Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

elperello

ShamNNspace wrote: »

In a polish shop here in galway there last week they had grand bottles of svyturys(lithuanian) beer and a few others for €1 a bottle. bbd 30 dec but they were grand not a bother, I suppose that'll be stopped now too

That's an interesting point.

The MUP legislation will stop retailers reducing the price of beers coming close to out of date thus increasing their overheads.

Either they will pass on the extra costs or be more conservative in stocking different beers.

Either way the consumer loses.

Hotblack Desiato

murpho999 wrote: »

Also if you read my post you'll see I was referring more to the separation of alcohol in the supermarkets, which I think makes sense and I never mentioned pricing at all.

Those doors are just completely stupid. And in the middle of a pandemic something that impedes the flow of people causing them to congregate, and touch something unnecessarily, is an even more stupid idea.

In relation to pricing , I don't think it's as bad as people make out .

We have the 2nd dearest alcohol in Europe. Most countries with far cheaper alcohol than us drink less than we do. But consumption here has been falling for over 20 years now.

I do however feel the legislation is coming from lobbying by publicans.

Too right! One of the most powerful vested interests in Ireland.

I dislike Wetherspoons (and especially their owner) but they go to show just how much of a rip-off all other pubs in Ireland are. They can sell drink at in some cases less than half the price and still make a profit.

Either way I have not noticed any increase in price in my local supermarket this week.

Your 4 for €10 etc. craft beer offers are gone, one of my favourites (Guinness West Indies Porter) was €3.20 yesterday in Tesco instead of 4 for €10. Fcuk that for a game of soldiers. So I bought a bottle of spirits instead :rolleyes:

I do think that smoking bans etc are comparable as they're laws designed to affect people's behaviour and were also met with a lot of opposition.

Smoking bans are not at all comparable (they're comparable to the byelaws which stop you drinking in most public places - which are bollox. e.g. a couple having a picnic in the park could be arrested for sharing a bottle of wine. By all means punish the drunk and disorderly, not people peacefully enjoing a drink.)

You can still smoke as much as you like, you just can't force other people to inhale it.
Imagine if every time I drank a pint, I forced the person sitting next to me to drink a half :pac:

Also, the drug issue, completely separate. But maybe that should be looked at as many would argue that drugs are less harmful to society than alcohol.

It's not separate at all, as they've found out in Scotland once drink went up in price due to minimum unit pricing - drug use and drug related harm went up.

If you've got €10 or €20 and want to get out of your bin there are all sorts of illegal alternatives if you can no longer buy a decent amount of drink - some of which are far more dangerous for one's health than alcohol.

Hotblack Desiato

jos28 wrote: »

Just back from doing the 'Big' shop. I was prepared for no multi deals, no loyalty points on alcohol purchases. I didn't realise that alcohol does not count as part of your total shop. I had a voucher for €20 off every €100 spent , but that €100 total cannot include drink. No €20 off for me :mad:

Instead of running off in Dunnes to grab a bottle of wine to get the total over the mark for another €10 off €50 voucher, you'll have to grab a multipack of toilet rolls instead :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

wonga77 wrote: »

My brother lived in Madrid about 3 or 4 years ago. The exact same wine he could buy there for 4 euro is 14 here

You can buy a litre of Jameson in Lanzarote for 15 euro. Same bottle, produced in Ireland of course, costs €45 here. It's obscene.

Deleted User wrote: »

Alcoholics aren't going to go without - they'll just rob the money if they need it, and the people working jobs who enjoy a drink at the weekend or of an evening are now paying more for it, despite not contributing to the issues it creates.

It's a lot easier, less risky, and treated more leniently by the courts, to just shoplift a bottle of spirits rather than mug or pickpocket someone to get the cash to buy same.

This is going to backfire so spectacularly (and so obviously) that it's amazing to think it's still being pushed through with the usual with blinkers on, ignoring anyone that disagrees.

The complete unthinking acceptance of this bolloxology by all political parties without debate is infuriating. Have they all been bought off by the vintners or what?

The last time this sort of bullshít groupthink took hold was the utterly stupid Turn Off The Red Light fiasco. Feminists and nuns joining in common cause, you couldn't make it up.

Hotblack Desiato

Shelflife wrote: »

HSE fund them.

