Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Reputable Rog

Leroy42 wrote: »

We didn't have duty free before the SM, isn't it likely that Ireland will look to exclude NI from duty free

Yes we did, we've had since 1947.

Reputable Rog

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Drunken driver on the way back from Tesco? Necking a slab at the traffic lights?
Drunken fueled brawl whilst watching Graham Norton?
Seriously the trolling is tiresome.

I love the way so many people on this thread are deliberately ignorant of the points being made.

McMurphy

Deedsie wrote: »

They are more concerned with their own bank balance than the improvements this bill will hopefully have for society. It is an embarrassment that Irishness and Irish people are stereotyped as feckless drunks. Hopefully this bill will improve the overall health of people, reduce the amount of people dying due to alcohol, improve our relationship with alcohol. Reduce domestic issues among families where alcohol is a trigger etc etc

I am delighted the bill finally got through the D.

Who?

The politicians and their VFI pals?

KevinCavan

More tax for the government to waste!

McMurphy

KevinCavan wrote: »

More tax for the government to waste!

Except it's not a tax increase.....

How many times?

hatrickpatrick

realitykeeper wrote: »

Your kid will be less likely to be killed by a drunken driver or caught up in a drink fueled brawl.

Fixing the justice system would target those individuals without the same collateral damage.

Your trip on the bus or the train is less likely to be spoiled by drunken louts and even if is is they will be less drunk than they would without a mup.

What if I enjoy seeing people partying and having a good time when I'm getting a late DART home?

kylith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If the government were genuinely concerned about alcohol, they'd take steps to get rid of the attitude that the pub is central to our social lives, they'd have made this a tax and put the money towards alcohol-related harm, and get rid of their own discounted bar. They're not doing any of that though, because public houses are of bigger concern to them than public health.

Exactly. This bill is nothing but a punishment on those of us who don't enjoy drinking in pubs.

Tackling anti-social behaviour at closing time would be a much better use of the government's time rather than going after sensible home drinkers who cause the vast, vast minority of drink-related issues.

Leroy42

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Yes we did, we've had since 1947.

My memory, and it could quite easily be wrong, was that you were limited to the amount you could buy and bring over the border. And that it wasn't duty free.

So it is likely that customs will enforce a maximum.

Doctor Jimbob

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It likely won't have any effect on me as the alcohol I buy is generally more expensive than the minimum price. I'm concerned because the government are setting a minimum price on something, which I don't think is a good idea in general. On top of this, the extra money is going to those who sell it rather than going towards mitigating any harm caused by it. That's a monumentally stupid way of dealing with things.

If the government were genuinely concerned about alcohol, they'd take steps to get rid of the attitude that the pub is central to our social lives, they'd have made this a tax and put the money towards alcohol-related harm, and get rid of their own discounted bar. They're not doing any of that though, because public houses are of bigger concern to them than public health.

If the bill does end up doing good then fantastic, I'm all for it, I'm just hugely sceptical that will be the case.

Initiatives like the work place smoking ban, the return to 11.30 closing on a Thursday and tougher drink driving measures have been introduced to the detriment of the pub.

I'd say if this thread was about a policy that specifically targeted pubs the same characters would be out here complaining about how it adversely affected the guy who just wants to have a few pints in the pub.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Exactly. This bill is nothing but a punishment on those of us who don't enjoy drinking in pubs.

Tackling anti-social behaviour at closing time would be a much better use of the government's time rather than going after sensible home drinkers who cause the vast, vast minority of drink-related issues.

And getting tanked up on cheap supermarket booze before going out has nothing to do with that anti social behaviour?

kylith

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

And getting tanked up on cheap supermarket booze before going out has nothing to do with that anti social behaviour?

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

Reputable Rog

kylith wrote: »

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

You're wasting your time, it's a group of trolls working in tandem to just wind people up.
I wish to mods would step in and put a halt to it.

Wheres Me Jumper?

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

kylith wrote: »

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

there is little or no evidence to suggest that introducing alcohol at a younger age helps "educate" kids/teens to the detrimental effects of drink. indeed the opposite holds true, ie the longer/older one leaves the regular consumption of alcohol the better the outcomes.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

But that cheapest crap is now going to be more expensive thus they cannot drink as much of it.

I love all this "we need a attitude change to alcohol, but MUP is not the answer.."

It basically saying, "yes we have a alcohol problem but please don't try a solution that means I have to pay more for it".

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

Unfortunately the linked report has no data from France or Italy but it has from other European countries that are seen to have a healthier attitude to alcohol than our own and where alcohol is cheaper than in Ireland, specifically Portugal, Spain, Germany, Holland and Belgium

So here are some findings

Alcohol related cancers
Portugal, Germany and Belgium higher than Ireland
Spain the same as Ireland

Liver cirrhosis
Germany and Portugal higher than Ireland
Spain the same

Death by alcohol related injury
Ireland and Portugal higher than Germany, Spain and Holland

Overall we die less from alcohol than the Portuguese or Germans

So while the Europeans are slowly killing themselves with alcohol the Irish and killing themselves by alcohol related injuries

Therefore the European attitude to alcohol is not healthier than the Irish one and not one that we should be trying to achieve.

