Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

emo72

What's happening lads? Is beer cheap here compared to Deutschland?

facehugger99

There'll be a lot of lads crying into their cheap cans of muck today.

I'll be raising a nice glass of Malbec.

JMNolan

Will this minimum alcohol pricing bring us closer to the continental approach? It's their attitude to drinking we're trying at adopt isn't it? Makes sense to bring us in line with them

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

There'll be a lot of lads crying into their cheap cans of muck today.

I'll be raising a nice glass of Malbec.

Your malbec will increase inline with any of the lower priced painstripper wine, if/when this legislation is ever introduced.

You can then drink your already overpriced lady's drink, (which will be even more overpriced due to those who can't handle theirs and a nanny govt at the behest of a lobbying vested interest) with a totally undeserved smugness on your face.......

You want to celebrate being made more to enjoy your tipple because of the irresponsibility of others, and a vested interest who are peddling lies - and think your boasting about it

Drink it under your bridge.

Penneys do cheap frocks I believe :pac:

facehugger99

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Your malbec will increase inline with any of the lower priced painstripper wine, if/when this legislation is ever introduced.

You can then drink your already overpriced lady's drink, (which will be even more overpriced due to those who can't handle theirs and a nanny govt at the behest of a lobbying vested interest) with a totally undeserved smugness on your face.......

You want to celebrate being made more to enjoy your tipple because of the irresponsibility of others, and a vested interest who are peddling lies - and think your boasting about it

Drink it under your bridge.

Penneys do cheap frocks I believe :pac:

I think there's a school playground in 1986 where your insults would be better suited.

Real men drink cheap-slabs :rolleyes:

VinLieger

JMNolan wrote: »

Will this minimum alcohol pricing bring us closer to the continental approach? It's their attitude to drinking we're trying at adopt isn't it? Makes sense to bring us in line with them

Lol no it puts us further away,

Fr Tod Umptious

JMNolan wrote: »

Will this minimum alcohol pricing bring us closer to the continental approach? It's their attitude to drinking we're trying at adopt isn't it? Makes sense to bring us in line with them

Michael McDowell as a minister in the 2002-2007 government proposed "cafe bars" back around 2004.

The proposal was that you could have a pub licence is a much smaller building than the current law allows.

The idea was that we would have small cafes and establishments serving food and drink and move to a more European culture of going out to eat rather than out to drink.

The vintners lobby had it shot down.

KevinCavan

The homeless will just have to be more aggressive with their begging. Some children will have to go with less food, as their parents will spend on alcohol above all else. Students the main binge drinkers will need more money from the bank of mam and dad.

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

I think there's a school playground in 1986 where your insults would be better suited.

Real men drink cheap-slabs :rolleyes:

No insult intended, though I can see by your train of thinking how you might well have misinterpreted my post as one.


As for cheap slabs, I haven't drank in 6 weeks (need to check the precise date) due to an upcoming physical fitness examination, because I (like most other responsible adults) can take or leave it. And seldom if ever buy it "by the cheap slab".

It takes some drain brain of stupidity though, to celebrate a govt legislating to introduce MUP to target "an unhealthy carcinogenic" by drinking a glass of the stuff that they are about to increase the price of because of the aforementioned but spurious reasons.

Enjoy your wine.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Well this is a load of ****e. The levels of smoking have decreased rapidly since the smoking ban came in.

Nah, just more people have moved to vaping and the black market so the official sales will be down.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

Are you saying the smoking ban was a bad thing?
There was plenty of opposition at the time

Its not a bad thing. My main point is that smokers still smoke, vape etc.
Having a smoking ban, getting rid of 10 boxes, increasing the prices, all the health warnings on the boxes, it doesn't achieve much.

People still smoke and young people still take up smoking.

So many people have taken up vaping and the government are doing all they currently can to try regulate it as they are losing money.

The same applies here. People will still drink

facehugger99

Deleted User wrote: »

Its not a bad thing. My main point is that less smokers still smoke, vape etc.
Having a smoking ban, getting rid of 10 boxes, increasing the prices, all the health warnings on the boxes, it doesn't achieved much.

Less People still smoke and less young people still take up smoking.

So many people have taken up vaping and the government are doing all they currently can to try regulate it as they are losing money.

The same applies here. People will still drink less

FYP.

andekwarhola

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You can sense how alcohol dependant some posters are based on the despair in their posts.

You need to show some balls and deal with your own booze issues, whether indirect or direct, before projecting them on to people that can moderate their own alcohol use.

Get control.

suicide_circus

a big win for the vintners.

roll on the expansion of Wetherspoons. Even though they are shyte pubs, at least they offer a modicum of choice against the cartel.

Doctor Jimbob

suicide_circus wrote: »

a big win for the vintners.

roll on the expansion of Wetherspoons. Even though they are shyte pubs, at least they offer a modicum of choice against the cartel.

