Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Leroy42

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which is fine. The judgemental attitude of a few non-drinkers stinks though.

Wow, you are easily spooked. A tiny minority of the country has such an effect on you?

It really does leave the question open. Why is there this dependency on alcohol for enjoying ourselves, such that a price increase creates such pushback?

There are so many other things we could be doing to make ourselves relax and.or feel better. We 24 hour entertainment, we have transport to almost anywhere we want to go, we have an almost endless array of things we could be doing.

Yet time and again, we see posters on this thread saying they simply want to relax or unwind after a hard week etc. But nobody seems to question why we accept that alcohol is the only answer.

The drinks companies have convinced us all that we need this product to enjoy ourselves. That the game itself is boring, that our friends aren't really that funny. By enjoying this product you can have an even better time.

I think we need to seriously look at how we accepted that as a fact. Why we are depended on this product to aid our lives. It signifies something deeper is at fault, yet nobody seems to care to work it out.

Doctor Jimbob

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wow, you are easily spooked. A tiny minority of the country has such an effect on you?

It really does leave the question open. Why is there this dependency on alcohol for enjoying ourselves, such that a price increase creates such pushback?

There are so many other things we could be doing to make ourselves relax and.or feel better. We 24 hour entertainment, we have transport to almost anywhere we want to go, we have an almost endless array of things we could be doing.

Yet time and again, we see posters on this thread saying they simply want to relax or unwind after a hard week etc. But nobody seems to question why we accept that alcohol is the only answer.

The drinks companies have convinced us all that we need this product to enjoy ourselves. That the game itself is boring, that our friends aren't really that funny. By enjoying this product you can have an even better time.

I think we need to seriously look at how we accepted that as a fact. Why we are depended on this product to aid our lives. It signifies something deeper is at fault, yet nobody seems to care to work it out.

Price increases on anything tend to not go down well in fairness. Especially when we're being told it's for health benefits, yet rather than putting the extra money raised towards alcohol-related healthcare, it's just going to the pockets of those making it. Imagine the uproar if the price increases in cigarettes over recent years went to tobacco companies rather than being a tax. I'd imagine even non-smokers would find that outrageous. You're hitting out at drink companies, yet supporting a measure that increases their profits.

Leroy42

I don't support this measure. What I do think it exposes is the dependent relationship we have with alcohol.

I have raised this a number of time son the thread, but the way to defeat this is to simply stop buying the product. Do not accept this. Refuse to pay the extra price. Let the supermarkets/offy know that you are deeply unhappy and will refuse to pay the unwarranted extra price.

But just like when the pubs increase prices after 11, or when they put another 10c on the price because the producers put 5c on it, people will bitch and moan and then simply settle back into the norm. The only reasoning behind why we continue to accept the current position in regards to alcohol is that, as a nation, we cannot envisage going without it and will accept whatever they do.

They know this, you know this.

realitykeeper

odyssey06 wrote: »

What 'financial harm' are they causing? What financial costs are incurred over and above that of an average person?
If they don't drink, will they impose zero costs on the health service? No, because teetotallers get sick too and need treatment from the health service. And they get arthritis. And dementia. And cancer, strokes and heart attacks.
What about the pension costs? What about prescription and GP costs? Nursing home care?
For all we know, someone who dies at 60 from irresponsible drinking 'saves' the state hundreds of thousands of euros. Have you accounted for them in your cold equation?

Those who drink too much tend to be sick more and contribute less and are more likely to receive benefits for things like incapacity to work. By contrast, healthy people tend to be able to work more and for longer and contribute more to things like pensions. Problem drinkers tend to suffer chronic, long term and ongoing illnesses that non drinkers would be less likely to suffer from. Drunks frequently clog up A&Es. Reduce the number of drunks and that hefty Garda overtime bill could be trimmed back a bit also.

realitykeeper

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's an argument for increasing tax on alcohol, not one for arbitrarily giving the producers of the substance you're so concerned about more money per unit.

I disagree. Prevention is better than cure.

realitykeeper

kerryjack wrote: »

Yes and what about all the tax they have paid on drink and fags as the 2 usually goes together.

If they don`t want to pay the tax they should give up drinking and smoking. Besides, clean living folk take no pleasure in seeing these people kill themselves.

Doctor Jimbob

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't support this measure. What I do think it exposes is the dependent relationship we have with alcohol.

I have raised this a number of time son the thread, but the way to defeat this is to simply stop buying the product. Do not accept this. Refuse to pay the extra price. Let the supermarkets/offy know that you are deeply unhappy and will refuse to pay the unwarranted extra price.

But just like when the pubs increase prices after 11, or when they put another 10c on the price because the producers put 5c on it, people will bitch and moan and then simply settle back into the norm. The only reasoning behind why we continue to accept the current position in regards to alcohol is that, as a nation, we cannot envisage going without it and will accept whatever they do.

