Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

The Rape of Lucretia

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

MAP only benefits publicans. That is the reason they proposed its introduction.

This is not the motivation.
MAP raises the barrier to entry to the purchase of alcoholic liquor. And so will reduce the consumption by the poorest in society, and have little or no effect upon those not purchasing from the low end of the market. It is therefore a clear attempt to reduce alcohol consumption by the poor, who are unable to control their consumption of it, while implicitly stating that the rich do not need state control of their alcohol consumption, being capable of moderating their drinking.

Whether this is nanny state-ism, and the poor should be allowed to consume to excess and to their harm, or, whether it is incumbent upon those in authority to impose such restriction for the good of others is debatable.

Either way, it is the motivation at the root of MAP.

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is not the motivation.
MAP raises the barrier to entry to the purchase of alcoholic liquor. And so will reduce the consumption by the poorest in society, and have little or no effect upon those not purchasing from the low end of the market. It is therefore a clear attempt to reduce alcohol consumption by the poor, who are unable to control their consumption of it, while implicitly stating that the rich do not need state control of their alcohol consumption, being capable of moderating their drinking.

Whether this is nanny state-ism, and the poor should be allowed to consume to excess and to their harm, or, whether it is incumbent upon those in authority to impose such restriction for the good of others is debatable.

Either way, it is the motivation at the root of MAP.

So what do they expect the poor who want to get off their heads to do in response to MUP?

Suckit

There is no way in hell, that by introducing a minimum price, that it will reduce alcohol consumption by the poorest of society.
If anything, it may increase as they will likely buy bulk and try to have it sitting there.
The main difference between this and prohibition is that they don't have to hide it.
Somebody will start importing alcohol for much cheaper and people will find them and buy it.

I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to believe the reason for minimum pricing is, as any reasons I have seen mentioned are all so far-fetched.

Hotblack Desiato

easypazz wrote: »

I suppose the main drivers in pub price increases are minimum wage, insurance and rates.

I think I remember working for £1 when pints were £1.5

Today if I was earning €10 (~min. wage) pints would be €5 so I could afford 2 pints every hour I worked.

Back then I could afford a pint after 1.5 hours.

However back then 15 year olds could be barmen until 2am and £1 was a lot to a 15 year old.

It's really not a good thing to have schoolkids working in bars at all, never mind working until all hours for pin money, thankfully this (shouldn't) happen any more

You were being exploited.

The pub owner could well have afforded to employ an adult on a proper wage.

Hotblack Desiato

Greentopia wrote: »

What about my freedom to be able to walk through town at night safely without having drunken fools fighting, harassing people and spewing on the public paths?
What about my freedom to not have my property damaged and destroyed by drunken people? what about my freedom to not have messy drunks on public transport causing anti-social behavioural problems?

This only happens because there are no consequences for such behaviour (even if on the off chance a guard turns up, thanks to our useless judges)

A sticking plaster like MUP can't solve the real problem. There will still be idiots getting drunk and causing trouble, it'll just cost them a bit more. The only real answer is a lot more policing and actual penalties for offenders. Keep it up long enough and a change in social attitudes will occur, similarly to drink-driving. Law-abiding people who enjoy a drink and cause no trouble are NOT the problem, do not penalise them as an alternative to actually taking action.

Also - it's not even a tax - it's a subsidy for publicans.

Snickers Man

Greentopia wrote: »

high pricing is the only thing Government is doing. So we deal with that and accept that as a reality or move somewhere else with all those things we lack. I choose to stay here (for now anyway) so I have to accept high prices and this minimum pricing if and when it comes in.

What was the name of the female horse in Animal Farm?

Never mind. You have all the attitudes of the male horse Boxer, the diligent unquestioning obedient servant of the ruling power. Whose two mottos were "Napoleon is always right" and "I will work harder"

Very commendable, in some ways, but also dangerously supine.

Remember what happened to Boxer in the end?

ohnonotgmail

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is not the motivation.
MAP raises the barrier to entry to the purchase of alcoholic liquor. And so will reduce the consumption by the poorest in society, and have little or no effect upon those not purchasing from the low end of the market. It is therefore a clear attempt to reduce alcohol consumption by the poor, who are unable to control their consumption of it, while implicitly stating that the rich do not need state control of their alcohol consumption, being capable of moderating their drinking.

Whether this is nanny state-ism, and the poor should be allowed to consume to excess and to their harm, or, whether it is incumbent upon those in authority to impose such restriction for the good of others is debatable.

