Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

VinLieger

kerryjack wrote: »

Not in AA
Not in favour of MUP
It's the doctors and paramedics that's lobbying for this as the see the cahos on a nightly basis, people should be left to Drink themselves to death if they wish but please do it quietly and stay out of hospital and leave hospitals for sick people, That's all I am saying.

The people that are lobbying for this from the health sector are consultants and professors that don't enter a hospital past 5 pm on a weekday.

This was all commenced by FGs pretty brazen 2011 manifesto clearly stating MUP was to try to push those who drink at home back into the pubs.

Its right there in section 5.3 if you want to look https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/14719/1/Fine_Gael_Manifesto.pdf

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs.

Not a mention of health anywhere.

ohnonotgmail

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Riddle me this:

Why do you suppose the vintners are pushing for it. Could it be that the price will change behaviour? The Vintners' Federation represents pubs, not off licences. If the price hike won't have the positive effect of reducing alcohol consumption at home, then why should they advocate it?

Obviously it will reduce off-licence trade. That's the answer, but people are bending over backwards to convince themselves that prices have no effect on consumption.

to increase the price for drinking at home sufficiently for some people to say "feck it, may as well spend a few quid more and go to the pub".

MrMusician18

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

to increase the price for drinking at home sufficiently for some people to say "feck it, may as well spend a few quid more and go to the pub".

Exactly. The idea here is to make home drinking less attractive vs drinking in the pub. This is a market measure dressed up as a public health one. If it was a true public health one, the MUP would be set through taxation

I hope the policy backfires spectacularly and leads to the M1 turning into the North-South River of alcohol. I hope the politicians in the North see the benefit for them of this and refuse to follow the lead.

VinLieger

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

VinLieger wrote: »

Price has no effect on consumption, we know this because our overall consumption has dropped by 33% in the past 15 years yet as we are constantly being told alcohol has only gotten cheaper?

Firstly, that is a complete non-sequitur.

Secondly, you are failing to consider a counterfactual scenario where consumption levels (which may have fallen anyway, because an increased societal emphasis on healthy living) may have fallen to a greater extent if the price of alcohol had increased, using MUP.

Thirdly, economists have in fact studied this. In the UK, it has been discovered that while beer and wine are price inelastic (essentially, price doesn't have much impact on consumption), spirits are price elastic — when the price rises, more people will stop consuming them, or switch to an alternative.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387513/HMRC_WorkingPaper_16_Alcohol_elasticities_final.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjz8om247rwAhUxrXEKHfXJAigQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2dq2pMAIoxnKOmjMCJpRfs&cshid=1620501114898

Therefore, it would appear to make sense — since spirits are more harmful when consumed in equivalent volumes — for a MUP to focus especially on spirits, and less on wines and beers.

elperello

kerryjack wrote: »

Every one should be breathaized that ends up in A&E and if you have drink or drugs in your system they should be a substantial fine say 1000 euro, you might think twice about making an ass of yourself which we have all done at some stage of our life, and a good life lesson would have been learned.

Just try to think that through.

People who need to be in A&E should get there ASAP.

Anything which might delay treatment for those who need it is bad for the patient and could possibly cost the health system more in the longer term.

odyssey06

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Firstly, that is a complete non-sequitur.

Secondly, you are failing to consider a counterfactual scenario where consumption levels (which may have fallen anyway, because an increased societal emphasis on healthy living) may have fallen to a greater extent if the price of alcohol had increased, using MUP.

Thirdly, economists have in fact studied this. In the UK, it has been discovered that while beer and wine are price inelastic (essentially, price doesn't have much impact on consumption), spirits are price elastic — when the price rises, more people will stop consuming them, or switch to an alternative.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387513/HMRC_WorkingPaper_16_Alcohol_elasticities_final.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjz8om247rwAhUxrXEKHfXJAigQFjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw2dq2pMAIoxnKOmjMCJpRfs&cshid=1620501114898

Therefore, it would appear to make sense — since spirits are more harmful when consumed in equivalent volumes — for a MUP to focus especially on spirits, and less on wines and beers.

