Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

hatrickpatrick

cadaliac wrote: »

Apologies, it was mentioned here and I took it for granted .....
Can anyone provide a definite time line?

There isn't one, at least not one that's been announced. The report about it being introduced before Christmas originated in the Daily Fail, so...

patrickbrophy18

In any case, I just see this as another method of punishing the responsible majority for the actions of the irresponsible minority.

I can remember one report where a government official had the gaul to refer to the irresponsible minority as vulnerable. All of these government agendas conveniently blur the lines between vulnerable and irresponsible.

Also, the banning of alcohol advertisements is pure stupidity. Why should companies like Diageo have their profits compromised because some people cannot handle their liquor?

Unlike cigarettes, alcohol isn't spread through the air. Instead, irresponsible drinkers should be targeted individually.

Capt'n Midnight

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Yeah apparently it's to stop supermarkets selling 'cheap' alcohol

As if €1 a can is cheap alcohol

Aldi Kaliber costs a lot less than this.
And yet Aldi sell lots of other brands too some at multiples of the price.


If there was some evidence that increasing the price of alcohol to a fiver a pint would stop drinking ?

But no, in Mayo there is one pub for every 323 people and in Kerry it's one per 334 people. Because MUP works :rolleyes:

Leroy42

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Also, the banning of alcohol advertisements is pure stupidity. Why should companies like Diageo have their profits compromised because some people cannot handle their liquor?

Why should companies such as Diageo be allowed to make a profit from a product that causes such social ills as alcohol certainly does?

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Unlike cigarettes, alcohol isn't spread through the air. Instead, irresponsible drinkers should be targeted individually.

Targeted individually? How do you think they should do that? Maybe a chaperone for all potential problem drinkers? Assign a social worker to each person?

Governments cannot possibly target individuals on a societal issue such as this, the costs would be massive? Are you going to fund it? Would you be in favor of the guards entering pubs to determine who has had too much? Should they give a fine, or maybe a drinking ban.

And the effects of alcohol, as you rightly point out, is not the same as cigarettes. But there are plenty of well documented and research negative effects. Go visit an A&E, of a garda station and tell me that alcohol has no effects on either the person or the wider society. We have all done things when we have too much drink on us that we would never dream of doing when sober. Multiply that by thousands to start to see the impact.

This is even before we mention the terrible cost of lives that drink driving has had.

One can argue, quite rightly, that this law is nonsense and will no achieve any material change.

What one cannot do is try to argue that, as a society, drink is an issue and we need to look at ways and reducing the negative effects.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

Governments cannot possibly target individuals on a societal issue such as this, the costs would be massive? Are you going to fund it? Would you be in favor of the guards entering pubs to determine who has had too much? Should they give a fine, or maybe a drinking ban.

Governments can. In other countries laws are actually enforced, such as laws on holding bar responsible for serving intoxicated customers. And drink driving. Our guards fake breathlyser tests. Let's do something about that first before resorting to ineffectual nanny state nonsense - the last people it will affect are the worst abusers of alcohol.

Leroy42

odyssey06 wrote: »

Governments can. In other countries laws are actually enforced, such as laws on holding bar responsible for serving intoxicated customers. And drink driving. Our guards fake breathlyser tests. Let's do something about that first before resorting to ineffectual nanny state nonsense - the last people it will affect are the worst abusers of alcohol.

That is not targeting individuals. You, me or anyone can be stopped for a breath test, it is a wide net aimed at catching, and more so, deterring drink drivers.

So how should be deal with the problem drinkers? Drink cards that must be stamped so you can only buy so much at a time? But what about me and the party? Why should I have my amount limited?

And it is easy to say fine the bar, but to what extent? Would you be happy to see your local pub closed down for a period for numerous breaches? Who decides on which person has had too much to drink? Is it slurring words? Being a bit boisterous? What if they send there friends up to buy the drinks?

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is not targeting individuals. You, me or anyone can be stopped for a breath test, it is a wide net aimed at catching, and more so, deterring drink drivers.

So how should be deal with the problem drinkers? Drink cards that must be stamped so you can only buy so much at a time? But what about me and the party? Why should I have my amount limited?

And it is easy to say fine the bar, but to what extent? Would you be happy to see your local pub closed down for a period for numerous breaches? Who decides on which person has had too much to drink? Is it slurring words? Being a bit boisterous? What if they send there friends up to buy the drinks?

Drink driving laws are intended to target the individuals that are abusing alcohol, something with MUP does not do. They are targeted laws. MUP is not.
And untargeted law would be banning anyone from driving after pub closing time on the off chance some of them are drunk drivers.

I don't understand your concept of 'targeting individuals', so I am not sure what alternative solutions you are offering. You just keep repeating "we have an issue".

