Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Fann Linn

facehugger99 wrote: »

You sound like you have a very refined palate.

Thanks, I do. In this thread however we are speaking about minimum prices.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

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

Who said anything about preventing addiction counselors from practicing? I said they should practice.

Doctor Jimbob

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.

Hmm.

McMurphy

realitykeeper wrote: »

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

Of course not, and I would have no interest in posting on a site that everyone has the same views, aka an echo chamber.

However, where a poster has polar views on the same subject in different forums/threads as earlier demonstrated, I can only reach the conclusion that someone is on the windup, or - trolling.

cadaliac

realitykeeper wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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.

I lol'd  - thanks for that.
So, to re-cap - stop state funded counselling, keep private counselling  - am I right here?

realitykeeper

cadaliac wrote: »

I lol'd  - thanks for that.
So, to re-cap - stop state funded counselling, keep private counselling  - am I right here?

Spot on.

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.

realitykeeper wrote:

Spot on.

I wonder, would the above thinking also possibly occur in the private sector?

Geuze

If cheap drink is the problem, then society should be breaking down in Germany.

Cheapest 50cl can = 29cent
70cl spirits for 4.99

50cl beer in some pubs from 2.00

Yet they are a leading exporting nation, with low unemployment and low youth unemployment.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I wonder, would the above thinking also possibly occur in the private sector?

Yes it would and I would have no problem whatsoever with drunkards and junkies dipping into their drink and drug money to pay for their treatment.

realitykeeper

Geuze wrote: »

If cheap drink is the problem, then society should be breaking down in Germany.

Cheapest 50cl can = 29cent
70cl spirits for 4.99

50cl beer in some pubs from 2.00

Yet they are a leading exporting nation, with low unemployment and low youth unemployment.

They are a leading exporting nation because work is high on their priority list.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Geuze wrote: »

If cheap drink is the problem, then society should be breaking down in Germany.

Cheapest 50cl can = 29cent
70cl spirits for 4.99

50cl beer in some pubs from 2.00

Yet they are a leading exporting nation, with low unemployment and low youth unemployment.

Germany doesn't have the same "drink" culture Ireland has. Berlin, anyway. People go out and do different things that aren't centered around drinking. I drink far less since I moved here even though it's actually cheaper.

The low unemployment varies from district to district: in Berlin it's a bit higher.

Geuze

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Germany doesn't have the same "drink" culture Ireland has. Berlin, anyway. People go out and do different things that aren't centered around drinking. I drink far less since I moved here even though it's actually cheaper.

OK, so then we need to change our "drink culture", rather than our prices?

Fann Linn

Geuze wrote: »

OK, so then we need to change our "drink culture", rather than our prices?

That suggestion would be anaethema to every vintner.

The Rape of Lucretia

Geuze wrote: »

OK, so then we need to change our "drink culture", rather than our prices?

Changing prices is one lever to change drink culture.
Its not the absolute price relative to Germany or Italy or where ever. Its about raising it to put downward pressure on demand.

dubrov

Much more effective to ban alcohol sponsorship (particularly sports). That won't be hastening anytime soon with parish pump politics

Fr Tod Umptious

dubrov wrote: »

Much more effective to ban alcohol sponsorship (particularly sports). That won't be hastening anytime soon with parish pump politics

I believe it's part of the bill actually.
A Healy Rae was bemoaning the fact that a local pub (his) could no longer to indelibly linked to the local football team

Leroy42

dubrov wrote: »

Much more effective to ban alcohol sponsorship (particularly sports). That won't be hastening anytime soon with parish pump politics

But to accept that one needs to accept that advertising has an impact.

There are plenty of posts on this thread that would fundamentally disagree that sponsorship or advertising has any impact on the levels of alcohol. In the main, many seem to be of the opinion that all it does is move tastes from one brand to another.

So you would be financially hitting sporting events and the like for no benefit.

The alternative is that advertising does have an impact and as such drinks promotions (such as price) as a part of the solution.

ThunbergsAreGo

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Changing prices is one lever to change drink culture.
Its not the absolute price relative to Germany or Italy or where ever. Its about raising it to put downward pressure on demand.

Despite it being proven to being relatively inelastic

Would that not suggest we try other measures?

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

Yes it would and I would have no problem whatsoever with drunkards and junkies dipping into their drink and drug money to pay for their treatment.

So private sector vested interest is better than public sector vested interest, and would help those with addiction problems by?

The Rape of Lucretia

naughtb4 wrote: »

Despite it being proven to being relatively inelastic

Would that not suggest we try other measures?

The inelasticty does not deter in the slightest.

Sure, other methods, bus as well as.

weldoninhio

realitykeeper wrote: »

They are a leading exporting nation because work is high on their priority list.

Perhaps we should put in a MDA (maximum dole allowance) and see if we can push work higher onto the Irish people priority list??

Geuze

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Changing prices is one lever to change drink culture.
Its not the absolute price relative to Germany or Italy or where ever. Its about raising it to put downward pressure on demand.

If the demand for alcohol is inelastic / not very responsive to price changes, then higher prices won't have much effect.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So private sector vested interest is better than public sector vested interest, and would help those with addiction problems by?

Yes private is better than public and those with addiction get help via treatment.

StudentDad

I rarely go to the pub. The prices are hilarious. Nevermind the cost of taxis etc., as there are no buses where I live. Up to now I've been throwing the odd few bottles of beer into the trolley etc. I suppose I'll not bother with that either. So, beer is right out and many of the bottles of minerals that I used to buy have been contaminated with artificial sweeteners. I suppose I'll save up all the cash I would have spent here on these products and go to NI. I have to go up there anyway in the near future. Let's just hope Brexit doesn't go completely sideways or it could be back to the 80's

irishproduce

When does minimum pricing come in so, how long have we to stock pile
When are the labels going to change on the bottles?

Capt'n Midnight

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Changing prices is one lever to change drink culture.
Its not the absolute price relative to Germany or Italy or where ever. Its about raising it to put downward pressure on demand.

So why not increase excise then and ringfence the money for health ?

The Rape of Lucretia

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So why not increase excise then and ringfence the money for health ?

Indeed. Do that too.

The Rape of Lucretia

Geuze wrote: »

If the demand for alcohol is inelastic / not very responsive to price changes, then higher prices won't have much effect.

Which is not a reason to not do it. Because it is not as effective a measure, even if somewhat effective, is not a reason to not use the measure at all.

Some cancer drugs are only effective in 30 or40% of cases. No one says they should be administered because they arent fully effective.

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Which is not a reason to not do it. Because it is not as effective a measure, even if somewhat effective, is not a reason to not use the measure at all.

Some cancer drugs are only effective in 30 or40% of cases. No one says they should be administered because they arent fully effective.

Regardless of their effectiveness medications should only taken by those who suffer from illness.

MUP is a blunt medicine applied to people who suffer no ill effects at all.

hatrickpatrick

Well, this is embarrassing Viva la sesh :cool: