonia* and take it back to Finland. I know one fellow who recently brought back 90 litres of vodka in a pick-up and the Finnish customs accepted that it was for his own use! This has had the effect of greatly reducing booze sales in, at least, southern Finland. Ironically, most of the vast quantities of beer that Finns buy cheaply in Tallinn and take home with them is actually brewed in Finland, close to the Arctic Circle, transported nearly 1,000 kilometres south and then often hundreds of kilometres back north again to where it will be consumed!:rolleyes:

In addition, the Åland Islands, which lie between Finland and Sweden, are an autonomous region of Finland and duty-free sales are permitted between them and mainland Finland thanks to a concession Finland got when it joined the EU in 1995. Now almost all ferries between Finland and Sweden stop there for a few minutes and duty-free sales are thriving as never before.

As for stopping people getting sh1tfaced, don't make me laugh - or cry!

Just try walking around any city centre at weekends. Any organisation like Alko or Systembolaget that has the dual task of discouraging drinking and maximising revenue for the State is bound to fail.:D

* The fastest ferry crossing between Helsinki and Tallinn takes 1 hour and 20 minutes, less than it can sometimes take to get from central Dublin to Tallinn

Benny_Cake

goose2005 wrote: »

It wouldn't make much difference, irish alcohol is already some of the most expensive in the world.

Been to a supermarket recently?Because some of the deals are incredible-the price of beer has collapsed in recent years.They are clearly using it as a loss leader.

goose2005

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Been to a supermarket recently?Because some of the deals are incredible-the price of beer has collapsed in recent years.They are clearly using it as a loss leader.

Except that you can get it for the same prices in off licences - so what are they making their profit on, lime slices?

ednwireland

shoving taxes on is way of absolving yourself of trying to fix the issues in society that cause alcohol problems. politicians shove the price up so they can sit there and say 'there i did something' rather than doing the difficult thing of fixing the underlying issues (same thing for carbon taxes etc)

Molloys Clondalkin

the price of alcohol needs to be the same price in pubs off licences and supermarkets or a minimum and maximum allowed price. let them make a living but why should people be allowed get rich off the misery and stupidity of others ?? with much much more emphisis on responsibility of the trader esp in the off sales end, penalties for not cutting people off and a lot more closure notices handed out for underage selling etc and after hours trading.

The Garda age card system is a joke poor pictures make it easy for "friends etc" to get drink. there needs to be a national biometric card with fingerprinting to prove age. this would have more benifits like dole cheats etc.

limit the number of both purchases and quantity of alcohol people under 23 can buy Id even go so far as to say raise the age to 21,

more heavy fines like a thousand euro a time for a minor public order offence you wont do it again as quick.

Also provision to change the fees for an alcohol related injury visit to A and E (obviously if it was self inflicted injury if someone drunk did something to you then normal fees would apply)

Its time to start making people pay for stupidity because its costing everyone else a fortune, put the money into education policing and helthcare.

and to think if I refused to sell someone something I was given a look and my name mentioned in dispatches back to senior management Id run the risk of being fired for being responsible!!

What a time we live in eh :rolleyes: