Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

kylith

bananabread12 wrote: »

It's a pathetic indictment of the kind of society we live in that there are characters such as yourself that believe individuals that simply refuse to take any personal responsibility for their own lives are somehow the responsibility of the taxpayers.

You assume in your post that the taxpayer is happy to pay for this, well guess what....I'm certainly not happy to pay for Joe Soaps hospital bills after getting himself into such a state of intoxication that he has ended up in a brawl on the streets, attacked someone who is now in need of stitches or needs his stomach pumped. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for these personally inflicted issues that countless so-called-"adults" end up in A&E with on a daily basis? The same thing with smoking - why should John Gym have to pay for some individual that smokes 50 cigarettes a day? "Slippery slope", as you'd say to tell this person to cop on...

No, of course people involved in this shouldn't have to take any responsibility for themselves or their actions. Far easier to let the taxpayers deal with it and punish responsible, law-abiding adults by increasing the price of alcohol. Pathetic.

No one's delighted with paying to get drunks patched up, but if we're going to refuse them healthcare should we not do so for everyone injured through their own fault? Fell while climbing a mountain? That's your own fault, no free healthcare for you!

MightyMandarin

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

I'm the first to think that we have a problem with alcohol in this country, but at the same time I don't like the idea of minimum pricing at all. For one, I like alcohol and would rather not have a minimum of €28 on a bottle of spirits, because sometimes I like to just share a cheap bottle of vodka with mates and see no problem with that.

People always compare us with Europe, and they're right in doing so, but the comparison isn't simple at all. For one, smoking is far more prevalent in Germany and cigarette companies advertise, yet when it comes to alcohol I find the germans to be far more sensible when it comes to consumption than us.

Why is it that in a country where I can buy a 70cl for 5 quid at 8am on a tuesday they don't seem to have as much issues with drink than us?

The only reason I can see is that our culture is ****ed up. Nowadays all I ever hear when mentioning social gatherings of any sort is 'pints, cans, downing naggins etc.' and I realise a lot of it is piss-taking but there's a sad undertone to it all imo. Sometimes I like to go out and drink water, and even though I got a few jokes about it in Germany, in Ireland I've found that doing such a thing seems really, really weird. I still go ahead and drink what I want, but I find that people hold alcohol as more of a crutch to socialising here than on the continent.

I've no idea how the **** we change the culture, but minimum pricing will do damn all imo.

From what I can see, it starts with the media and advertising on television. Billboards and posters are one thing, but ads showing 'de ladz out for pints/ girls out for some drinks' feeds the message of what is 'normal' to people and normalises this behaviour to the point where it's 'normal' to drink 2-3x a week here. This is where we might cause some changes to the culture here I think.

BuilderPlumber

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm the first to think that we have a problem with alcohol in this country, but at the same time I don't like the idea of minimum pricing at all. For one, I like alcohol and would rather not have a minimum of €28 on a bottle of spirits, because sometimes I like to just share a cheap bottle of vodka with mates and see no problem with that.

People always compare us with Europe, and they're right in doing so, but the comparison isn't simple at all. For one, smoking is far more prevalent in Germany and cigarette companies advertise, yet when it comes to alcohol I find the germans to be far more sensible when it comes to consumption than us.

Why is it that in a country where I can buy a 70cl for 5 quid at 8am on a tuesday they don't seem to have as much issues with drink than us?

The only reason I can see is that our culture is ****ed up. Nowadays all I ever hear when mentioning social gatherings of any sort is 'pints, cans, downing naggins etc.' and I realise a lot of it is piss-taking but there's a sad undertone to it all imo. Sometimes I like to go out and drink water, and even though I got a few jokes about it in Germany, in Ireland I've found that doing such a thing seems really, really weird. I still go ahead and drink what I want, but I find that people hold alcohol as more of a crutch to socialising here than on the continent.

I've no idea how the **** we change the culture, but minimum pricing will do damn all imo.

From what I can see, it starts with the media and advertising on television. Billboards and posters are one thing, but ads showing 'de ladz out for pints/ girls out for some drinks' feeds the message of what is 'normal' to people and normalises this behaviour to the point where it's 'normal' to drink 2-3x a week here. This is where we might cause some changes to the culture here I think.

This thing is just another quick VAT grab attempt and also an attempt to protect the vintners. The majority of people are not asking for this unfair legislation and no it will not change problem drinking culture either.

Excessive and harmful drinking is linked into depression and suicide. While there is talk of the prevalence of all these, I believe it is the unfair nature of certain aspects of Irish society that continue to fuel all this.

big b

Anyone not thinking this is simply a sop to the "hard-pressed" vintners, but presented as a "we're trying to stop people drinking so much" is naive in the extreme.

Call it a delayed compo for stopping the smoking in pubs

KungPao

Definitely not about health. Poor alcies out there can make their own "wine" with just water, sugar and yeast. Easy and potentially poisonous but ah sure. Will just taste like ethanol but stick a bit of grape juice in it and it's practically a merlot.

