Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

odyssey06

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Or maybe it's not that offensive.

It is offensive. But so is this legislation. The post is just an unguarded version of thoughts that I suspect were in the minds of some TDs who voted for this.

facehugger99

elperello wrote: »

Well off unaffected, less well off forced to modify their drinking or pay extra.

Of course it's unfortunate for the cheapslab brigade that they share the same issue wrt disposable income as the very young, who mup specifically targets.

Still, it's an incentive for them to improve their finances or cut down on their drinking, both of which will have benefits for them.

Don't see the issue tbh.

elperello

Yes I find this MUP nonsense offensive.

Dinner is on, work for the week finished, tax compliant, I am currently drinking a bottle of Perlenbacher. When the grub is up I'll have a couple of glasses of supermarket wine with that.

Whenever this MUP comes in I'll be forced to pay a levy to the supermarket and the producer/wholesaler of the drinks just to enjoy a simple pleasure.

For what?

Because the local waster is drinking himself to death?
Because some kids are hiding behind a bush somewhere drinking naggins?
Because some guy I don't even know is going to go home tonight and hit his wife?

How is my extra contribution to the drinks trade profits going to make Ireland a better place?

Mr. teddywinkles

elperello wrote: »

Yes I find this MUP nonsense offensive.

Dinner is on, work for the week finished, tax compliant, I am currently drinking a bottle of Perlenbacher. When the grub is up I'll have a couple of glasses of supermarket wine with that.

Whenever this MUP comes in I'll be forced to pay a levy to the supermarket and the producer/wholesaler of the drinks just to enjoy a simple pleasure.

For what?

Because the local waster is drinking himself to death?
Because some kids are hiding behind a bush somewhere drinking naggins?
Because some guy I don't even know is going to go home tonight and hit his wife?

How is my extra contribution to the drinks trade profits going to make Ireland a better place?

And guess what they'll still be doing it after this bill comes in.

elperello

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

And guess what they'll still be doing it after this bill comes in.

Sadly you are probably right which highlights the stupidity of this virtue signalling, neo-prohibitionist nonsense.

The Rape of Lucretia

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Without a doubt the snobbish thing I have ever read. What a thing to say.

Why, is it more snobbish than this, which just swaps the roles, but makes the same comparison of two classes :

Balanadan wrote: »

I would've thought that the biggest problem of alcohol abuse in Ireland these days isn't amongst those who can only afford to consume the cheapest of drink, but the middle class who sit down in the evenings after work for a glass of wine or a gin and tonic.

Anyway, you can paint it as snobbery if you wish, and while that loaded word is not used in the Dail, mup is clearly intended to reduce the alcohol consumption of those with lowest incomes, choosing the cheapest alcohol, who have been identified as most vulnerable to its harm. It is the responsibility of those more privileged in society to look after those who have not had the same advantages.

But this draws the wrong conclusion :

odyssey06 wrote: »

Ah is it just me or it that not the attitude underlying this MUP legislation?
You can drink as much as you want, once you can pay for it?
It's the slabs of beer this legislation is after, not your cru Bordeaux.

The biggest problem of excessive consumption is among the vulnerable who do consume the slabs a bargain beer. It is not among those drinking Bordeaux so the need to restrict that market is much much lower.
It should be restricted further too, and probably will be in time, but €50 for a decent bottle has a natural tendency to limit consumption, among even the better off sections of society.

kylith

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The biggest problem of excessive consumption is among the vulnerable who do consume the slabs a bargain beer. It is not among those drinking Bordeaux so the need to restrict that market is much much lower.

Absolute snobbish bolloxology. The biggest alcoholics I know are a well-off couple earning good money who will admit that they are incapable of going an evening without drinking, and would drink several bottles of wine a night before topping it off with good whiskey.

But because they're drinking top-shelf stuff rather than Tuborg that's grand, right? Or do you not give a shit about their health?

Reputable Rog

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Why, is it more snobbish than this, which just swaps the roles, but makes the same comparison of two classes :




Anyway, you can paint it as snobbery if you wish, and while that loaded word is not used in the Dail, mup is clearly intended to reduce the alcohol consumption of those with lowest incomes, choosing the cheapest alcohol, who have been identified as most vulnerable to its harm. It is the responsibility of those more privileged in society to look after those who have not had the same advantages.