Either way, it is the motivation at the root of MAP.

they put the bloody thing in the party manifesto in black and white.

buried

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is not the motivation.
MAP raises the barrier to entry to the purchase of alcoholic liquor. And so will reduce the consumption by the poorest in society, and have little or no effect upon those not purchasing from the low end of the market. It is therefore a clear attempt to reduce alcohol consumption by the poor, who are unable to control their consumption of it, while implicitly stating that the rich do not need state control of their alcohol consumption, being capable of moderating their drinking.

Whether this is nanny state-ism, and the poor should be allowed to consume to excess and to their harm, or, whether it is incumbent upon those in authority to impose such restriction for the good of others is debatable.

Either way, it is the motivation at the root of MAP.

Hold up TROL, if it is the case, like you stated there that these folk can't control their consumption of it, you think these people are going to suddenly go on the dry because the drink has gone up in price? Whats more likely to happen, they go on the dry and give it up, or move onto other cheaper nastier and illegal stuff that is even more harmful to themselves and society in general?

weldoninhio

easypazz wrote: »

Wages here are 3 times Latvia. We really cant have it all.

Does the wages paid in a country means it costs more for Diageo or other beer manufacturers to mass produce lager/beer for that country?? I say your argument is useless.

weldoninhio

Greentopia wrote: »

What about my freedom to be able to walk through town at night safely without having drunken fools fighting, harassing people and spewing on the public paths?
What about my freedom to not have my property damaged and destroyed by drunken people? what about my freedom to not have messy drunks on public transport causing anti-social behavioural problems?

We already have laws against all of the above.

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

Does the wages paid in a country means it costs more for Diageo or other beer manufacturers to mass produce lager/beer for that country?? I say your argument is useless.

Plus it's not just cheaper in countries with lower wages and costs of living.
It's cheaper in the French Riviera ffs, it's cheaper in Germany ...
Drink in supermarkets in Copenhagen is cheaper than supermarkets here, drink in pubs in Copenhagen is actually more expensive.
And I didn't see any worse problems with drink in Riga, Copenhagen or Nice or Lyon or Munich than in Dublin.

It has nothing to do with the price of drink. They have police and judicial systems that don't tolerate s**t from drunks. That's the difference.

Faffing about with the legislation on the price of drink in supermarkets won't do a damned thing about what's going down at 1am on a city street.
That takes uniformed bodies on the ground.

randomname2005

odyssey06 wrote: »

Plus it's not just cheaper in countries with lower wages and costs of living.
It's cheaper in the French Riviera ffs, it's cheaper in Germany ...
Drink in supermarkets in Copenhagen is cheaper than supermarkets here, drink in pubs in Copenhagen is actually more expensive.
And I didn't see any worse problems with drink in Riga, Copenhagen or Nice or Lyon or Munich than in Dublin.

It has nothing to do with the price of drink. They have police and judicial systems that don't tolerate s**t from drunks. That's the difference.

Faffing about with the legislation on the price of drink in supermarkets won't do a damned thing about what's going down at 1am on a city street.
That takes uniformed bodies on the ground.

IMHO that is the root of the problem, 'we' see being drunk and a mess as having the craic. Until we see enforcement of laws against drunk and disorderly behaviour, having a drunk tank and throwing people into it, nothing will change. (Except with this law the sellers of alcohol will get richer and the government won't get much out of it).

easypazz

randomname2005 wrote: »

(Except with this law the sellers of alcohol will get richer and the government won't get much out of it).

Are you saying everybody who sells alcohol is already rich?

buried

buried wrote: »

Hold up TROL, if it is the case, like you stated there that these folk can't control their consumption of it, you think these people are going to suddenly go on the dry because the drink has gone up in price? Whats more likely to happen, they go on the dry and give it up, or move onto other cheaper nastier and illegal stuff that is even more harmful to themselves and society in general?

Or cut down in other areas such as food or health to get their fix. It's the same with the cost of smoking in Ireland. Poor people who smoke don't stop smoking, they tend to cut corners on other costs to make up the cost.

It's amazing really the lengths this country goes to create opportunities for black markets, and encouraging people to turn to illegal drugs, simply because the legal drugs have become so expensive to obtain.

cadaliac

easypazz wrote: »

Are you saying everybody who sells alcohol is already rich?

Did you even read the rest of that post before selecting and invalid argument?

Mr. teddywinkles

If the idiots concentrated on the infrastructure in the country. Theres holes in roads here that's yad lose a bus in and I'm living in a main city.

