Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

hatrickpatrick

realitykeeper wrote: »

There is a lot wrong with being a drunkard and the wanton indulgences of the flesh.

There's nothing wrong with anything which does not directly impact a non-consenting party.

elperello

dense wrote: »

Something I've noticed is that it seems to be getting more difficult to buy smaller quantities of beer at an off licence.



Years ago there was always the fairly harmless little six packs of chubby bottles, now it's hard to find a pack that contains less than 8× 500ml cans in some places.



The same thing happened with cigarettes, 10s were outlawed on some flaky scientific basis, yet paracetamol quantities were regulated downwards for health reasons, whilst we now have 25 packs of cigarettes available....




There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the messages being promoted.



Surely simply banning the sale of "slabs" of beer and 8 packs would be a basic first step to reducing "over consumption"?

In my experience problem drinkers often tend to buy their drink in smaller quantities.

Street drinkers are seldom seen with a case of beer. Young women seem to like naggins to fit in the handbag. Young lads seem to favour six packs.

As for banning 8 packs or cases of 24 I could not agree with that. Just get it to a store near me at the right price and I'll decide what to buy. You see I'm a responsible adult who doesn't need to be minded.

There is far too much emphasis on the point of purchase. It is how you drink that can lead to problems not how you buy it or the price paid.

Richard Hillman

irishproduce wrote: »

Anyone, when is the MUP coming into effect and when will the labels be on bottles?

There's no way they will enact it before a general election

dense

elperello wrote: »

In my experience problem drinkers often tend to buy their drink in smaller quantities.

Street drinkers are seldom seen with a case of beer. Young women seem to like naggins to fit in the handbag. Young lads seem to favour six packs.

As for banning 8 packs or cases of 24 I could not agree with that. Just get it to a store near me at the right price and I'll decide what to buy. You see I'm a responsible adult who doesn't need to be minded.

There is far too much emphasis on the point of purchase. It is how you drink that can lead to problems not how you buy it or the price paid.

Yes and no. Agree with your observations about problem drinkers.


But I don't think we should be "normalising" the purchase of slabs of beer.


The quantity argument can and is applied to any mind altering commodity which is regulated.

elperello

dense wrote: »

Yes and no. Agree with your observations about problem drinkers.


But I don't think we should be "normalising" the purchase of slabs of beer.


The quantity argument can and is applied to any mind altering commodity which is regulated.

I don't think a can bought in a case of 24 does more harm than one bought in a six pack.

Fr Tod Umptious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with anything which does not directly impact a non-consenting party.

Many a non consenting party are directly impacted by alcohol abuse

weldoninhio

dense wrote: »

Yes and no. Agree with your observations about problem drinkers.


But I don't think we should be "normalising" the purchase of slabs of beer.


The quantity argument can and is applied to any mind altering commodity which is regulated.

I bought an 8 pack of beer on Friday night. Still have seven left. No idea how I haven’t drank them all and gone scavenging for more.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Many a non consenting party are directly impacted by alcohol abuse

If someone is being seriously impacted by alcohol abuse, relying on a measure as indirect as this isn't even bolting the stable door after the horse has legged it... it's like trying to tackle speeding by putting up VRT on higher spec cars. It's a nonsense.
There are already lots of laws on drink driving, being drunk and disorderly, where you can and cannot drink. Our government and state is incapable of actually dealing with those who break the law, the best they can do is a joke measure like this which causes most inconvenience to the law abiding majority. It's a policy of the pathetic, for the pathetic, by the pathetic.

dense

weldoninhio wrote: »

I bought an 8 pack of beer on Friday night. Still have seven left.

Could never see the attraction or the point of just having one drink! Might as well have a cup of coffee.

weldoninhio

dense wrote: »

Could never see the attraction or the point of just having one drink! Might as well have a cup of coffee.

I was having a curry last night and it was the only cold fizzy drink in the house. If there was any minerals I wouldn’t have bothered with the beer

realitykeeper

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not claiming the hse is wonderful. I realise it's far from perfect. Just replying to your post where I had a totally different experience to your own. Nothing else.

