Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

ollkiller

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?

Yes there are people who have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. I don't though. Why should i pay more for my few bottles of beer because other people are addicted to alcohol. Will all the problems of drinking be sorted when this comes in. Ya right.

Fr Tod Umptious

the_syco wrote: »

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

No one ever suggested prohibition.

No one has even suggested reduced availability.

All that is in the bill is reducing visibility through reduced advertising and sponsorship and (sometime God only knows when) increased pricing.

ohnonotgmail

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No one ever suggested prohibition.

No one has even suggested reduced availability.

All that is in the bill is reducing visibility through reduced advertising and sponsorship and (sometime God only knows when) increased pricing.

and the increased pricing will have zero effect on problem drinking.

Fr Tod Umptious

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and the increased pricing will have zero effect on problem drinking.

Time will be the judge of that.

Like the way smoking levels have declined a reduction in alcohol consumption would be a long term process.

VinLieger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Time will be the judge of that.

Like the way smoking levels have declined a reduction in alcohol consumption would be a long term process.

You mean like alcohol consumption is already reducing regardless of pricing? I really hate that this fact is constantly dismissed and ignored by the pious nimby's in this discussion.

Doctor Jimbob

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Time will be the judge of that.

Like the way smoking levels have declined a reduction in alcohol consumption would be a long term process.

Any source for how much of the smoking decline is due to increased costs rather than better education about the harm they cause?

Fr Tod Umptious

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Any source for how much of the smoking decline is due to increased costs rather than better education about the harm they cause?

No idea, but reduced advertising and visibility were very much part of the anti-smoking initiatives as they are with this bill.

In actually fact the pricing element of this bill has been kicked so far down the road it’s not even in the timeline at this point.

The tile of the thread is way off

Minimum alcohol pricing is way off.

Fr Tod Umptious

VinLieger wrote: »

You mean like alcohol consumption is already reducing regardless of pricing? I really hate that this fact is constantly dismissed and ignored by the pious nimby's in this discussion.

Good that it is, but why stop there?, What’s wrong with reducing it further ?

ohnonotgmail

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Time will be the judge of that.

Like the way smoking levels have declined a reduction in alcohol consumption would be a long term process.

well no you generally implement things that you have a reason to think will work rather than trying something and hoping for the best. The only interests the increase will serve is the vintners. It was their idea after all.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No idea, but reduced advertising and visibility were very much part of the anti-smoking initiatives as they are with this bill.

The counterfeit cigarette sellers around D1 are very visible.
Zero advertising costs, and zero tax coming back to the state.

MerryHell

ollkiller wrote: »

Yes there are people who have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. I don't though. Why should i pay more for my few bottles of beer because other people are addicted to alcohol. Will all the problems of drinking be sorted when this comes in. Ya right.

Exactly - Jacking up the price won't result in addicts drinking less. If it did then they would'nt be Addicts!

VinLieger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Good that it is, but why stop there?, What’s wrong with reducing it further ?

Because it wont reduce it for the problem drinkers how many times does this need to be pointed out to you? It will just punish those of us who drink responsibly and like to enjoy ourselves every now and again.


Also how do you know this wont change that trend and so that consumption increases? The current trend is for less consumption and your blind assumption is that this cannot possibly affect that negatively at all is incredibly naive.

There are multiple plausible scenarios for such a thing to happen.

TallGlass

TallGlass wrote: »

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.

Rubbish. Your body has to process alcohol wherever it comes from. 6 cans at 4.3% is 129mls of alcohol. A half-bottle of vodka at 37.5% is 131mls of alcohol. People don't realise how much they're drinking when drinking beer/wine. They might not get pissed but it still gets washed through the liver.

Doctor Jimbob

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No idea, but reduced advertising and visibility were very much part of the anti-smoking initiatives as they are with this bill.

In actually fact the pricing element of this bill has been kicked so far down the road it’s not even in the timeline at this point.

The tile of the thread is way off

Minimum alcohol pricing is way off.

Fair enough, but again, is there any hard proof that they work? Is it not equally likely that more and more people are seeing the harm cigarettes can cause and choosing not to smoke because of that?

I'm not denying the possibility you could be right, but unless you have solid proof to back it up then your guess is as good as mine.

odyssey06 wrote: »

The counterfeit cigarette sellers around D1 are very visible.
Zero advertising costs, and zero tax coming back to the state.

That's a good point too, legal sales of cigarettes have gone well done, but there's no way to track counterfeits reliably.

odyssey06

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's a good point too, legal sales of cigarettes have gone well done, but there's no way to track counterfeits reliably.

