Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Snickers Man

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Well, you think it won't have a positive impact, I do.
Only one way to find out, introduce and study the effects after a number of years.

How about examining the evidence we already have of a regime of high pricing and where that has got us? Or look at the binge-drinking behaviour of other countries with high-priced alcohol like Britain and the Scandinavian countries and say "Well, that doesn't appear to be working" ?

Here's a challenge for you. Starting at base level: what country's attitude to alcohol do you think is the best, how do they achieve it and how do you think we might try to emulate them?

If you think Saudi Arabia is the answer to the first question, and the answers to the others follow on from that then fair play to you. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But most of us would beg to differ.

frag420

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Well, you think it won't have a positive impact, I do.
Only one way to find out, introduce and study the effects after a number of years.

Would you agree with introducing the legalisation of drugs so we can study the effect over/after a few years and see how we get on?

Only way to find out if they are bad/good for society right?

Mr.H

MeatTwoVeg wrote:

Maybe we should give them away free outside schools and see if more kids start smoking?

It would increase jobs in tobacco companies...... ðŸ˜

On a serious note the only thing that really combats these problem issues in society is better educating at a much younger age.

We teach kids from when they are born that stealing and fighting is wrong (at least some of us do). So why can't we teach kids that drinking to excess, taking drugs and smoking are wrong.

Kids from when they start school should be told these things too. Not in a once off lesson but maybe in a civics or social skills class. There they can learn all kinds of useful life skills Like swimming, rules of the road, actual basic life skills that are needed.

Primary school should incorporate these things instead of focusing so much time on religion and Irish

MeatTwoVeg

frag420 wrote: »

Would you agree with introducing the legalisation of drugs so we can study the effect over/after a few years and see how we get on?

Only way to find out if they are bad/good for society right?

Totally.

Legalise, tax and regulate.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Totally.

Legalise, tax and regulate.

DRUGS! Finally an explanation for your posts!

MeatTwoVeg

Snickers Man wrote: »

How about examining the evidence we already have of a regime of high pricing and where that has got us? Or look at the binge-drinking behaviour of other countries with high-priced alcohol like Britain and the Scandinavian countries and say "Well, that doesn't appear to be working" ?

Here's a challenge for you. Starting at base level: what country's attitude to alcohol do you think is the best, how do they achieve it and how do you think we might try to emulate them?

If you think Saudi Arabia is the answer to the first question, and the answers to the others follow on from that then fair play to you. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But most of us would beg to differ.

I don't believe studying other countries is necessarily helpful. There are far too many variables to draw any definitive conclusions.
Many studies are contradictory.
Reproducing results of human behavior studies has proved notoriously difficult for social scientists.

MeatTwoVeg

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

DRUGS! Finally an explanation for your posts!

Perhaps your posts could be attributed to over indulgence of cheap alcohol?

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Perhaps your posts could be attributed to over indulgence of cheap alcohol?

Ah the illusion of wit by copying someone else.

Bless.

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I don't believe studying other countries is necessarily helpful. There are far too many variables to draw any definitive conclusions.
Many studies are contradictory.
Reproducing results of human behavior studies has proved notoriously difficult for social scientists.

So the only study being used to support MUP was done in Canada, another country, now can be thrown out using this logic......... dig up faster

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Perhaps your posts could be attributed to over indulgence of cheap alcohol?

Oooh now your onto ad hominems to deflect from justifying your illogical statements, keep it up i think eventually you'll make it through every method of deflective non answering

Leroy42

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I don't believe studying other countries is necessarily helpful. There are far too many variables to draw any definitive conclusions.
Many studies are contradictory.
Reproducing results of human behavior studies has proved notoriously difficult for social scientists.

So what are you basing your opinion on? Is it just a give it a go approach? You seem to be advocating a solution to a problem that you don't understand, the solution you are putting forward has no known effects and nobody even seems very clear as to what outcome we actually want.

Bubbaclaus

If your drinking habits are such that MUP would have a large effect on you then you need to have a good look at yourself.

MeatTwoVeg

VinLieger wrote: »

Oooh now your onto ad hominems to deflect from justifying your illogical statements, keep it up i think eventually you'll make it through every method of deflective non answering

Considering all the apparent flaws in my posting style, it's strange that I seem to be conclusively winning the debate on all the salient points.