Alcohol consumption dropped 6% in 2020 when people were drinking more alcohol at home - purchased at lower off trade prices rather than at higher on trade prices.
Consumption of beer, cider and spirits dropped, consumption of wine increased.
Suggests there is a lot more going on.

KrustyUCC

Puritans and health zealots find another stick to beat drinkers with

https://www.echolive.ie/corkviews/arid-40283810.html

Very good article which every politician will ignore

odyssey06

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

odyssey06 wrote: »

Alcohol consumption dropped 6% in 2020 when people were drinking more alcohol at home - purchased at lower off trade prices rather than at higher on trade prices.
Consumption of beer, cider and spirits dropped, consumption of wine increased.
Suggests there is a lot more going on.

For sure, but that comes back to the point about counterfactual scenarios. We don't know if consumption might have fallen by 10% instead of 6%, if prices had increased. Consumption may be falling for wider reasons than price alone — lots of young people (teenagers) seem relatively uninterested in drink, compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

I agree there are a lot of moving parts at work. I doubt anybody thinks it's easy to combat alcohol abuse by changing the price level. As shown in the report linked-to earlier, it doesn't seem to work well for beers and wines. People just downgrade to a cheaper version. However, they probably do come off the spirits.

odyssey06

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

For sure, but that comes back to the point about counterfactual scenarios. We don't know if consumption might have fallen by 10% instead of 6%, if prices had increased. Consumption may be falling for wider reasons than price alone — lots of young people (teenagers) seem relatively uninterested in drink, compared to 20 or 30 years ago.
I agree there are a lot of moving parts at work. I doubt anybody thinks it's easy to combat alcohol abuse by changing the price level. As shown in the report linked-to earlier, it doesn't seem to work well for beers and wines. People just downgrade to a cheaper version. However, they probably do come off the spirits.

We could argue counterfactuals until the cows come home though.
Alcohol consumption did not increase and spirits consumption fell in 2020.
If spirit consumption is price elastic, why did it not increase with the increase in home consumption at lower prices?

Beyond a certain point you are going to hit price inelastic spirits drinking.
Irish prices for spirits were already higher than Scottish\UK prices.
Perhaps we'd already hit that point.

Alcohol consumption is dropping for spontaneous complex reasons, MUP isn't needed, given that that is its stated aim.

Especially when it has the side effect of impacting people who are not abusing alcohol. It is too crude a tool, bceause it isn't easy to combat alcohol abuse through price.
There is way too much collateral damage with this measure. It is not targeted.
Its main effect is a revenue generating exercise for retailers selling alcohol.

odyssey06

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

odyssey06 wrote: »

We could argue counterfactuals until the cows come home though.
Alcohol consumption did not increase and spirits consumption fell in 2020.

of course, but the point about raising a counterfactual is not to prove the counterfactual — that is impossible, by definition – but to highlight deficits in information. Especially, to highlight faulty correlation. In other words, to show that the reduction in consumption might have been greater if MUP had existed.

Nobody can legitimately claim that Irish patterns of consumption "prove" that prices are inelastic, as has been claimed.

If spirit consumption is price elastic, why did it not increase with the increase in home consumption at lower prices?

Perhaps because it wouldn't occur to most people to drink spirits at home, unless there was a social event happening in the home, like a gathering. The data is very clear on spirits though, they are price-elastic for demand, and that is where MUP should have its focus, not on wine and beers.

odyssey06

A Lamb Named Miltiades! wrote: »

of course, but the point about raising a counterfactual is not to prove the counterfactual — that is impossible, by definition – but to highlight deficits in information. Especially, to highlight faulty correlation. In other words, to show that the reduction in consumption might have been greater if MUP had existed.
Nobody can legitimately claim that Irish patterns of consumption "prove" that prices are inelastic, as has been claimed.
Perhaps because it wouldn't occur to most people to drink spirits at home, unless there was a social event happening in the home, like a gathering. The data is very clear on spirits though, they are price-elastic for demand, and that is where MUP should have its focus, not on wine and beers.

I think Irish patterns of consumption prove that there is an element of demand that is price inelastic, or that it is 'sticky'.
If spirits were fully price elastic for demand, consumption should have increased in 2020. It did not. Suggesting price is not the main factor in driving demand and questioning whether it should be the basis for such government interventions in the market.
There may be some people for which the demand is price elastic, but these are least likely to be found among the 'drinkers of concern' that MUP is targeted at.