They know this, you know this.

Is it not the same with anything that increases the cost of things though? People complain when the price of petrol goes up, people complained when the sugar tax was brought in, people complain when the price of cigarettes goes up, people complain when their motor tax goes up, their insurance, taxes in general...you get the point. People don't like when prices go up. I don't think that necessarily means we're dependent on alcohol, it just means we don't like price hikes. Especially ones there's no rational justification for, as is the case here.

You say the way to defeat this is to stop buying the product, I'd say that's exactly the point given that the real goal of this seems to be getting people back into the pub. Putting a stop to measures that reinforce the idea of the pub as the centre of our social lives and culture would do a lot more to improve attitudes to alcohol than this MUP nonsense does.

Doctor Jimbob

realitykeeper wrote: »

I disagree. Prevention is better than cure.

If you think alcohol is so bad, why are you supporting a measure that gives those producing it more profit. Surely you'd prefer something that reduces their profits?

Hotblack Desiato

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wow, you are easily spooked. A tiny minority of the country has such an effect on you?

Where are you getting this nonsense from?

There's a couple of posters on here (not you) who are definitely on the wind-up and it's those ridiculous attitudes I was pointing out. Prohibition of alcohol was tried and it was a disaster, we are still persisting with prohibition of drugs despite it being disastrous too. Solutions to substance abuse / addiction issues are not going to be found by draconian social engineering / legislative restrictions.

Leroy42

If most cases of prices increases we have little choice but to accept. Motor Tax, levies, bin charges. You can shop around but if you want to drive you need insurance for example.

Drink is it a necessity (or at least it shouldn't be). But time and again, people have shown that they are indeed willing to put up with price increases. During the recession, the price of drink did not fall at all. But didn't limited only because of lack of funds, not out of any demand that the market reflect the realities.

The producers know, this, so do the pubs, and the government. It really should be an area that if they put the price up, or introduce MAP, that is has a seriously negative effect on the entire market. But producers know this is actually in their interests. Either people move back to the pub or simply accept the higher price. Either way they win.

And they win because we are too dependent on the product. We simply cannot see how we can enjoy ourselves without it. Out with friends, and no drink? Never. Watch a match, with no booze, not a chance.

McMurphy

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Just on that, was excise raised on alcohol today in the budget?


Anyone?

squawker wrote: »

Nope, smokes got a 50c increase

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And the health budget went almost 1bn over budget

Yet they'll increase the bottom line of the lads making the gargle.

If the health facade wasn't a facade.......

realitykeeper wrote: »

If they don`t want to pay the tax they should give up drinking and smoking. Besides, clean living folk take no pleasure in seeing these people kill themselves.

Once again......

It's not a tax, they didn't even raise excise on it yesterday, even though health overspend was 3/4 of a billion euro


Most ironic username ever.

VinLieger

realitykeeper wrote: »

I disagree. Prevention is better than cure.

This makes zero sense in relation to the post you were replying to unless you still are under the mistaken belief that this is somehow a tax increase which it is very much not.

McMurphy

VinLieger wrote: »

This makes zero sense in relation to the post you were replying to unless you still are under the mistaken belief that this is somehow a tax increase which it is very much not.

I think reality keeper is just chipping in for the sh1ts and giggles, not serious debate at all.

Aka trolling. :cool:

JohnnyFlash

This legislation won’t impact me as I don’t drink cheap polish lager or red wine you could strip paint off a trawler with. Tramp juice.

The Rape of Lucretia

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If you think alcohol is so bad, why are you supporting a measure that gives those producing it more profit. Surely you'd prefer something that reduces their profits?

Anything tgat increases the price, reduces the consumption. So is a Good Thing, regardless of where the money goes.

No one is advocating prohibition. Just reducing demand. Through price increases, increased education, changing habits, and increasing the number of people voluntarily choosing to avoid something so harmful.

Even in strong youth binge culture UK, a change is starting, for example :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/alcohol-shunned-young-people-health-survey-for-england-non-drinkers-a8576616.html

kylith

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

This legislation won’t impact me as I don’t drink cheap polish lager or red wine you could strip paint off a trawler with. Tramp juice.

You're deluding yourself if you think the price of your malbec or bottle of Dungarvan BC won't be going up to avoid being priced the same as the cheap Polish stuff so it can avoid being seen as 'tramp juice'.

McMurphy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

This legislation won’t impact me as I don’t drink cheap polish lager or red wine you could strip paint off a trawler with. Tramp juice.

Let's hope your not in a job that has any connection with marketing/pricing so.

JohnnyFlash

kylith wrote: »

You're deluding yourself if you think the price of your malbec or bottle of Dungarvan BC won't be going up to avoid being priced the same as the cheap Polish stuff so it can avoid being seen as 'tramp juice'.