Hotblack Desiato

It's laughable how poor the pro-MUP arguments are.

Depressing though when you remember that every eejit in the Dail is in favour of this nonsense. They need a good kick up the hole.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's laughable how poor the pro-MUP arguments are.

Depressing though when you remember that every eejit in the Dail is in favour of this nonsense. They need a good kick up the hole.

Maybe they'll get a good kick up the hole in the election next year.

If anyone knocks on your door, make sure you ask about this nonsense.

Fr Tod Umptious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's laughable how poor the pro-MUP arguments are.

Depressing though when you remember that every eejit in the Dail is in favour of this nonsense. They need a good kick up the hole.

What's more laughable is the way people are getting so up in arms about it, as if the price of off license booze is important in the grand scheme of things.

No one is taking away anyone right to go into a shop an a buy alcohol.
No one's rights are being infringed here.

Personally I don't think MUP is s good idea, it poorly thought out, I think a flat excess tax would be better and a ban on advertising, especially in sport, is far more important.

As someone posted a few days ago, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than in 1994

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe they'll get a good kick up the hole in the election next year.

If anyone knocks on your door, make sure you ask about this nonsense.

Well not really because everyone in the Dail was in favour of MUP. I haven't heard any budding TDs saying anything against the introduction of MUP.
Given they're all the same useless c*nts and many people don't know who to vote for, saying you'll stand against MUP would be a surefire way to win some votes, a la Casey in the Prez race.

Thelonious Monk

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

As someone posted a few days ago, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than in 1994

And we are also drinking less Father

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What's more laughable is the way people are getting so up in arms about it, as if the price of off license booze is important in the grand scheme of things.
No one is taking away anyone right to go into a shop an a buy alcohol.
No one's rights are being infringed here.
Personally I don't think MUP is s good idea, it poorly thought out, I think a flat excess tax would be better and a ban on advertising, especially in sport, is far more important.
As someone posted a few days ago, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than in 1994

"No one's rights are being infringed here."

I wasn't aware that was a necessary reason to oppose new legislation, penalties, levies, duties or taxation.

Strange proposition you are making. I don't think you have thought through the implications of it.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well not really because everyone in the Dail was in favour of MUP. I haven't heard any budding TDs saying anything against the introduction of MUP.
Given they're all the same useless c*nts and many people don't know who to vote for, saying you'll stand against MUP would be a surefire way to win some votes, a la Casey in the Prez race.

I'm still going to give everyone a hard time. Maybe a couple will realise, that the feeling of the people is that we don't want it.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still going to give everyone a hard time. Maybe a couple will realise, that the feeling of the people is that we don't want it.

I actually already emailed all of my local TDs, including Richard Bruton, saying I'd never vote for them again over this and tell everyone I know not to. They all wrote back saying it was for health reasons that they supported it.

Fr Tod Umptious

odyssey06 wrote: »

"No one's rights are being infringed here."

I wasn't aware that was a necessary reason to oppose new legislation, penalties, levies, duties or taxation.

Strange proposition you are making. I don't think you have thought through the implications of it.

I've been following this thread for years.

Words like rights and prohibition have been used a fair bit on it.

Personally I think it has a lot to do with the age profile of the posters.

Im in my late 40s the price of off license booze is about as far away from the important thing in my life as possible.

If I was mid 20s my attitude may have been a little different.

People on here ranting and raving about MUP might look back on it in 20 years and wonder WTF.

Fr Tod Umptious

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I actually already emailed all of my local TDs, including Richard Bruton, saying I'd never vote for them again over this and tell everyone I know not to. They all wrote back saying it was for health reasons that they supported it.

No politician is going to come out and say they are for lower prices, move advertising, greater availability of alcohol.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I've been following this thread for years.

Words like rights and prohibition have been used a fair bit on it.

Personally I think it has a lot to do with the age profile of the posters.

Im in my late 40s the price of off license booze is about as far away from the important thing in my life as possible.

If I was mid 20s my attitude may have been a little different.

People on here ranting and raving about MUP might look back on it in 20 years and wonder WTF.

So basically you don't care that alcohol is going to get more expensive.

Fr Tod Umptious

Deleted User wrote: »

So basically you don't care that alcohol is going to get more expensive.

Correct

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Correct

Good for you.

I however, do care.

facehugger99

Deleted User wrote: »

Good for you.

I however, do care.

There's a lot more important stuff in the world to worry about than the price of your slab of piss-larger.

Get some perspective.