MUP is a ineffectual measure if there is a concern specifcally about drinking spirits at home as it will not reduce such 'problem' drinking.
MUP is an unnecessary measure if the concern is about overall levels of alcohol consumption, as these are already falling for spontaneous reasons.
MUP is a crude measure because it penalises responsible drinkers and directs revenue to the retailers of alcohol, which seems an absurd thing to do if it is declared as an anti-alcohol measure.

PTH2009

The term 'Public Health advice' has really made ground the last 12-15 months

Government **** themselves when they here 'Public Health Advice suggests this and that'

hynesie08

PTH2009 wrote: »

The term 'Public Health advice' has really made ground the last 12-15 months

Government **** themselves when they here 'Public Health Advice suggests this and that'

Yes, doctors only started giving health advice in february 2020.

PTH2009

hynesie08 wrote: »

Yes, doctors only started giving health advice in february 2020.

Downwards from Mid Feb 2020 there advice was met with

'Ah Shur look' type stuff and taken with a grain of salt but since Lockdown 1 the advice is taken way more seriously

FileNotFound

kerryjack wrote: »

Not in AA
Not in favour of MUP
It's the doctors and paramedics that's lobbying for this as the see the cahos on a nightly basis, people should be left to Drink themselves to death if they wish but please do it quietly and stay out of hospital and leave hospitals for sick people, That's all I am saying.

Then that supports our stance that MUP is nonsense and taxation is a better approach.

I'm sure there are few stats on it but from what I have seen most drink related late night A&E cases are people on a night in the pubs.

So surely doctors lobbied to kill off the pubs?

kerryjack

FileNotFound wrote: »

Then that supports our stance that MUP is nonsense and taxation is a better approach.

I'm sure there are few stats on it but from what I have seen most drink related late night A&E cases are people on a night in the pubs.

So surely doctors lobbied to kill off the pubs?

I do laugh at the publicans association talking about the safe drinking environment that's in a pub and not in a home in all my years out and about I rarely saw anyone refused a drink and they would be mouldy drunk, many a sunday I spent on the beer in the local village and you wouldn't even get a sandwich. I would like to know the stats on the amount of people that end up in A&E after a house party or a night out in pub or night club, if the government was serious about this they should make all pubs do some food and and have some bit of grazing while your having a few pints.

FileNotFound

kerryjack wrote: »

I do laugh at the publicans association talking about the safe drinking environment that's in a pub and not in a home in all my years out and about I rarely saw anyone refused a drink and they would be mouldy drunk, many a sunday I spent on the beer in the local village and you wouldn't even get a sandwich. I would like to know the stats on the amount of people that end up in A&E after a house party or a night out in pub or night club, if the government was serious about this they should make all pubs do some food and and have some bit of grazing while your having a few pints.

They did that with the 9 euro meal during this pandemic. Everyone seemed to miss the point and just complained about it.

Years ago nightclubs had to serve food.

ShamNNspace

FileNotFound wrote: »

They did that with the 9 euro meal during this pandemic. Everyone seemed to miss the point and just complained about it.

Years ago nightclubs had to serve food.

The difference was people had no choice but to have this meal if they wanted to enjoy a pint or not..... as for those nightclub meals I remember them well, most of those "feeds" ended up on the pavement or the toilet floor if the unlucky client made it that far

FileNotFound

ShamNNspace wrote: »

The difference was people had no choice but to have this meal if they wanted to enjoy a pint or not..... as for those nightclub meals I remember them well, most of those "feeds" ended up on the pavement or the toilet floor if the unlucky client made it that far

Indeed neither seemed to be a great success or a big winner with the general public.

Kerry man indicated drink should be served with food. I was merely saying this had been tried.

ShamNNspace

FileNotFound wrote: »

Indeed neither seemed to be a great success or a big winner with the general public.

Kerry man indicated drink should be served with food. I was merely saying this had been tried.