That’s a very rudimentary prediction that doesn’t take account of a myriad of market conditions. Craft beer drinkers already are happy to pay a premium for the product they are purchasing. Same as those who buy good wine. Price sensitivity isn’t as important to them. They might just buy one less bottle of beer if your prediction was to come true. It’s the large volume at a cheap price products that are in trouble. And they won’t be mourned by anyone only students, misers, and alcoholics.

weldoninhio

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

That’s a very rudimentary prediction that doesn’t take account of a myriad of market conditions. Craft beer drinkers already are happy to pay a premium for the product they are purchasing. Same as those who buy good wine. Price sensitivity isn’t as important to them. They might just buy one less bottle of beer if your prediction was to come true. It’s the large volume at a cheap price products that are in trouble. And they won’t be mourned by anyone only students, misers, and alcoholics.

Spoken like a low-rent Aonghus Von Bismarck

Doctor Jimbob

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Anything tgat increases the price, reduces the consumption. So is a Good Thing, regardless of where the money goes.

If you think alcohol is so bad, why support legislation that helps increase the profits of those producing it? It makes absolutely no sense. Your argument makes sense in support of increased taxes on alcohol. It makes no sense whatsoever in support of legislation to increase Diageo's profit per unit sold and drive people back to the pubs.

No one is advocating prohibition. Just reducing demand. Through price increases, increased education, changing habits, and increasing the number of people voluntarily choosing to avoid something so harmful.

This legislation isn't there to reduce demand though. It's there to back up the vintners. You know, those people who make a living out of selling alcohol.

Even in strong youth binge culture UK, a change is starting, for example :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/alcohol-shunned-young-people-health-survey-for-england-non-drinkers-a8576616.html

Surely that's evidence that we don't need to artificially raise prices to reduce the number of drinkers

JohnnyFlash

weldoninhio wrote: »

Spoken like a low-rent Aonghus Von Bismarck

Less of the insults, please.

I’m a man who likes to drink. I just don’t see this legislation impacting me that much. Drink is very cheap here. Paying a few more quid for good stuff is probably a good idea.

Doctor Jimbob

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Less of the insults, please.

I’m a man who likes to drink. I just don’t see this legislation impacting me that much. Drink is very cheap here. Paying a few more quid for good stuff is probably a good idea.

No, it isn't.

raze_them_all_

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Less of the insults, please.

I’m a man who likes to drink. I just don’t see this legislation impacting me that much. Drink is very cheap here. Paying a few more quid for good stuff is probably a good idea.

Cheap my bollocks

McMurphy

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Less of the insults, please.

I’m a man who likes to drink. I just don’t see this legislation impacting me that much. Drink is very cheap here. Paying a few more quid for good stuff is probably a good idea.

Compared with where?

Stop spouting nonsense.

Ireland most expensive place in EU to buy tobacco and alcohol

Ireland was the most expensive country in the EU for alcoholic beverages and tobacco in 2016, with alcohol and tobacco prices in Ireland roughly 75pc higher than the average price in the EU.

JohnnyFlash

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

Cheap my bollocks

6 cans of Heineken cost €9 in 2002 when we joined the euro. They now cost €10 or €11. You can get a bottle of wine for a fiver, or 8 bottles of 500ml 4.8% vol lager in Lidl for €7.89. That’s cheap.

odyssey06

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

6 cans of Heineken cost €9 in 2002 when we joined the euro. They now cost €10 or €11. You can get a bottle of wine for a fiver, or 8 bottles of 500ml 4.8% vol lager in Lidl for €7.89. That’s cheap.

You can get a bottle of the poorest quality wine for €5 here that I wouldn't even use for cooking.
€3 in a French supermarket will get you an ok one - that's what cheap wine prices look like.

Real wine is not cheap here.

raze_them_all_

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

6 cans of Heineken cost €9 in 2002 when we joined the euro. They now cost €10 or €11. You can get a bottle of wine for a fiver, or 8 bottles of 500ml 4.8% vol lager in Lidl for €7.89. That’s cheap.

I can get bland cans for that? lovely who needs taste

BIGT4464

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

When will this actually kick in? Did Harris indicate a timeline. If there is an election  then it might be delayed.

olliesgirl55

I don't drink a whole lot but I disagree with a law making min pricing. It is stupid. I know there are people who have drinking problems, however alcohol doesn't make alcoholics most of the time anyway. The vast majority of people with drinking problems are using the drink to self medicate. The only way to solve the problem in any meaningful way is having better mental healthcare and addiction services. Why should everybody who enjoys a drink be forced to pay more because a few have problems. Besides having a min price in place won't stop people with drinking problems from drinking.

Garibaldi?

It definitely hasnt kicked in yet. The prices were still the same when I was shopping yesterday