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190430/Status-Report-on-Alcohol-and-Health-in-35-European-Countries.pdf

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I honestly don't think the average Joe understands what is about to happen until they stroll into their local Tesco and see what is in front of them.

Brexit will be in 6 months anyway. We'll have duty free shopping in Newry to look foward to. Might not be a bad business idea to start a click and collect drive-tru on the borderlands.

We won't if it's a crash out Brexit. Non-EU import duty quotas will apply on such stuff. What's allowed is prohibitively small.

bnt

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190430/Status-Report-on-Alcohol-and-Health-in-35-European-Countries.pdf

According to that report, people in Ireland averaged about 12 litres of pure alcohol per person per year in 2010, though the trend was downwards. Let's say the same trend continues downward and it's about 10 litres this year. That is still a serious amount of alcohol. Some quick calculations tell me that's equivalent to about a bottle of whisky (40% ABV) every ten days, or a pint of 4.9% ABV beer every day. And that's the per capita average of everyone, including non-drinkers, that got reported. Some people are drinking a lot more than that, obviously.

10 litres of alcohol is 7.893 kilograms (since ethanol is lighter than water), so at €0.10 per gram minimum unit pricing, the average drinker would pay €78.93 per year minimum. I'm pretty sure I spent more than that in the last year, even though I estimate I hit about 1/3 of the average alcohol consumption. :eek:

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And getting tanked up on cheap supermarket booze before going out has nothing to do with that anti social behaviour?

Only some people who get drunk in this manner engage in anti social behaviour afterwards. Therefore, a measure which also penalises those who don't is an unfair measure.

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But that cheapest crap is now going to be more expensive thus they cannot drink as much of it.

Which means forcing people to change their behaviour rather than persuading them. That is an inherently authoritarian mindset.

I love all this "we need a attitude change to alcohol, but MUP is not the answer.."

It basically saying, "yes we have a alcohol problem but please don't try a solution that means I have to pay more for it".

Exactly - bring in measures which specifically target those who cause problems, and explicitly do not inconvenience anyone who does not. That is the only acceptable way to deal with an issue which causes problems only in an indirect and potential manner as opposed to a guaranteed universal manner.

end of the road

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

And getting tanked up on cheap supermarket booze before going out has nothing to do with that anti social behaviour?

given that those who will get tanked up before they go out will continue to do so, no

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But that cheapest crap is now going to be more expensive thus they cannot drink as much of it.

except they can and will. if they want to drink a certain amount, they will just spend more money on it.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I love all this "we need a attitude change to alcohol, but MUP is not the answer.."

It basically saying, "yes we have a alcohol problem but please don't try a solution that means I have to pay more for it".

that's not a problem. people who are responsible don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something because of others being irresponsible, when they know little to no difference will be made via having to pay more. they also don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something, when they know the reason they are paying more is in a misguided attempt by the government to try and protect 1 part of the alcohol industry, the vintners, by attempting to price people back into their pubs, something which is also not going to work, because in reality the pub doesn't offer what these people want, and the pub is not willing to offer it. they also don't want to be forced by the government to pay more for something when the people they are buying it from will get to keep that money, when in actual fact the money raised could go toards addiction services and other support services for those genuinely effected by alcohol.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Unfortunately the linked report has no data from France or Italy but it has from other European countries that are seen to have a healthier attitude to alcohol than our own and where alcohol is cheaper than in Ireland, specifically Portugal, Spain, Germany, Holland and Belgium

So here are some findings

Alcohol related cancers
Portugal, Germany and Belgium higher than Ireland
Spain the same as Ireland

Liver cirrhosis
Germany and Portugal higher than Ireland
Spain the same

Death by alcohol related injury
Ireland and Portugal higher than Germany, Spain and Holland

Overall we die less from alcohol than the Portuguese or Germans

So while the Europeans are slowly killing themselves with alcohol the Irish and killing themselves by alcohol related injuries

Therefore the European attitude to alcohol is not healthier than the Irish one and not one that we should be trying to achieve.

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190430/Status-Report-on-Alcohol-and-Health-in-35-European-Countries.pdf

the thing is, ireland has a tiny population compared to those countries, so we cannot say for definite that our rate and their rates are caused by each other's respective attitudes.

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

Which is a symptom of a disfunctional attitude to alcohol in society as a whole, which is something that needs to be addressed and won't be by MUP. Young people will continue to drink the cheapest crap that they can get their hands on as long as it's cheaper than going to the pub.