We have laws on being drunk and disorderly... how do those laws establish who is being drunk and disorderly? How is this different?
If the bar is repeatedly serving drunks, drunk drivers or underage then they should be held responsible and shut down.
In Australia there is mandatory state training for bar staff on this.

In the US bars are sued if a patron causes a drink driving accident on the way home.
In Ireland 40% of actual drink driving charges lead to a conviction.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Why don't they set a maximum price too?

The kind of prices some gougers are charging for pints of swill in Dublin is scandalous.

Leroy42

odyssey06 wrote: »

Drink driving laws are intended to target the individuals that are abusing alcohol, something with MUP does not do. They are targeted laws. MUP is not.
And untargeted law would be banning anyone from driving after pub closing time on the off chance some of them are drunk drivers.

I don't understand your concept of 'targeting individuals', so I am not sure what alternative solutions you are offering. You just keep repeating "we have an issue".

We have laws on being drunk and disorderly... how do those laws establish who is being drunk and disorderly? How is this different?
If the bar is repeatedly serving drunks, drunk drivers or underage then they should be held responsible and shut down.
In Australia there is mandatory state training for bar staff on this.

In the US bars are sued if a patron causes a drink driving accident on the way home.
In Ireland 40% of actual drink driving charges lead to a conviction.

Fine, I see the confusion. What I took the poster to mean by targeted was to individuals, rather than society. What I took that to mean was that the poster didn't want the rules changed but that those with problems would be targeted for help by the government.

In terms of drink driving, whilst of course only those that are found to be over the limit are dealt with, the method of that that each and every person can be stopped is not targeted, it is a blanket approach.

The issue is not that there are not laws already in place in terms of drunk and disorderly, but that as a society we don't want them carried out. Nobody wants their local bar shut down. Nobody wants the local offy to be closed.

Even in the courts, being drunk seems to be a valid excuse for committing crimes. Drink driving is seen as a mistake, something that simply happened, rather that a premeditated and planned criminal act.

facehugger99

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why don't they set a maximum price too?

The kind of prices some gougers are charging for pints of swill in Dublin is scandalous.

If only there was some sort of free-market set up where you could go somewhere else.

listermint

facehugger99 wrote: »

If only there was some sort of free-market set up where you could go somewhere else.

Erm, isnt Minimum pricing the antitheses of a free market....

To counter the point you were trying to make.

MerryHell

Just did a little analysis of the effect of minimum pricing on the drinks that I sometimes have and thought it would be interesting.

Can of Bud
Min Price=€1.70 ..... Currently €0.83 in Tescos = 5 cents per gram of alcohol

Bottle of Jameson
Min Price=€22.09 ..... Currently €23.00 in Tescos = 10 cents per gram of alcohol

Bottle of Bacardi
Min Price=€20.71 ..... Currently €17.00 in Tescos = 8 cents per gram of alcohol

Baileys
Min Price=€9.39 ..... Currently €13.00 in Tescos = 14 cents per gram of alcohol

Bottle of Wine
Min Price=€6.81 ..... Currently €9.00 in Tescos = 13 cents per gram of alcohol

When MUP takes effect the minimum price per gram will be 10 cents.

In short the only item that will be really affected by the legislation is Beer in supermarkets and maybe off licences. Spirits and Wines are usually priced in supermarkets well above the MUP prices anyway and prices in pubs are way above these for everything including beer.

At the moment the cheapest way by far to get jarred is by drinking Beer.
After this legislation comes in to effect it will make no difference as we will pay a minimum of 10 cents per gram no matter what we drink. This will , in my view, encourage people to drink more spirits which, in my experience, is not a good thing at all.

DS86DS

Our Government is turning into a Nanny State. It is none of these do gooders damn business what price shopkeepers want to sell alcohol at. They already have the option of how much they sell it at, and its up to the consumer whether he/ she want to buy at that price.

But of course the Nanny State thinks otherwise and that we have to be protected from ourselves whether it's alcohol pricing, the cost of cigarettes......or even whether or not we are allowed have chimneys in our houses


Yes, you heard that right. Thanks to Nanny State activists, we can no longer have a log, coal or turf fire in our homes anymore thanks to red tape and busybodies in the planning departments.

The days of relaxing beside the fire with a drink will be a thing of the past

No doubt these Nanny State nutjobs will be fighting to have salt and vinegar banned from takeaway food after they get bored of this campaign.

Spanish Eyes

This will all be parked until Brexit day or beyond.

Unless it has been passed by the Oireachtas and the Prez without me realising it!