I did not have an experience there. I note your experience was different to the hoards of non stop complainers.

realitykeeper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with anything which does not directly impact a non-consenting party.

But drunkards do impact on the lives of others. Also, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

odyssey06

realitykeeper wrote: »

But drunkards do impact on the lives of others. Also, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Only people drunk on supermarket wine? Never people who got drunk in a pub?
Or, presumably, water that has been turned into wine in one of the approx 40 miracles in the Bible - would Simon Harris want to charge such as individual with some sort of code violation for evading minimum pricing?

Reputable Rog

realitykeeper wrote: »

But drunkards do impact on the lives of others. Also, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Interesting to see you liking your own posts.

odyssey06

dense wrote: »

Could never see the attraction or the point of just having one drink! Might as well have a cup of coffee.

As part of an 'experience' it's a popular thing...

• A glass of wine with food, or a beer if it's pizza / smokey BBQ food / fish and chips.
• Opening a beer as you turn on the second half of the 'ball game'.
• A warming irish coffee \ port \ hot whiskey.
• Winding down with a single malt \ sipping whiskey \ powerful red and a good book \ DVD \ CD.

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Many a non consenting party are directly impacted by alcohol abuse

Not by every individual's alcohol abuse though. If an individual gets drunk alone, at home, doesn't leave his or her house and KOs in bed, before waking up in the morning, making a hangover breakfast and writing the previous night off, nobody is harmed but that particular individual. The existence of even one such individual is enough to make increasing that individual's cost of living their preferred lifestyle an unfair and unjustified policy decision.

hatrickpatrick

realitykeeper wrote: »

But drunkards do impact on the lives of others.

Only some drunkards, not all.

Also, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Not everyone believes in a holy spirit. To some, life itself is a consequence of mere random chance and chemical happenstance.

realitykeeper

odyssey06 wrote: »

Only people drunk on supermarket wine? Never people who got drunk in a pub?
Or, presumably, water that has been turned into wine in one of the approx 40 miracles in the Bible - would Simon Harris want to charge such as individual with some sort of code violation for evading minimum pricing?

For the umpteenth time, the place of purchase is irrelevant and I don`t speak for Simon Harris.

realitykeeper

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Interesting to see you liking your own posts.

The like option is not available for my own posts. Shudda gone to specsavers.

realitykeeper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Only some drunkards, not all.

The fact that only some drunk drivers kill is not a reason to legalized drunken driving and by the same token, drunkenness generally is a bad thing.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To some, life itself is a consequence of mere random chance and chemical happenstance.

They only think that.

odyssey06

realitykeeper wrote: »

For the umpteenth time, the place of purchase is irrelevant and I don`t speak for Simon Harris.

This is a thread about minimum alcohol pricing. The place of purchase is entirely relevant. If you keep coming out with general anti-alcohol comments that do nothing to specifically justify minimum pricing, it will be challenged on that basis every time.
You bring the Holy Spirit into this thread but your only response when the miracle at Canaan is brought up is that you don't speak for Simon Harris??? If you believe in the Holy Spirit, then you must believe in the miracle at Canaan, and that God wants us to enjoy ourselves and celebrate using alcoholic beverages.

odyssey06

Sidebar question, does minimum alcohol pricing affect the wholesale price?
If a publican or restaurant is buying from a wholesaler, could it impact how much they have to pay?

I know there is anecdotal evidence of them buying direct from supermarket, so obviously that would be impacted.

andekwarhola

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Like it or not, marketing works. It may or may not work on you, but taking the population as a whole it does work. There's a reason Heineken is substantially dearer than Dutch Gold and it's not because of taxation or the ingredients.

Fair point but I wasn't talking about the likes of Heineken, Guinness, Carlsberg which are all drinks that will be in the sights of the act given the way they're sold in slab deals. They're supposedly 'premium' brands that are already been sold in deals as low as 90c a can.

I meant that some people are intimating that craft beer off-sales will also see a correpsonding rise in price which I'm not so sure about as , outside of short date sales, they're not sold in the same bullk deals and I'd feel that many are operating close to the top of what people are willing to pay as it is.