Plus the people coming back from Spain with half a suitcase full of cigarettes for their own use. The figures for cigarettes sold in Ireland are only half the equation when it comes to what's actually consumed.

ohnonotgmail

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Fair enough, but again, is there any hard proof that they work? Is it not equally likely that more and more people are seeing the harm cigarettes can cause and choosing not to smoke because of that?

I'm not denying the possibility you could be right, but unless you have solid proof to back it up then your guess is as good as mine.



That's a good point too, legal sales of cigarettes have gone well done, but there's no way to track counterfeits reliably.

standing outside the moore street entrance to the Ilac center in dublin will give you a fair idea.

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No one has even suggested reduced availability.

A huge price hike is reduced availability, for many people.

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Good that it is, but why stop there?, What’s wrong with reducing it further ?

If done through coercive measures? Everything. We're supposed to live in a free society where adults are allowed to make their own lifestyle choices rather than being forced or corralled towards certain ones through coercive measures such as prohibitive price increases.

listermint

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?

no because the facts indicate we have reductions year on year for over a decade and the lowest consumption amongst our teenagers in comparison to Europe.

But sure dont let a little thing like details get in the way of 'your opinion' maan.

Its actual hard to fathom someone who talks about Donald Trumps fake news, spreading fake news about Irelands problems with alcohol intake.

Look at the figures buddy, not your personal viewpoint.

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

no because the facts indicate we have reductions year on year for over a decade and the lowest consumption amongst our teenagers in comparison to Europe.

But sure dont let a little thing like details get in the way of 'your opinion' maan.

Its actual hard to fathom someone who talks about Donald Trumps fake news, spreading fake news about Irelands problems with alcohol intake.

Look at the figures buddy, not your personal viewpoint.

Facts? Despite numberous replies to my post, not one poster has been able to show me facts that show that me assertion that we have an issue as being incorrect. People calling other nimbys etc does not an argument make.

So we are at the bottom or the top half in terms of alcoholic intake?

Anything that has us higher than the average means we are above the norm, hence not normal. Show we the reports that show we are now below the norm? And even if we are moving towards the lower half, that in of itself doesn't mean anything other than other countries are worse. But just because the man beside you drinks more doesn't mean you don't have a problem.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/irish-women-ranked-in-top-10-for-alcohol-consumption-study-finds-1.3605863

https://www.drinkaware.ie/latest/ireland-tops-list-with-the-highest-rate-of-pre-drinking

So simply because the problem has improved doesn't mean it has gone away.

BarryD2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A huge price hike is reduced availability, for many people.

I don't think so. If people are accustomed to regular purchase of booze, price tinkering will do little to change their purchasing. Other things will take the hit.

You'd have to double, triple the price of fags and booze to really have an impact and be prepared to stamp down ruthlessly on under the counter / counterfeit illegal sales. But who wants to live in a police state?

You'd be better off tackling it at the health service end of things. Anyone requiring treatment for alcohol, smoking, illegal drug related issues to the back of the queue and let natural selection reduce the problem.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

Facts? Despite numberous replies to my post, not one poster has been able to show me facts that show that me assertion that we have an issue as being incorrect. People calling other nimbys etc does not an argument make.

So we are at the bottom or the top half in terms of alcoholic intake?

Anything that has us higher than the average means we are above the norm, hence not normal. Show we the reports that show we are now below the norm?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/irish-women-ranked-in-top-10-for-alcohol-consumption-study-finds-1.3605863

https://w

ww.drinkaware.ie/latest/ireland-tops-list-with-the-highest-rate-of-pre-drinking

So simply because the problem has improved doesn't mean it has gone away.

Ah there you are with your pretend incremental improvements.


https://www.thejournal.ie/teenage-drinking-ireland-4254933-Sep2018/

Irish 15-year-old boys were more likely to drink on a weekly basis but were still among the least likely to do so across Europe at just 5% – down from 14% in 2002. Only boys in Iceland and Norway were found to drink less regularly than their Irish peers.

least likely @ just 5%...


If thats not stark against your no doubt predisposed opinion, i dont know what is.


As for DrinkAware they are an advocacy group for this whole mess i trust their website as much as i do the telegraph on brexit.

Spanish Eyes

I doubt very much that if and when MUP is introduced it will suddenly result in many people flocking back to pubs. Does anyone else think this will happen?

I'd rather spend a few bob more for my favourite wine/beer in the off license, come home, get a take away and enjoy a few drinks in my own comfortable home.