Hotblack Desiato

Once MUP is implemented, in the run up to every future budget day the vintners association will be in the ear of politicians begging for it to be increased. Of course many politicians are themselves publicans. It's about the health of the on-trade, not the health of the public.

hatrickpatrick

I think we might be safe for a while

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/john-downing-health-minister-simon-harris-dreads-a-winter-of-discontent-which-could-stymie-his-political-career-37587816.html

John Downing: 'Health Minister Simon Harris dreads "a winter of discontent" which could stymie his political career'

With all this going on, he'd be absolutely mad to introduce a measure which is sure to leave him in the firing line of public opinion even among those currently indifferent, once they realise just how much more expensive their next house party or family reunion is going to be. Political suicide if it coincides with another HSE catastrophe.

DS86DS

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I think we might be safe for a while

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/john-downing-health-minister-simon-harris-dreads-a-winter-of-discontent-which-could-stymie-his-political-career-37587816.html

John Downing: 'Health Minister Simon Harris dreads "a winter of discontent" which could stymie his political career'

With all this going on, he'd be absolutely mad to introduce a measure which is sure to leave him in the firing line of public opinion even among those currently indifferent, once they realise just how much more expensive their next house party or family reunion is going to be. Political suicide if it coincides with another HSE catastrophe.

It's only a matter of time before they do. The Nanny State may take a rest now and again, but not for long. Certainly not when it is in the self righteous mode of saving people from themselves.

It's tyranny pure and simple. The price of alcohol including any thing else is the business of the buyer and seller. Certainly not the business of Big Government Nanny State fanatics.

Reputable Rog

Newstalk pushing their agenda this week with that cretin Cuddihy leading the charge with Ireland uncorked. Sadly our media has been highjacked by sanctimonious pontificating idiots.

elperello

DS86DS wrote: »

It's only a matter of time before they do. The Nanny State may take a rest now and again, but not for long. Certainly not when it is in the self righteous mode of saving people from themselves.

It's tyranny pure and simple. The price of alcohol including any thing else is the business of the buyer and seller. Certainly not the business of Big Government Nanny State fanatics.

Agreed, what we have is a reprieve and I suppose we should enjoy the current round of special offers while we can.

It seems to me that the Government will not want to spark off a mass exodus of shoppers across the border by going ahead with MUP now.

There would appear to be support for MUP in the Northern Ireland Assembly but they are currently out of business.

So Happy Christmas to the DUP who are saving us from MUP

Leroy42

Reputable Rog wrote: »

Newstalk pushing their agenda this week with that cretin Cuddihy leading the charge with Ireland uncorked. Sadly our media has been highjacked by sanctimonious pontificating idiots.

You honestly don't think that Ireland has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol? And that anyone who argues for reductions is a sanctimonious pontificating idiot?

DS86DS

Leroy42 wrote: »

You honestly don't think that Ireland has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol? And that anyone who argues for reductions is a sanctimonious pontificating idiot?

It's nobodys business what people decide to drink, or how much. People have enough problems, and indeed financial issues to worry about without a bunch of Nanny State do gooders coming along and trying to add extra difficulty to their lives

TallGlass

MerryHell wrote: »

At the moment the cheapest way by far to get jarred is by drinking Beer.
After this legislation comes in to effect it will make no difference as we will pay a minimum of 10 cents per gram no matter what we drink. This will , in my view, encourage people to drink more spirits which, in my experience, is not a good thing at all.

For any alcoholic the go to is spirits, beer takes time to drink and you'd have a few hours drinking. While as a naggin of vodka down the hatch and your off and the withdrawals have easied off, then if your not bolloxed it's a can or two and sip away on it or another naggin if they are cheaper than 8 cans.

The bigger issues come with spirits and abusing them this way. Amazingly, this policy is actively encouraging it. I drink beer, have seen what spirits do first hand I actively keep away from them.

This policy, I have said it before and will say it again does nothing for alcoholics or problematic drinkers, in fact I think it will push some problematic or borderline alcoholics into alcoholism due to spirits becoming a lower price, if someone gets a taste for them and are borderline, it's only going to get worse and lead to alcoholism. The exact thing this is apparently here to cut out, slowdown or whatever order of the day it's called.

patrickbrophy18

Leroy42 wrote: »

You honestly don't think that Ireland has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol? And that anyone who argues for reductions is a sanctimonious pontificating idiot?

The introduction of minimum pricing is the next best thing to a violation of civil liberties and is anti-competitive. It is also anti-free market.

When I think of people with an unhealthy relationship with alcohol, I think of those who are belligerent, who start fights for no reason or who engage in the so-called "knacker-drinking". While common, they are a minority.

However, you seem to think that all of us civilised drinkers should also be hit in the pocket for the actions of this minority.