But this draws the wrong conclusion :


The biggest problem of excessive consumption is among the vulnerable who do consume the slabs a bargain beer. It is not among those drinking Bordeaux so the need to restrict that market is much much lower.
It should be restricted further too, and probably will be in time, but €50 for a decent bottle has a natural tendency to limit consumption, among even the better off sections of society.

I believe a post of yours is contained in this link. It's amazing how you hold polar opposite views from thread to thread.
Every contribution you make is for the sake of trolling.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108280916

McMurphy

TRoL .

Winding people up on boards since 2015.

That's how he (t)rolls.

hatrickpatrick

Again, it's plainly obvious that they're not targeting alcoholics with this legislation but house party binge drinkers, primarily because those people cut into the VFI's profit marging by pre-drinking to avoid having to break the bank every Friday night to get pissed, and secondarily because those people treat the city like a city at night time on the weekends and not like a quiet rural location or suburb.

The alleged health concerns are, at the very most, a tertiary concern here. It's a load of BS, simply because they know that the health angle sells and is harder to oppose / easier to attack those who oppose it. This is about stopping people in the 18-25 age range from being able to have house party sessions before heading into town, which they do to avoid having to pay upwards of €50 for a decent night out every time they decide to go out, plain and simple.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

end of the road

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, it's plainly obvious that they're not targeting alcoholics with this legislation but house party binge drinkers, primarily because those people cut into the VFI's profit marging by pre-drinking to avoid having to break the bank every Friday night to get pissed, and secondarily because those people treat the city like a city at night time on the weekends and not like a quiet rural location or suburb.

The alleged health concerns are, at the very most, a tertiary concern here. It's a load of BS, simply because they know that the health angle sells and is harder to oppose / easier to attack those who oppose it. This is about stopping people in the 18-25 age range from being able to have house party sessions before heading into town, which they do to avoid having to pay upwards of €50 for a decent night out every time they decide to go out, plain and simple.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

i hope it all backfires.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Reputable Rog wrote: »

I believe a post of yours is contained in this link. It's amazing how you hold polar opposite views from thread to thread.
Every contribution you make is for the sake of trolling.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108280916

Absolutely. It’s so obvious, I’ve no idea how anyone takes that poster’s contributions seriously.

The Rape of Lucretia

Attack the post, not the poster, I think is the maxim.

And seriously, this is OK, but the reverse is not ? :

Balanadan wrote: »

I would've thought that the biggest problem of alcohol abuse in Ireland these days isn't amongst those who can only afford to consume the cheapest of drink, but the middle class who sit down in the evenings after work for a glass of wine or a gin and tonic.

realitykeeper

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

TRoL .

Winding people up on boards since 2015.

That's how he (t)rolls.

Not sure who you are referring to but not everyone who fundamentally disagrees with you is necessarily a troll.

realitykeeper

elperello wrote: »

Yes I find this MUP nonsense offensive.

Dinner is on, work for the week finished, tax compliant, I am currently drinking a bottle of Perlenbacher. When the grub is up I'll have a couple of glasses of supermarket wine with that.

Whenever this MUP comes in I'll be forced to pay a levy to the supermarket and the producer/wholesaler of the drinks just to enjoy a simple pleasure.

For what?

Because the local waster is drinking himself to death?
Because some kids are hiding behind a bush somewhere drinking naggins?
Because some guy I don't even know is going to go home tonight and hit his wife?

How is my extra contribution to the drinks trade profits going to make Ireland a better place?

By addressing the emboldened problems you mentioned (among other benefits.)

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

Because the local waster is drinking himself to death? Because some kids are hiding behind a bush somewhere drinking naggins? Because some guy I don't even know is going to go home tonight and hit his wife?

Minimum pricing is gonna tackle these social issues?

realitykeeper

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

And guess what they'll still be doing it after this bill comes in.

If the bill does not reform drunkards it will be because the MUP is set too low. Therefore the solution is to set it so high, drunkards will have no choice but to modify their drinking. Simple

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

If the bill does not reform drunkards it will be because the MUP is set too low. Therefore the solution is to set it so high, drunkards will have no choice but to modify their drinking.