If you're unable to best such a poor opponent, you perhaps need to look at your own debate deficiencies?

MeatTwoVeg

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what are you basing your opinion on?

It's quite simple.
Alcohol is too cheap. The pendulum has swung too far. It's time to introduce measures to combat it. MUP is one of those measures.
Half the people claiming it won't work are threatening to drive up North or distill some bathtub gin to combat the measure.

I guess logic isn't their strong suit.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

It's quite simple.
Alcohol is too cheap. The pendulum has swung too far. It's time to introduce measures to combat it. MUP is one of those measures.
Half the people claiming it won't work are threatening to drive up North or distill some bathtub gin to combat the measure.

I guess logic isn't their strong suit.

"Alcohol is too cheap".

Says you. But we've already established that you don't run the universe, as much as you believe you do.

Sorry I forgot, "the lawmakers" agree with you.

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Considering all the apparent flaws in my posting style, it's strange that I seem to be conclusively winning the debate on all the salient points.

If you're unable to best such a poor opponent, you perhaps need to look at your own debate deficiencies?

Dear Mods, can you suspend any possible ban for a wee while so I can say my honest opinion at that sanctimonious load of old pony ??

MeatTwoVeg

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

"Alcohol is too cheap".

Says you. But we've already established that you don't run the universe, as much as you believe you do.

Sorry I forgot, "the lawmakers" agree with you.

You sound quite frustrated and angry and your posts are becoming a bit incoherent.

Perhaps a break away from the thread is in order?

Mortpourvelo

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

You sound quite frustrated and angry and your posts are becoming a bit incoherent.

Perhaps a break away from the thread is in order?

Could do with a pint anyway.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If your drinking habits are such that MUP would have a large effect on you then you need to have a good look at yourself.

No you don't.

The problem most people have is that its the government forcing higher prices than the market dictates for a product people enjoy and should be entitled to buy at a fair price comparable to most of the rest of the world.

The same 24 cans I can now buy for between 20 and 30 euro depending on offers etc (usually closer to 30 euro) could now potentially cost 48 euro so up to 28 euro more for the same product a product I can buy in other EU countries for even less than 20 euro. Its a total joke and pure nanny stateism. The worst thing is it won't make a difference to consumption, I'll still drink just as much but probably go to the pub every week rather than stay in sometimes and also stock up big time when travelling so that I never have to buy drink at highly over inflated prices.

I would find it very hard to see the EU allowing this price fixing to be introduced to be honest.

Leroy42

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

If your drinking habits are such that MUP would have a large effect on you then you need to have a good look at yourself.

But on what basis are saying that you have proof that this will effect drinking habits? On what level of drinking is this aimed at? It seems to me to be very heavy on the penalties but very lite on the actual outcomes.

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

It's quite simple.
Alcohol is too cheap. The pendulum has swung too far. It's time to introduce measures to combat it. MUP is one of those measures.
Half the people claiming it won't work are threatening to drive up North or distill some bathtub gin to combat the measure.

I guess logic isn't their strong suit.

So what price so you think drink should be at? And it half the people it will effect (again it seems no basis for that line) then is it really worth it as you would think that 50% would be those most effected, so missing out the target completely.

Boom_Bap

Mortpourvelo wrote: »

Dear Mods, can you suspend any possible ban for a wee while so I can say my honest opinion at that sanctimonious load of old pony ??

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

You sound quite frustrated and angry and your posts are becoming a bit incoherent.

Perhaps a break away from the thread is in order?

How about the 2 of you (Mortourvelo & MeatTwoVeg) don't post in this thread anymore as you are ruining a discussion with your bickering.

Do not post in this thread again.

Snickers Man

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I don't believe studying other countries is necessarily helpful. There are far too many variables to draw any definitive conclusions.
Many studies are contradictory.
Reproducing results of human behavior studies has proved notoriously difficult for social scientists.

I'm sorry. Are you arguing your case or mine?

Any social science, such as economics, sociology, pyschology etc is plagued with the problem of excessive variables. Nothing new there. So why would you think that pushing up the price of alcohol (a one-club golfing strategy if ever there was one) would have a magical effect on our society when in relative terms it has been tried for decades, resulting in our current mess?

Many studies are contradictory? Damn right they are. Doesn't stop doctors from beginning just about every argument on this issue with the prefix "Studies show that...." Hell, even the article on which the OP was based had a "studies show" introduction.