In fact, if popular macro beers get shoved up to prices that are closer to more mainstream crafts like O'Haras and Rye River, you might well see more drinkers just deciding to take a punt on the latter. You can get many of the latter drinks on 4 for 10 deals or just under 2 quid a pop for stuff like LIDL's craft range.

If the cheapest you can get a can of Heineken for will be around 2 quid, that scenario could well come about. You may be underestimating why a lot of people drink the likes of Heineken: it's often not because it's percieved as premium, but that's its beer available in cheap deals.

Reputable Rog

realitykeeper wrote: »

The like option is not available for my own posts. Shudda gone to specsavers.

Either you've several usernames or your part of a highly organised trolling operation.

realitykeeper

odyssey06 wrote: »

This is a thread about minimum alcohol pricing. The place of purchase is entirely relevant. If you keep coming out with general anti-alcohol comments that do nothing to specifically justify minimum pricing, it will be challenged on that basis every time.

The MUP will apply regardless of the place of purchase, thus rendering the place of purchase entirely irrelevant. Now kindly stop talking about irrelevant things like the place of purchase, need I remind you, this thread is about the MUP.

odyssey06 wrote: »

You bring the Holy Spirit into this thread but your only response when the miracle at Canaan is brought up is that you don't speak for Simon Harris??? If you believe in the Holy Spirit, then you must believe in the miracle at Canaan, and that God wants us to enjoy ourselves and celebrate using alcoholic beverages.

You asked me to conjecture on how Simon Harris might respond to a miracle like the one at Canaan and I pointed out that I don`t speak for Simon Harris. What is so difficult to understand about that? As for enjoying alcoholic beverages, that can be done without getting drunk. Indeed, if the people who are complaining about the proposed MUP, consumed alcohol in a more moderate way (or not at all), they would save money even after taking the MUP into consideration.

realitykeeper

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Either you've several usernames or your part of a highly organised trolling operation.

Wrong on both counts.

Reputable Rog

realitykeeper wrote: »

Wrong on both counts.

Must be the so called 'Holy Spirit' or a deceased Palestinian evangelical so or some other hocus pocus.

elperello

I reckon the market for craft beers is almost exclusively people who are established beer drinkers.
It is a premium low volume product and unlikely to be a beginners choice.

Established beer drinkers will try craft beers but tend to drink one of the mainstream/own brands as a regular beer. Most will have found a mainstream/own brand that suits them. They then push the boat out buying craft beers to try out or for special occasions.

If the price of the mainstream/own goes up to €2 they will have less money to try out the more expensive craft beer. Buying the craft beer at €3 means less beer and beer is what they like.

kylith

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.

Do you really think that addicts are likely to take money away from their addiction for counselling? Do you have zero idea about what addiction is and how it works?

dense wrote: »

The same thing happened with cigarettes, 10s were outlawed on some flaky scientific basis, yet paracetamol quantities were regulated downwards for health reasons, whilst we now have 25 packs of cigarettes available....

Gods, that bugged me. At the time that came in I was in the habit of getting a bit of weed now and then. Not being able to get a small pouch of tobacco meant that rather than not buying it I bought and smoked more because I had already made the decision to buy, but I wasn't able to buy the smaller amount of tobacco that I wanted.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The MUP will apply regardless of the place of purchase, thus rendering the place of purchase entirely irrelevant. Now kindly stop talking about irrelevant things like the place of purchase, need I remind you, this thread is about the MUP.

But it won't be applied in pubs, will it? Which means that the place of purchase is relevant.

realitykeeper

kylith wrote: »

Do you really think that addicts are likely to take money away from their addiction for counselling? Do you have zero idea about what addiction is and how it works?

Not unless they are sufficiently desperate or have had a major paradigm shift. In other words, the free market demand for such services is likely to be limited. The addiction councilors could go back to college and become engineers or something that might offer more lucrative returns on the open market. Taxpayers should not be propping these people up or paying for other people`s mistakes.