To get to a pub doesn't always mean a walk down the road, and indeed you could not even expect a free packet of crisps or peanuts to accompany your grog, and you also have to suffer watching some inane horse racing shyte or some other mind numbing stuff on the twenty tvs around the place.

I don't think it will change things that much TBH. But then again I am not a pub person anyway. Those that are will still go, but those that don't really relish the pub scene (golden oldies like myself), will just carry on regardless.

listermint

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I doubt very much that if and when MUP is introduced it will suddenly result in many people flocking back to pubs. Does anyone else think this will happen?

I'd rather spend a few bob more for my favourite wine/beer in the off license, come home, get a take away and enjoy a few drinks in my own comfortable home.

To get to a pub doesn't always mean a walk down the road, and indeed you could not even expect a free packet of crisps or peanuts to accompany your grog, and you also have to suffer watching some inane horse racing shyte or some other mind numbing stuff on the twenty tvs around the place.

I don't think it will change things that much TBH. But then again I am not a pub person anyway. Those that are will still go, but those that don't really relish the pub scene (golden oldies like myself), will just carry on regardless.

Why should you pay more?

Specifically .

jasper100

BarryD2 wrote: »

I don't think so. If people are accustomed to regular purchase of booze, price tinkering will do little to change their purchasing. Other things will take the hit.

I disagree. As I said earlier I fancied a few bulmers recently, but price tinkering (offering a cheap 24 can multibuy to get people in the door to purchase groceries) enticed me to buy way more alcohol, so yes price tinkering will affect change.

odyssey06

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I doubt very much that if and when MUP is introduced it will suddenly result in many people flocking back to pubs. Does anyone else think this will happen?
I'd rather spend a few bob more for my favourite wine/beer in the off license, come home, get a take away and enjoy a few drinks in my own comfortable home.
To get to a pub doesn't always mean a walk down the road, and indeed you could not even expect a free packet of crisps or peanuts to accompany your grog, and you also have to suffer watching some inane horse racing shyte or some other mind numbing stuff on the twenty tvs around the place.
I don't think it will change things that much TBH. But then again I am not a pub person anyway. Those that are will still go, but those that don't really relish the pub scene (golden oldies like myself), will just carry on regardless.

You might be right in terms of pub v home, but the LVA seem to think everyone is desperate for the drunk and the only thing keeping them out of their fine establishments offering a wide range of entertainments is the cheap bottle at home.
Even with MUP it'll still be a lot cheaper to drink at home - initially.
But the concern would be it'll be ramped up every year.

Spanish Eyes

listermint wrote: »

Why should you pay more?

Specifically .

Well maybe you are right there..... I would choose products that may not be that much affected by MUP alright.

But I still wonder if people will flock to pubs, which seems to be the object of the exercise here! I doubt it myself, but anyway.

MerryHell

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I doubt very much that if and when MUP is introduced it will suddenly result in many people flocking back to pubs. Does anyone else think this will happen?

No It won't because the cost of Alcohol in the supermarkets will still be less than half of what is is in the pubs.

A can of beer will be €1.70 compared to a pint which is at least €4.00 in the pub.(haven't been in one in years).

It will still be cheaper to drink at home - but about 40%-70% dearer than it is now depending on whether you are availing of special deals/multi buys or not.

Spirits prices won't be affected.

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

Ah there you are with your pretend incremental improvements.


https://www.thejournal.ie/teenage-drinking-ireland-4254933-Sep2018/



least likely @ just 5%...


If thats not stark against your no doubt predisposed opinion, i dont know what is.


As for DrinkAware they are an advocacy group for this whole mess i trust their website as much as i do the telegraph on brexit.

Yet you give no evidence at all to back up your position that Ireland does not have an issue with alcohol.

Drinkaware is a drinks body funded org, so if anything they are likely to reduce the numbers, but either way they are just a sample. There are hundreds of studies done, I am not going to go and post links to all of them since you completely ignored the ones I did post anyway.

Drinking is not just confined to younger drinkers, though of course that is an issue in terms of habits etc. But picking one segment does not prove your position. We have certainly improved in recent years, but that if from a top position. We still have a long way to go.

ohnonotgmail

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yet you give no evidence at all to back up your position that Ireland does not have an issue with alcohol.

Drinkaware is a drinks body funded org, so if anything they are likely to reduce the numbers, but either way they are just a sample. There are hundreds of studies done, I am not going to go and post links to all of them since you completely ignored the ones I did post anyway.

Drinking is not just confined to younger drinkers, though of course that is an issue in terms of habits etc. But picking one segment does not prove your position. We have certainly improved in recent years, but that if from a top position. We still have a long way to go.

and MUP will do nothing to change any of this.