I like the option of snacks myself, like they'd have in dutch bars or many german neighbourhood bars, nothing big with all the hoo-ha, just a snack if one feels hungry

odyssey06

ShamNNspace wrote: »

I like the option of snacks myself, like they'd have in dutch bars or many german neighbourhood bars, nothing big with all the hoo-ha, just a snack if one feels hungry

Pizza slices would hit the spot!

kerryjack

Remember them night club dinners they were slop. The powers that be want to change our drink culture and all they can come up with is adding a few cent on to the price of a cheap can of beer, If you went to the continent Spain, France or Italy you would all ways be able to get some bit of nibbles with your drink and sometimes free all you get in this country is a grunt, most publication, I know are lazy and slow to make changes and make little effort to get you in the door and keep you there.

ohnonotgmail

kerryjack wrote: »

Remember them night club dinners they were slop. The powers that be want to change our drink culture and all they can come up with is adding a few cent on to the price of a cheap can of beer, If you went to the continent Spain, France or Italy you would all ways be able to get some bit of nibbles with your drink and sometimes free all you get in this country is a grunt, most publication, I know are lazy and slow to make changes and make little effort to get you in the door and keep you there.

Hollywood Nights in stillorgan used to do a savage chicken curry back in the day.

ShamNNspace

ShamNNspace wrote: »

I like the option of snacks myself, like they'd have in dutch bars or many german neighbourhood bars, nothing big with all the hoo-ha, just a snack if one feels hungry

My uncle ran a pub in Cork years ago. He used to provide sandwiches and cocktail sausages for free around 10pm. He said to me the reason he did it was the chances of there being trouble reduced significantly when people were fed. What he was providing cost him only a couple of euros but it was well worth it.

Providing a snack or nibbles when serving alcohol is the norm all over the world. Here, some places the best you can get is a bag of crisps. Not much soakage in crisps.

Yellow_Fern

Deleted User wrote: »

My uncle ran a pub in Cork years ago. He used to provide sandwiches and cocktail sausages for free around 10pm. He said to me the reason he did it was the chances of there being trouble reduced significantly when people were fed. What he was providing cost him only a couple of euros but it was well worth it.

Providing a snack or nibbles when serving alcohol is the norm all over the world. Here, some places the best you can get is a bag of crisps. Not much soakage in crisps.

Most bars dont have trouble. That tends to occur around late bars and bars catering to young people which have a night club vibe and they are not places where food is expected.

Capt'n Midnight

Aldi Italy have a 1L bottle of 96% Alcohol for €13.79

76.8 Irish units representing a saving of €63 per bottle compared to MUP.

You are allowed 10L of spirits if travelling in the EU.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Most bars dont have trouble. That tends to occur around late bars and bars catering to young people which have a night club vibe and they are not places where food is expected.

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

Aldi Italy have a 1L bottle of 96% Alcohol for €13.79

76.8 Irish units representing a saving of €63 per bottle compared to MUP.

You are allowed 10L of spirits if travelling in the EU.

I went home for christmas one year from the Czech Republic and in my suitcase I brought 5 litres of wine from Lidl. Each litre carton cost 1 euro. I let my family test it, at the time they all worked in the drinks trade(making, not selling) and everyone agreed it was very nice. And that was the wine we drank all over christmas.

5 litres for less than the price of one bottle here.

I was in spain years ago and we were told not to drink the tap water. We compared the prices in the supermarket and litre to litre the brandy was cheaper than the bottled water.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Aldi Italy have a 1L bottle of 96% Alcohol for €13.79

76.8 Irish units representing a saving of €63 per bottle compared to MUP.

You are allowed 10L of spirits if travelling in the EU.

Fella I know was drinking that with tonic when he was about 19,
Every time he went to the jax his "mates" would pour more into his glass.
Of course he ended up absolutely paracletic and passed out.
Next day his vision was blurry and he ended up having to get glasses .

BrownFinger

BrownFinger wrote: »

Fella I know was drinking that with tonic when he was about 19,
Every time he went to the jax his "mates" would pour more into his glass.
Of course he ended up absolutely paracletic and passed out.
Next day his vision was blurry and he ended up having to get glasses .

*May or may not be a true story.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

*May or may not be a true story.

Yea I made up that drinking 96% alcohol can make you blind.