Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Quackster

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

andrew1977 wrote: »

Newry here I come so the day after it comes into effect in Ireland .
Will Northern Ireland go with minimum pricing ? I’m sure they have enough going on to not implement soon .

A hard Brexit from next January will limit the amount of booze you're legally allowed to bring across the border.

PTH2009

Horrendous decision

Potential-Monke

I've an idea. Legalise weed and then the pubs can start selling cannabis infused beer. That'll bring more to the pub, and the money normally spent on the overpriced illegal weed can now be spent on the overpriced legal weed beer. I'd actually contemplate going to a pub if weed was legal, but would have to be something like the The Vic in Tramore which has an amazing beer garden, perfect for us stoners.

Hotblack Desiato

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you know what the average costs of dealing with an RTA involving a drunk driver is, including legal fees, court costs and medical?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

The vast majority of drinkers don't drink and drive.

And if you think drinkers as a whole should be punished for the sins of a few, then why raise the cost of off-licence alcohol but not pub alcohol?

If anything it's the home drinkers who are less likely to drink and drive.

patrickbrophy18

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And if you think drinkers as a whole should be punished for the sins of a few, then why raise the cost of off-licence alcohol but not pub alcohol?

This whole minimum alcohol pricing started with keeping the pub trade in business by going after the off-trade.

If they really wanted to keep pubs in business, they would abolish the outdated liqueur licensing laws which make it a risk to open a pub in the first place.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If anything it's the home drinkers who are less likely to drink and drive.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

L1011

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

This whole minimum alcohol pricing started with keeping the pub trade in business by going after the off-trade.

If they really wanted to keep pubs in business, they would abolish the outdated liqueur licensing laws which make it a risk to open a pub in the first place.

It started to keep existing publicans in business. The number one opponents of opening up licencing.

redarmyblues

Geuze wrote: »

Hmmm, maybe............

MUP was abandoned in England when Tim Martin made this argument. I am getting into home brew as are many of my friends.

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

The country's underworld have the champagne popping. Drugs, cigarettes and now cheap alcohol to be added to their list of offerings.

patrickbrophy18

L1011 wrote: »

It started to keep existing publicans in business. The number one opponents of opening up licencing.

The pub trade by extension keeps publicans in business. Either way, MUP is a form of price fixing which is a scam.

The advocates of this legislation regularly imbue it with social justice messages by referring to irresponsible drinkers as vulnerable.

In any case, it is a way of spreading misery by punishing the responsible for mistakes of the irresponsible. Why should the average joe be used a shock absorber for irresponsible drinkers?

cadaliac

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you know what the average costs of dealing with an RTA involving a drunk driver is, including legal fees, court costs and medical?

Yawn, here you go again tarring everyone who drinks with the same brush.

Your priceable applies across the board in this case to all human beings, we’re all criminals and need to be jailed .

Have you finally concluded that this is not a health related issue, or are you still beating that drum also?
Asking for a friend

Randy Archer

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

They'll only introduce it if Northern Ireland do. I think Sinn Fein and the DUP know it wouldn't go down well with their working class support base. Recreational rioting isn't as fun without 10 cans of Carling on board.

I notice Carlin’s as a bigger presence lately , being so cheap, it I thought Nordies prefer Tennants

Anyway, far too many council estate riff raft and people on welfare spending their limited income on booze . Poor priorities

Leroy42

cadaliac wrote: »

Yawn, here you go again tarring everyone who drinks with the same brush.

Your priceable applies across the board in this case to all human beings, we’re all criminals and need to be jailed .

Have you finally concluded that this is not a health related issue, or are you still beating that drum also?
Asking for a friend

You do understand how a thread works don't you? I was replying to a poster that stated that drinkers already pay for everything.

They, drinkers as a whole, do not. Nothing about illegality, nothing about criminals. Just a fact that alcohol causes serious issues in the country.

Doesn't mean we should stop it, there is a cost to everything we do.

I fully understand what this policy is aimed at, as I have pointed at numerous times, I'm not going to reprint my full posts everytime just so you won't get upset and not being able to understand a point being made.

double jobbing

Richard Hillman wrote: »

They'll only introduce it if Northern Ireland do. I think Sinn Fein and the DUP know it wouldn't go down well with their working class support base. Recreational rioting isn't as fun without 10 cans of Carling on board.

Did SF vote for it here in the Dail?

It's incredibly difficult on the Oireachtas website to find out what TD's voted for what bills.

elperello

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you know what the average costs of dealing with an RTA involving a drunk driver is, including legal fees, court costs and medical?

Leroy42 wrote: »

You do understand how a thread works don't you? I was replying to a poster that stated that drinkers already pay for everything.

They, drinkers as a whole, do not. Nothing about illegality, nothing about criminals. Just a fact that alcohol causes serious issues in the country.

Doesn't mean we should stop it, there is a cost to everything we do.

I fully understand what this policy is aimed at, as I have pointed at numerous times, I'm not going to reprint my full posts everytime just so you won't get upset and not being able to understand a point being made.

Drunk driver, legal fees, court costs, sounds pretty much you were talking about illegality and criminals to me.

Drink driving is illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Making me pay more to drink a couple of bottles of beer in my own house will not address drink driving in any meaningful way.

Wanderer78

Randy Archer wrote:

Anyway, far too many council estate riff raft and people on welfare spending their limited income on booze . Poor priorities

Maybe they have addiction and mental health issues!

elperello

Randy Archer wrote: »

I notice Carlin’s as a bigger presence lately , being so cheap, it I thought Nordies prefer Tennants

Anyway, far too many council estate riff raft and people on welfare spending their limited income on booze . Poor priorities

Lot's of decent people live in public housing. You never know when life might take a turn and you could end up on welfare.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe they have addiction and mental health issues!