What if these 'drunkards' have addiction problems with possible mental health issues, would altered pricing really help them, alter their behaviour?

Fann Linn

realitykeeper wrote: »

If the bill does not reform drunkards it will be because the MUP is set too low. Therefore the solution is to set it so high, drunkards will have no choice but to modify their drinking. Simple

Not a drunk, but I'll be heading up north pretty soon myself. Litres of gin and other spirits at £16 a ltr and bottles of wine from £3.20. Slabs of beer cheaper too before a MUP is applied.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Minimum pricing is gonna tackle these social issues?

You quoted something elperello posted, not me but to answer your question, a MUP will make the drink fueled social issues you refer to more expensive. With a high MUP they will be a lot more expensive.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

You quoted something elperello posted, not me but to answer your question, a MUP will make the drink fueled social issues you refer to more expensive. With a high MUP they will be a lot more expensive.

Does altered pricing truly change people's behaviour, particularly in relation to highly addictive substances?

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What if these 'drunkards' have addiction problems with possible mental health issues, would altered pricing really help them, alter their behaviour?

I often hear liberals describe addictions as "illnesses". If so, these "illnesses" have a cure I would recommend to the FDA. Place the patient on a remote desert island where they would have no access to their drug of choice and voila! They are cured! The drunks will no longer be drunk and the stoned will no longer be stoned. Only joking but it does illustrate that making the substance more difficult for the addict to attain will put brakes on their self destructive behaviour.

realitykeeper

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not a drunk, but I'll be heading up north pretty soon myself. Litres of gin and other spirits at £16 a ltr and bottles of wine from £3.20. Slabs of beer cheaper too before a MUP is applied.

You might need to apply for a visa before you travel.

facehugger99

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not a drunk, but I'll be heading up north pretty soon myself. Litres of gin and other spirits at £16 a ltr and bottles of wine from £3.20. Slabs of beer cheaper too before a MUP is applied.

You sound like you have a very refined palate.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote: »

I often hear liberals describe addictions as "illnesses". If so, these "illnesses" have a cure I would recommend to the FDA. Place the patient on a remote desert island where they would have no access to their drug of choice and voila! They are cured! The drunks will no longer be drunk and the stoned will no longer be stoned. Only joking but it does illustrate that making the substance more difficult for the addict to attain will put brakes on their self destructive behaviour.

please tell me, you re not an addiction counselor? you dont seem to understand this complex human behavior at all, in fact id say, you show incredible ignorance towards its understanding.

Fr Tod Umptious

realitykeeper wrote: »

I often hear liberals describe addictions as "illnesses". If so, these "illnesses" have a cure I would recommend to the FDA. Place the patient on a remote desert island where they would have no access to their drug of choice and voila! They are cured! The drunks will no longer be drunk and the stoned will no longer be stoned. Only joking but it does illustrate that making the substance more difficult for the addict to attain will put brakes on their self destructive behaviour.

And making it more difficult to get in the first place, with higher base prices, will help stop people becoming addicts in the first place.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

please tell me, you re not an addiction counselor? you dont seem to understand this complex human behavior at all, in fact id say, you show incredible ignorance towards its understanding.

What I understand is that addiction counselors have a vested interest in saying such things in order to justify their state funded profession. I think it would be better if the state stopped paying these people and let them persuade the addicts to set aside their some of their drink/drug money to pay for counselling.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]And making it more difficult to get in the first place, with higher base prices, will help stop people becoming addicts in the first place.

If that were true, we wouldn't have drug addicts in every part of Ireland addicted to drugs that are actually illegal.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote: »

What I understand is that addiction counselors have a vested interest in saying such things in order to justify their state funded profession. I think it would be better if the state stopped paying these people and let them persuade the addicts to set aside their some of their drink/drug money to pay for counselling.

so we should also prevent private addiction counselors from practicing to? you really dont have a clue of this stuff, do you!

VinLieger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

And making it more difficult to get in the first place, with higher base prices, will help stop people becoming addicts in the first place.

Yep cus thats worked so well with literally every illegal drug so far