I wonder if Weatherspoons drinks are healthy like those served in the vintners pubs, or unhealthy like those sold in supermarkets? It's so hard to keep up.

Leroy42

suicide_circus wrote: »

a big win for the vintners.

roll on the expansion of Wetherspoons. Even though they are shyte pubs, at least they offer a modicum of choice against the cartel.

There is no doubt it is a win for the vintners, but not a big one I would argue.

cans going from €1 to €2 are still going to be far cheaper than the 5.90 in a pub. In addition, as the 'reason' behind this is health and reducing alcohol consumption, there has been plenty of talk of the dangers of alcohol, the negative effects and even talk about it being a cancer cause.

The pub trade is in decline for a variety of reasons, the availability of cheaper offy products is definitely one of the reasons. But it is far from the only reason.

Due to the crazy situation of licencing, where like the taxis years ago a licence has taken on a ridiculous status and thus value, entry into the industry is very difficult and costly. Along with high rents etc, pub are using this to gouge their customers. There is simply no reason why a bottle of beer that can be bought for €2 in the offy, is charged at over €5 in a pub.

Society is also changing. People are more active, fathers are more involved with the kids. The days, for the majority, of going straight from work to spend your evening in the pub are gone. Now its a drink of two then off the kids football, tennis etc etc.

Drinking-driving, the cost of taxis, the cost of babysitters. It all has an effect. So fundamentally the consumer has changed and the industry has failed to change with them.

And just on Wetherspoons. If you believe them to be ****e pubs why would you be welcoming an expansion?

VinLieger

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I wonder if Weatherspoons drinks are healthy like those served in the vintners pubs, or unhealthy like those sold in supermarkets? It's so hard to keep up.

Pretty sure its classed as "bad alcohol" all other pubs under the VFI or LVA though obviously are still "good alcohol"

joe40

suicide_circus wrote: »

a big win for the vintners.

roll on the expansion of Wetherspoons. Even though they are shyte pubs, at least they offer a modicum of choice against the cartel.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and have absolutely no vested interest nor love of the vitners association, but I don't see how this will have much affect on the vitners assoc. for following reasons.

Plenty alcohol currently bought in off licences and supermarkets won't be affected since they are already above MUP, so this market should stay steady, no rush to the pub.

Pub prices will still be much much higher than drinking at home even with MUP.

The cost of taxi which is a major cost for a night out along with babysitting for families will not change.

All these costs means pubs are, and will remain a much more expensive option for a few pints or whatever

joe40

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is no doubt it is a win for the vintners, but not a big one I would argue.

cans going from €1 to €2 are still going to be far cheaper than the 5.90 in a pub. In addition, as the 'reason' behind this is health and reducing alcohol consumption, there has been plenty of talk of the dangers of alcohol, the negative effects and even talk about it being a cancer cause.

The pub trade is in decline for a variety of reasons, the availability of cheaper offy products is definitely one of the reasons. But it is far from the only reason.

Due to the crazy situation of licencing, where like the taxis years ago a licence has taken on a ridiculous status and thus value, entry into the industry is very difficult and costly. Along with high rents etc, pub are using this to gouge their customers. There is simply no reason why a bottle of beer that can be bought for €2 in the offy, is charged at over €5 in a pub.

Society is also changing. People are more active, fathers are more involved with the kids. The days, for the majority, of going straight from work to spend your evening in the pub are gone. Now its a drink of two then off the kids football, tennis etc etc.

Drinking-driving, the cost of taxis, the cost of babysitters. It all has an effect. So fundamentally the consumer has changed and the industry has failed to change with them.

And just on Wetherspoons. If you believe them to be ****e pubs why would you be welcoming an expansion?

I just submitted a post with some of those points and you beat me too it!

Mr. teddywinkles

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Quite right too. Its very easy to knock our public representatives, and at times they even deserve it. But credit where it is due in this case. Its a damned good step in the right direction, and people's lives will truly be the better for it. Hurrah.

The state of the place when it come to government run sectors in this country and you applauded them for this meaningless toss.

Doctor Jimbob

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and have absolutely no vested interest nor love of the vitners association, but I don't see how this will have much affect on the vitners assoc. for following reasons.

Plenty alcohol currently bought in off licences and supermarkets won't be affected since they are already above MUP, so this market should stay steady, no rush to the pub.

Pub prices will still be much much higher than drinking at home even with MUP.

The cost of taxi which is a major cost for a night out along with babysitting for families will not change.

All these costs means pubs are, and will remain a much more expensive option for a few pints or whatever

Not for the first time in this thread, see the relevant text from the Fine Gael manifesto back in 2011:

"Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs."

It may or may not work, but supporting the vintners is quite clearly the intention of this legislation.