So if you're not going to base your arguments on academic studies, because of their contradictory results, excessive number of variables, poor levels of comparison and overall reliability (and I agree you shouldn't) then what are you going to base them on? The naive dependence on the most basic law of economics that rising prices reduce demand has PROVEN to be insufficient and in my view counterproductive.

Spanish Eyes

Philip Clean Ruler wrote: »

No you don't.

The problem most people have is that its the government forcing higher prices than the market dictates for a product people enjoy and should be entitled to buy at a fair price comparable to most of the rest of the world.


I would find it very hard to see the EU allowing this price fixing to be introduced to be honest.

They have left the option of MUP or increased taxation (after a challenge by whisky producers) to the Scottish courts.

Scottish courts have decided on MUP.

Don't see we would be any different.

So much for EU rules on price fixing and so on. But there we are.

AlanG

The issue I have with MAP is that it is a case of rich people telling poor people what to do to solve their problem. Alcohol abuse impacts all strata of Irish society but MAP only attempts to address it for the poor. If Varadker believes pricing can solve the problem he should increase excise duty so the drinker a €20 bottle of wine will be saved from themselves just as much as the drinker of a €6 bottle. Once politicians start solving the drinking problems of the "poor" separately to those of the "rich" it is never going to end well.

How about just letting people drink as they want and stop interfering in how people live their lives.

Leroy42

True AlanG, but there is also the argument that having pricing so low is making the product more available to more people. €1 a can (or whatever, I am not argueing amount the correct price) can mean that many younger people can easily buy the product.

But as you rightly pointed out, drinking in the higher income levels is just as big, if not as visible, a problem. Just because one drink craft beer doesn't mean you are any less a problem drinker than Dutch Gold man.

Even the idea of craft beer socialise the problem. "I am perfectly fine to drink as I have an appreciation of real beer, whilst you my alcoholic friend are a problem drinker that must be tackled with your dutch gold."

I suppose part of the thinking is that by making it more expensive it moves more into the 'luxury' type product, a special occasion. However, I would suggest that given the amount we spend on drink each year, whilst individual drink might not be in the luxury band, taken as a whole they are. Taking a person who goes to the pub twice a week, get 4 pints each time. THat close to €50 per week, +2500k per year. That is a significant amount of money.

So it can't just be the cost that is driving this.

Leroy42

Philip Clean Ruler wrote: »

How about just letting people drink as they want and stop interfering in how people live their lives.

Because, like it or not, there is a social cost to alcohol. Whether than be drink driving, garda resources, A&E, lost productivity, health problems or family problems, there is a cost.

It may not directly effect you are the group you are in, but based on the reports it would seem that it effects, in varying ways, a large % of the population.

Obviously this will range from full alcoholism leading to death, to simply spending too much money on it.

Snickers Man

AlanG wrote: »

The issue I have with MAP is that it is a case of rich people telling poor people what to do to solve their problem. Alcohol abuse impacts all strata of Irish society but MAP only attempts to address it for the poor.

This is very true. And it will also criminalise the poor to a greater degree than the rich or at least the better off. It will encourage the growth of illegal alcohol production and distribution, not to mention selling, aimed largely at the poor.

Is your average doctor or lawyer going to be socialising in a shebeen in Clondalkin or Tallaght? I think not, but these sort of establishments will spring up as "legitimate" alcohol becomes more expensive.

Is it good for society that the lower income groups criminalise themselves just to partake in an activity that the wealthier can afford to enjoy legally just because they have more wealth, especially if the cost is artificially maintained by the government in the first place.

It will not, as you say, end well. Just look at America during Prohibition. Manufacture and sale of alcohol was forbidden; consumption was not. So the wealthy could stockpile their cases of wine and champagne and spirits before the ban and enjoy them in their own company legally for years afterwards. The poor had to go to speakeasies and become indebted to the likes of Mr Capone and his buddies.

bear1

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Considering all the apparent flaws in my posting style, it's strange that I seem to be conclusively winning the debate on all the salient points.

If you're unable to best such a poor opponent, you perhaps need to look at your own debate deficiencies?

Im still waiting for you to explain how drinking at home costs the state money.

Bubbaclaus

bear1 wrote: »

Im still waiting for you to explain how drinking at home costs the state money.

Seriously? Can't come up with a single reason yourself?

Fecking hell.