They are a registered charity.

Charities should not be allowed to receive taxpayers' money. Charitable giving is supposed to be a choice, paying taxes is not a choice.

Using taxpayers' money to lobby to change government policy is outrageous. It's even worse when the vast majority of taxpayers are opposed to these policies.

Even threatening politicians with losing votes is no use, all parties are in favour of this bunch of wánk :mad:

StudentDad

Gotta love this country. Don't do that, it's fun. Can't have fun. They'll be after the biscuits next. Then pastries and cakes.

What new and wonderful ideas will the Ministry of Misery come up with next?

y0ssar1an22

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whooooosh.

Minimum unit pricing is NOT a tax. The extra you pay goes straight into the pockets of the alcohol industry.

is that actually true? as in the gov aint making an iota in extra income from the increase in price (we can ignore VAT)?

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's a lot easier, less risky, and treated more leniently by the courts, to just shoplift a bottle of spirits rather than mug or pickpocket someone to get the cash to buy same.

I'd disagree to the extent that I reckon your typical alcoholic is very likely to copped by security, trying to steal a bottle out of Tesco.

Putting a brick through a few car windows to have a rummage would likely pay for a few bottles and there's no punishment for that, either.

Thelonious Monk

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

is that actually true? as in the gov aint making an iota in extra income from the increase in price (we can ignore VAT)?

Yes. If they put a tax on alcohol it would affect pubs too, whom they don't want to upset.

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

is that actually true? as in the gov aint making an iota in extra income from the increase in price (we can ignore VAT)?

Not a cent.

nestegg

I emailed a 'thank you' alcohol action ireland and in fairness to them they did actually reply. I encourage you all to send an email to tell them how much you enjoy their bullsht.

nestegg

nestegg wrote: »

I emailed a 'thank you' alcohol action ireland and in fairness to them they did actually reply. I encourage you all to send an email to tell them how much you enjoy their bullsht.

But those dry sh!tes don't realise you're being sarcastic.

Captain_Crash

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

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

If they put a tax on alcohol it would affect pubs too, whom they don't want to upset.

I think that horse has bolted!

Thelonious Monk

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I think that horse has bolted!

Yeah well, I think people have realised you dont need pubs to have a life in Ireland, so maybe they might need to rethink their pub strategy to get people back in when all this blows over and lower prices.
No who am I kidding, they'll be chock-a-block as soon as we're allowed back and they'll be able to charge what they like as usual.

Captain_Crash

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

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah well, I think people have realised you dont need pubs to have a life in Ireland, so maybe they might need to rethink their pub strategy to get people back in when all this blows over and lower prices.
No who am I kidding, they'll be chock-a-block as soon as we're allowed back and they'll be able to charge what they like as usual.

Agree! If they all opened as normal today they’d be full tonight like nothing happened! Funny cause it’s true!

Mimon

Next election we need to tell anyone turning up at the doorstep that they will not be getting a vote because of this nanny state BS. I guess as they all support will tell them all the same.

Need some sort of Libertarian party here!

Thelonious Monk

Mimon wrote: »

Next election we need to tell anyone turning up at the doorstep that they will not be getting a vote because of this nanny state BS. I guess as they all support will tell them all the same.

Need some sort of Libertarian party here!

The only option will be to vote for someone who wasn't in Gov at the time of this nonsense.

Fr Tod Umptious

Mimon wrote: »

Next election we need to tell anyone turning up at the doorstep that they will not be getting a vote because of this nanny state BS. I guess as they all support will tell them all the same.

Need some sort of Libertarian party here!

What did you do in 2020 for the election ?

MUP was on the cards before that

Fr Tod Umptious

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The only option will be to vote for someone who wasn't in Gov at the time of this nonsense.

All parties supported this, so you would have to have voted for someone who was not even in the Dail, never mind not in Govt.

truth and logic

It's very disappointing and disturbing that people have no choice when it comes to these matters.

I don't want this nanny state but I have no-one to vote for. I don't vote for the established parties because they refuse to act in my interests.


I'm sick and tired of this nonsense and this nanny state and I'm just waiting for an alternative to vote for.

Why isn't cannabis legal in this country?
There's clear majority support for the legalisation of cannabis and yet it doesn't happen.