It should also be noted that one of the underlying causes of alcohol related violence is the rugby/football hooliganism that is rammed down our throats by the school system. It turns people into hard-asses which is a dangerous cocktail (no pun intended) when mixed with alcohol.

hatrickpatrick

Leroy42 wrote: »

You honestly don't think that Ireland has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol? And that anyone who argues for reductions is a sanctimonious pontificating idiot?

Anyone who argues for reduction by coercion, IE restricting peoples' freedom of choice, is indeed a sanctimonious pontificating idiot.

DS86DS

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The introduction of minimum pricing is the next best thing to a violation of civil liberties and is anti-competitive. It is also anti-free market.

When I think of people with an unhealthy relationship with alcohol, I think of those who are belligerent, who start fights for no reason or who engage in the so-called "knacker-drinking". While common, they are a minority.

However, you seem to think that all of us civilised drinkers should also be hit in the pocket for the actions of this minority.

It should also be noted that one of the underlying causes of alcohol related violence is the rugby/football hooliganism that is rammed down our throats by the school system. It turns people into hard-asses which is a dangerous cocktail (no pun intended) when mixed with alcohol.

The crooks in the Dail are too in bed with vintners to want a free market in alcohol.

No doubt some of their publican buddies egged them on to introduce minimum alcohol pricing. Crying crocodile tears about how less people are going to pubs and instead buying cheaper alcohol in supermarkets.

It's not good enough for publicans in this country to engage in a competitive free market with supermarkets, and thus lower their excessively priced alcohol. They have to use their Dail friends to destroy any competition.

hatrickpatrick

Folks I know I've mentioned this a few times, but in all honesty for those who are bummed about this, I seriously urge you to get yourselves a basic home brewing starter kit from HomebrewCompany or HomebrewWest and give it a go. It'll cost around €70 for the equipment and ingredients for one 23L (roughly 40 pint bottles) batch, and no more than three or four days of your time over the course of about six weeks in order to make really nice stuff. The range of ingredient kits you can get as a beginner is absolutely spectacular and once you've spent your initial investment, the savings rack up big time. My last order from HBW cost €30 for two 40-pint kits, one of IPA and one of Citrus Ale, both at 5% alcohol and both tasting incredible, at least in my and my friends' admittedly hideously biased and egotistical opinions

Be annoyed about this because of the effect on society and the general restrictions on civil liberties, but if it's specifically your own pocket or your own Friday night you're worried about, help is at hand

the_syco

Leroy42 wrote: »

You honestly don't think that Ireland has an unhealthy relationship with alcohol? And that anyone who argues for reductions is a sanctimonious pontificating idiot?

Prohibition worked so well in the USA :rolleyes: People will just start selling home made booze.

jasper100

I fancied a couple of cans of bulmers the other night but its wasn't possible to buy a can on its own. I was however presented with the option of buying 24 cans for €20 and I ended up drinking them over 3 consecutive nights, just because they were there.

I'd be more inclined to ban discounted multibuys and people should be allowed buy anything between 1 and 24 cans at the same price.

the_syco

jasper100 wrote: »

I fancied a couple of cans of bulmers the other night but its wasn't possible to buy a can on its own. I was however presented with the option of buying 24 cans for €20 and I ended up drinking them over 3 consecutive nights, just because they were there.

I'd be more inclined to ban discounted multibuys and people should be allowed buy anything between 1 and 24 cans at the same price.

Multibuys are generally loss leaders, designed to entice the customer to buy the cheap drink, who will then buy other items whilst in the shop.

10000maniacs

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why should companies such as Diageo be allowed to make a profit from a product that causes such social ills as alcohol certainly does?



Targeted individually? How do you think they should do that? Maybe a chaperone for all potential problem drinkers? Assign a social worker to each person?

Governments cannot possibly target individuals on a societal issue such as this, the costs would be massive? Are you going to fund it? Would you be in favor of the guards entering pubs to determine who has had too much? Should they give a fine, or maybe a drinking ban.

And the effects of alcohol, as you rightly point out, is not the same as cigarettes. But there are plenty of well documented and research negative effects. Go visit an A&E, of a garda station and tell me that alcohol has no effects on either the person or the wider society. We have all done things when we have too much drink on us that we would never dream of doing when sober. Multiply that by thousands to start to see the impact.

This is even before we mention the terrible cost of lives that drink driving has had.

One can argue, quite rightly, that this law is nonsense and will no achieve any material change.

What one cannot do is try to argue that, as a society, drink is an issue and we need to look at ways and reducing the negative effects.

The only people responsible for drinking themselves to oblivion are the individuals themselves.
There is going to be such a backlash against these nanny state snowflake views of collective responsibility for all of society's ills.
Look what has happened in France and the UK. The pendulum is swinging its way back to hit all these delusional snowflakes in the ass.
I would love to see the reaction if Macron introduced minimum pricing in France.