What MUP does not address is what people who for one reason or another use drink to get out of their heads will do. Are they going to reform or find another way to get out of their heads?

Wanderer78

elperello wrote: »

What MUP does not address is what people who for one reason or another use drink to get out of their heads will do. Are they going to reform or find another way to get out of their heads?

mup wont make a difference in addressing addiction and mental health issues, i cant see it solving anything actually

odyssey06

elperello wrote: »

Drunk driver, legal fees, court costs, sounds pretty much you were talking about illegality and criminals to me.
Drink driving is illegal and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Making me pay more to drink a couple of bottles of beer in my own house will not address drink driving in any meaningful way.

It's like putting up the price of high powered cars in the vain hope there'll be less of them to use as getaway cars.

cadaliac

Wanderer78 wrote: »

mup wont make a difference in addressing addiction and mental health issues, i cant see it solving anything actually

Actually, it will make a difference. To any addict, they will supply the habit, albeit this will make it more difficult to feed the habit, so other areas in their lives will suffer. It will make things substantially worse for them.
I don't think we need to point out what areas will suffer. MUP is nonsensical.

Wanderer78

cadaliac wrote: »

Actually, it will make a difference. To any addict, they will supply the habit, albeit this will make it more difficult to feed the habit, so other areas in their lives will suffer. It will make things substantially worse for them.
I don't think we need to point out what areas will suffer. MUP is nonsensical.

but it probably wont reduce alcohol consumption overall, or help deal with underlining mental health issues, so you d have to wonder, what will mup actually do?

ohnonotgmail

Wanderer78 wrote: »

but it probably wont reduce alcohol consumption overall, or help deal with underlining mental health issues, so you d have to wonder, what will mup actually do?

prop up the pub trade

cadaliac

Wanderer78 wrote: »

but it probably wont reduce alcohol consumption overall, or help deal with underlining mental health issues, so you d have to wonder, what will mup actually do?

Oh yea, totally agree with you here, I was only pointing out that it would actually make some situations worse also.

L1011

Has anyone pointed out how bloody awful the poll questions on this thread are, btw?

If the OP ever wants to work in market research - please, find another job. You'll be let go within a week.

Capt'n Midnight

brightspark wrote: »

If they really thought a price increase would improve peoples' health they could have simply raised the duty, but that wouldn't have suited their publican friends, relations and financial supporters.

Hairy Japanese BASTARDS! wrote: »

How so?

Pub prices will remain the same.
Off licence prices go up.

First of all I predict that the distributors will find some reason to adsorb a lot of the price increase. So the publicans won't seen as much of the extra price as they'd like.

Can't say this too often but since the tax on alcohol itself hasn't gone up there will be no extra funds for the health services.

Any gain in VAT because of MUP will likely be matched by a loss in VAT elsewhere. This will factor into inflation figures which could trigger some costs in the budget or borrowing or something.



Off-licence consumption in Scotland has dropped by 3%
did the pubs sell more ?
did English supermarkets near the border sell more ?
did the amount of home brew increase ?


Minimum price is NOT acting as a deterrent to new drinkers.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,increasing-alcohol-price-has-no-impact-on-under-18s-drinking-habits-nhs-stu_15000.htm

“Whilst several of the alcoholic drinks popular with young people were already being sold above 50 pence per unit, where they did observe the price of their favoured drink rise after May 2018 – as was the case before the introduction of MUP – the young people reported being able to fund the additional cost,” he said.

runawaybishop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

prop up the pub trade

I think its important to point out again that this was part of FGs election promises - do what they can to help the pub trade. This has nothing to do with health, its completely about getting more people into pubs. Unless people go and tell their local TD they do not support it though it will be pushed through under the guise of helping people.

edit: nothing wrong with helping the pub trade btw as they definitely need to redefine themselves, but it shouldn't be done at the cost of the public who have a glass of wine after work.

Potential-Monke

I like the comments saying "why should I pay more because other people can't control themselves" and similar comments. As a weed smoker, I completely understand, and now ye understand my view of legalizing cannabis! Which, BTW, would probably help the pub trade if those pubs cater to both sides then.

Suckit

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I like the comments saying "why should I pay more because other people can't control themselves" and similar comments. As a weed smoker, I completely understand, and now ye understand my view of legalizing cannabis! Which, BTW, would probably help the pub trade if those pubs cater to both sides then.

When it is legalised, it will be interesting to see who gets licences, even in a lottery.


Scotland have it sorted though. Bringing in MUP has lowered the alcohol consumption there allegedly.
Meanwhile their drugs intake has spiked in the same year.



I'm not saying it's related... But I don't see why we follow the example of the country with the highest death rate to drugs in Europe.

Hotblack Desiato

runawaybishop wrote: »

I think its important to point out again that this was part of FGs election promises - do what they can to help the pub trade. This has nothing to do with health, its completely about getting more people into pubs. Unless people go and tell their local TD they do not support it though it will be pushed through under the guise of helping people.

edit: nothing wrong with helping the pub trade btw as they definitely need to redefine themselves, but it shouldn't be done at the cost of the public who have a glass of wine after work.

This is a great time for people to put pressure on the publicans and their endless political lobbying.

When they reopen, just stay away. Fcuk 'em.

Leroy42

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is a great time for people to put pressure on the publicans and their endless political lobbying.

When they reopen, just stay away. Fcuk 'em.

It could have, should have, but from the other threads it seems that people are willing to pay almost any price to get back into the pubs.

Given that the vitners would be fools not to be pushing things like MUP as it suits them and they know not one person is going to hold them to account.

Randy Archer

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe they have addiction and mental health issues!

So ?

All the more reason for them to get off the crap. For once , they should take responsibility