What people need to realise is that in countries like Italy and France wine is freely available, cheap, and openly drunk by people in front of their children in moderation, which leads to a healthy attitude to it. Meanwhile the countries which seek to make alcohol prohibitively expensive and hide it away, like Ireland and Nordic countries, consistently have more issues with problem drinking and anti-social behaviour.

and yet countries like ireland will double down on the same policies that cause problems rather then change, and are then surprised when nothing changes.

Reputable Rog wrote: »

You're wasting your time, it's a group of trolls working in tandem to just wind people up.
I wish to mods would step in and put a halt to it.

i actually don't think they are trolls. i think they have simply fallen for the constant alcohol restrictionist and pro-pub propaganda being spouted by vested interests and lobby groups. there are people who genuinely support this minimum pricing, dispite the likely realities that it won't make any difference.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

there is little or no evidence to suggest that introducing alcohol at a younger age helps "educate" kids/teens to the detrimental effects of drink. indeed the opposite holds true, ie the longer/older one leaves the regular consumption of alcohol the better the outcomes.

if that was the case, then the stats posted by kylith would surely be the opposite.

Wheres Me Jumper?

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

end of the road wrote: »

if that was the case, then the stats posted by kylith would surely be the opposite.

the evidence from this report does not support your contention i'm afraid.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/introducing-alcohol-to-teens-a-double-edged-sword/8164518

the advice i would give to kids is to delay their drinking as long as possible.

elperello

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

the evidence from this report does not support your contention i'm afraid.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/introducing-alcohol-to-teens-a-double-edged-sword/8164518

the advice i would give to kids is to delay their drinking as long as possible.

It's an interesting article but I don't see the full study.
I don't think I would approve of starting too early.
They mention working up to "full serves" by mid teens. Assuming they mean drinking as much as adults by 15 then I would agree with them that's not ideal.

I would have thought that starting with a small drop of wine at 16 makes more sense. Then maybe going to the pub with parents at 18 and learning to take it easy.

Just as a footnote and it's not scientific or anything, just life experience. I have noticed that people who start drinking in late 20's/early 30's often turn out to be problem drinkers.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

and yet countries like ireland will double down on the same policies that cause problems rather then change, and are then surprised when nothing changes.



i actually don't think they are trolls. i think they have simply fallen for the constant alcohol restrictionist and pro-pub propaganda being spouted by vested interests and lobby groups. there are people who genuinely support this minimum pricing, dispite the likely realities that it won't make any difference.



if that was the case, then the stats posted by kylith would surely be the opposite.

What stats did kylith post ?

Wheres Me Jumper?

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

elperello wrote: »

It's an interesting article but I don't see the full study.
I don't think I would approve of starting too early.
They mention working up to "full serves" by mid teens. Assuming they mean drinking as much as adults by 15 then I would agree with them that's not ideal.

I would have thought that starting with a small drop of wine at 16 makes more sense. Then maybe going to the pub with parents at 18 and learning to take it easy.

Just as a footnote and it's not scientific or anything, just life experience. I have noticed that people who start drinking in late 20's/early 30's often turn out to be problem drinkers.

sorry to be argumentative but the people i know who became problem drinkers and alcoholics (many of which are now dead btw) nearly all started in their teens.

Leroy42

elperello wrote: »

I would have thought that starting with a small drop of wine at 16 makes more sense. Then maybe going to the pub with parents at 18 and learning to take it easy.

Herein lies a major part of the problem. Far too many parents don't think like this. Children learn from their parents, they see their parents heading to the pub regularly and want to do the same.

Would these parents bring their kids to the pub at 16 and give them a small taster and then go home with them? Would they bring their kids back at closing time to show them the drunks and the fights?

Kids know about alcohol. The problem is they know alcohol are this great product that they see their parents drinking at christenings, communions, matches etc.

elperello

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

sorry to be argumentative but the people i know who became problem drinkers and alcoholics (many of which are now dead btw) nearly all started in their teens.

No problem. Like I say it's not scientific just anecdotal.
I also knew people who drank in teens who became problem drinkers and alcoholics.
I was responding to the idea that the longer you delay the less chance of having issues.

realitykeeper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fixing the justice system would target those individuals without the same collateral damage.

Justice applies after the fact. I would rather my kid is not killed by a drunk driver in the first place, then there would be no need for a judge to punish the culprit.

McMurphy

realitykeeper wrote: »

Justice applies after the fact. I would rather my kid is not killed by a drunk driver in the first place, then there would be no need for a judge to punish the culprit.

It's not only drunk drivers who kill kids.

Let's ban cars.

Leroy42

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's not only drunk drivers who kill kids.

Let's ban cars.

But they are far more likely to have accidents, and thus deaths, when alcohol is involved.

But we do ban drink driving, we have speed limits. It is not always a 100% ban or total freedom.