It's appropriate that politicians should be hated in these circumstances. It's obvious why people vote for Trump and for Brexit. Our politicians are sanctimonious failures.

jos28

My understanding is that the campaign against Minimum priced alcohol was started by this man
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/yourview/arid-40188831.html

I remember hearing him being interviewed several times. While I obviously have huge sympathy with the family on the loss of their son I felt at the time that the availability of cheap booze was not the sole cause of his death.
From what I remember his son had an issue with alcohol and died after bought a bottle of cheap vodka from a supermarket. I'm open to correction but that's what I took from it.
The interview I heard was several years ago and I thought that the man hadn't a hope of getting minimum pricing abolished. Guess I was wrong. While the campaign has been successful I think it raises much bigger questions about mental health and not necessarily outlawing the chance to multi-buy wine and beer by responsible adults.
I don't mean to sound harsh but I don't believe that this is the answer. People who need a bottle will find it regardless.

SuperRabbit

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

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

BraveDonut

Deleted User wrote: »

This is going to backfire so spectacularly (and so obviously) that it's amazing to think it's still being pushed through with the usual with blinkers on, ignoring anyone that disagrees.

How is it going to backfire?

Thelonious Monk

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

I'll get banned if I say what I want to say here.

Doctor Jimbob

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

Source for it having worked?

Fr Tod Umptious

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

There is a fundamental law of economics called the downward sloping demand curve, which states that as the price of a product rises, the quantity demanded of that product falls.
If something is more expensive then people will buy less of it.

People also have to look at this as a long term strategy.

For someone that currently has a problem with alcohol that will make no difference, they will find a away to buy the drink.

But if it is someone who is not even started drinking yet then if the price are higher they will tend not to buy as much of it/not as many will but it, based on the downward sloping demand curve.
If you extrapolate that out across a whole demographic of young people who are starting to think about dabbling in alcohol then the numbers that do dabble will be less than if the drink was considerably cheaper.

Doctor Jimbob

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It is certainly the economic law of supply and demand that higher pricing of a product means that access is reduced to that product.
If something is more expensive then people will buy less of it.

People also have to look at this as a long term strategy.

For someone that currently has a problem with alcohol that will make no difference, they will find a away to buy the drink.

But if it is someone who is not even started drinking yet then if the price are higher they will tend not to buy as much of it/not as many will but it, based on the law of supply and demand.
If you extrapolate that out across a whole demographic of young people who are starting to think about dabbling in alcohol then the numbers that do dabble will be less than if the drink was considerably cheaper.

The number of young people drinking in this country is declining despite the alleged dangerously cheap prices. So why the need for this intervention?

That's a rhetorical question. The need for this intervention is to do the vintners a favour under the guise of public health.

ohnonotgmail

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It is certainly the economic law of supply and demand that higher pricing of a product means that access is reduced to that product.
If something is more expensive then people will buy less of it.

People also have to look at this as a long term strategy.

For someone that currently has a problem with alcohol that will make no difference, they will find a away to buy the drink.

But if it is someone who is not even started drinking yet then if the price are higher they will tend not to buy as much of it/not as many will but it, based on the law of supply and demand.
If you extrapolate that out across a whole demographic of young people who are starting to think about dabbling in alcohol then the numbers that do dabble will be less than if the drink was considerably cheaper.

if the intent is to reduce consumption (and I'm not convinced it is given what we know from the FG manifesto) then there are ways that also give increased revenue to the government. Oddly the government decided not to do that. Which gives credence to it being done for the original reason in the FG manifesto.

Macy0161

A flagon is not going to go up enough to stop teenagers field drinking. But open to correction with evidence where it has been a success, and without any other negative consequences (e.g. other drugs).

ohnonotgmail

Macy0161 wrote: »

A flagon is not going to go up enough to stop teenagers field drinking. But open to correction with evidence where it has been a success, and without any other negative consequences (e.g. other drugs).

when I was drinking in fields alcohol was much more expensive than it is now. A can of cheap lager was £1 in an offie. £1 not €1. It didn't dampen my enthusiasm one bit. Alcohol is much cheaper now and people drink less. The correlation is not what those proposing MUP seem to think it is.