JMNolan

VinLieger wrote: »

Lol no it puts us further away,

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Michael McDowell as a minister in the 2002-2007 government proposed "cafe bars" back around 2004.

The proposal was that you could have a pub licence is a much smaller building than the current law allows.

The idea was that we would have small cafes and establishments serving food and drink and move to a more European culture of going out to eat rather than out to drink.

The vintners lobby had it shot down.

So we're going further away from the continental approach yet we want to have the same attitude towards alcohol? Right so

Hotblack Desiato

facehugger99 wrote: »

FYP.

Fewer.

Hotblack Desiato

joe40 wrote: »

Plenty alcohol currently bought in off licences and supermarkets won't be affected since they are already above MUP, so this market should stay steady

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

The total dreck like Galahad, St Bernard Lager Beer etc. probably goes off the market entirely.

Dutch Gold etc. goes up to the MUP price.

Heineken, Carlsberg, etc - what the trade here laughably call 'premium lagers' - are often sold now below what the MUP is. But there's no way they'll sell their 'premium' product at the same price as Dutch Gold, so they'll put their prices up purely for marketing reasons.

Expect the same thing with craft beers, too - can't be selling them at the same price as Swineken...

Wines and spirits - the ripple effect of price increases will go right up through the price range, too.

No decent multibuy offers at Christmas or bank holidays ever again.

Cross border shopping will go through the roof.

no rush to the pub

True but the important thing is that FG is seen by the LVA and VFI to be throwing them a bone. No doubt they'll soon be clamouring for the MUP to be increased, for "health reasons".

JohnnyFlash

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Your malbec will increase inline with any of the lower priced painstripper wine, if/when this legislation is ever introduced.

You can then drink your already overpriced lady's drink, (which will be even more overpriced due to those who can't handle theirs and a nanny govt at the behest of a lobbying vested interest) with a totally undeserved smugness on your face.......

You want to celebrate being made more to enjoy your tipple because of the irresponsibility of others, and a vested interest who are peddling lies - and think your boasting about it

Drink it under your bridge.

Penneys do cheap frocks I believe :pac:

You ok?

mikhail

Deleted User wrote: »

Its not a bad thing. My main point is that smokers still smoke, vape etc.
Having a smoking ban, getting rid of 10 boxes, increasing the prices, all the health warnings on the boxes, it doesn't achieve much.

People still smoke and young people still take up smoking.

So many people have taken up vaping and the government are doing all they currently can to try regulate it as they are losing money.

The same applies here. People will still drink

It's hard to find good data on the fly, but here's the numbers for US teens over time.


Given the exceptionally well established causal link between smoking and lung cancer, the notion that nothing much has been achieved is just wrong.

Vaping is a more recent trend, so it'd have to be considered in more up to date measurements.

odyssey06

mikhail wrote: »

It's hard to find good data on the fly, but here's the numbers for US teens over time.

Given the exceptionally well established causal link between smoking and lung cancer, the notion that nothing much has been achieved is just wrong.

Vaping is a more recent trend, so it'd have to be considered in more up to date measurements.

In relation to this thread, I think what's pertinent though is that you are showing a decline in US smoking rates, but US taxation rates on cigarettes are far lower than in Ireland.

Given other concurrent changes such as the establishing of the link between smoking and lung cancer, the banning of smoking in workplaces, enforcement of laws on underage tobacco sales, vaping, blackmarket sales etc, it's not at all clear whether increased price of cigarettes contributed in any significant way to a drop in numbers 'officially' smoking.

weldoninhio

So now Joe Soap and Mary Soap who might have bought 6 cans and 2 bottles of wine a week only buy 3 cans and one bottle.

So that’s the tax take halved from moderate drinkers, who make up the majority of drinkers. Where does this money come to replace this?? We are still running at a deficit and taking loans to keep the lights on.

Quackster

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Cross border shopping will go through the roof.

Unless Northern Ireland remains in customs union with the EU (which currently seems very unlikely), legal cross border alcohol shopping will virtually cease on the 1st January 2021 in the event of a deal.

In a no-deal deal scenario, it will end on 29th March next year.

skerry

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

weldoninhio wrote: »

So now Joe Soap and Mary Soap who might have bought 6 cans and 2 bottles of wine a week only buy 3 cans and one bottle.

So that’s the tax take halved from moderate drinkers, who make up the majority of drinkers. Where does this money come to replace this?? We are still running at a deficit and taking loans to keep the lights on.

I think the money spent treating the Soap family for alcohol related health issues over their lifetime could far outweigh the tax take from buying said alcohol in the first place.

I admit I don't know the Soap's well enough to comment fully on their alcohol intake as I've only passed them on the street a handful of times, but I'd imagine the government is more concerned about the burden on the health care system than the few quid they lose out on tax for one less bottle of vino a week.