Ubbquittious

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Right so nearly €5 for 568mls or a 500ml can for say €2. Then your looking at €10 anyway for a taxi per head of there's a few together

Even at €3 a can I'd still rather buy 4-5 cans in the shop or off licence and let the pubs get to fcuk

A few years ago I was getting €3 pints in a pub in Letterkenny.

Pub prices have crept up a nice bit in the last few years. Anything under €4 is a bargain now

Akrasia

If the government thinks cheap alcohol is a problem, wait until the homeless and alcoholics discover fentanyl.

If someone is spending a hundred euros a week on cheap alcohol, they're addicted already and jacking up the price by 300% means they'll move to something else to replace alcohol.

Fentanyl is extremely cheap, and extremely dangerous, and easy to smuggle because it only takes a tiny amount to serve a large market.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/fears-that-potent-drug-fentanyl-may-take-hold-in-ireland-1.3179575

bananabread12

kylith wrote: »

No one's delighted with paying to get drunks patched up, but if we're going to refuse them healthcare should we not do so for everyone injured through their own fault? Fell while climbing a mountain? That's your own fault, no free healthcare for you!

No, I don't think people who go out there and willingly put their lives on the line for an adrenaline rush should be entitled to free healthcare, absolutely not. I skydived on a few occasions and I was always made sign a waiver - if you are engaged in dangerous activities then you should automatically forego access to free healthcare. Let your own wallet patch you up and you'll learn fairly sharpish about taking such stupid risks. It's not the taxpayers fault that Jim John is a few eggs short of a dozen.

Legalise all drugs, let adults smoke 100 cigarettes a day, allow alcohol to be sold at 6am for buttons, let them eat themselves into an early grave.......when is this country going to start treating adults like the adults they are instead of holding their hands like little children? People in this country need to learn to take some personal responsibility for themselves instead of having their hand held from cradle to grave.

Leroy42

bananabread12 wrote: »

No, I don't think people who go out there and willingly put their lives on the line for an adrenaline rush should be entitled to free healthcare, absolutely not. I skydived on a few occasions and I was always made sign a waiver - if you are engaged in dangerous activities then you should automatically forego access to free healthcare. Let your own wallet patch you up and you'll learn fairly sharpish about taking such stupid risks. It's not the taxpayers fault that Jim John is a few eggs short of a dozen.

Legalise all drugs, let adults smoke 100 cigarettes a day, allow alcohol to be sold at 6am for buttons, let them eat themselves into an early grave.......when is this country going to start treating adults like the adults they are instead of holding their hands like little children? People in this country need to learn to take some personal responsibility for themselves instead of having their hand held from cradle to grave.

Thats all very well and good but where do you draw the line. Is playing football for a team a dangerous activity? What about playing in the garden with the kids? Or jaywalking, should pedestrians hit whilst jaywalking be looked after? And what about a driver going over the speed limit, and the passengers in the car?

In terms of legalising everything, there is certainly an argument for that but it falls down based on experience. If a guy wants to sit at home and drink his head off then fine, but what about his family? The neighbours? What about the residents in Temple Bar, should have have to put up with 24 hours bar openings?

There is well documented reports showing that the Irish seem to have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol and shows little mood to change.

dr.fuzzenstein

bananabread12 wrote: »

No, I don't think people who go out there and willingly put their lives on the line for an adrenaline rush should be entitled to free healthcare, absolutely not. I skydived on a few occasions and I was always made sign a waiver - if you are engaged in dangerous activities then you should automatically forego access to free healthcare. Let your own wallet patch you up and you'll learn fairly sharpish about taking such stupid risks. It's not the taxpayers fault that Jim John is a few eggs short of a dozen.

Legalise all drugs, let adults smoke 100 cigarettes a day, allow alcohol to be sold at 6am for buttons, let them eat themselves into an early grave.......when is this country going to start treating adults like the adults they are instead of holding their hands like little children? People in this country need to learn to take some personal responsibility for themselves instead of having their hand held from cradle to grave.

Bollocks.
You keep bleating about tax payers. I get it, you don't like paying for others, but that's the way this game works. If something happens to you, others pay for you, don't forget, the people getting injured are also tax payers.
Works fine in Germany, I live beside a mountain that is a ski slope in winter. The rescue helicopter is here a lot, in winter sometimes several times a day. People are generally very outdoor active here. Cycling, swimming, climbing, hiking, skiing, paragliding, etc...
It is regarded as a good thing and part of a healthy lifestyle, so encouraging it is better than trying to (like in Ireland) discourage and stop people from doing anything where they might get hurt.
It's a typicalities Oirish attitude to just try and stop people do anything, tax and ban, sweep it under the rug, discourage, punish, never incentivise, never encourage, always just put a downer in everything.
The government would like it best if everyone just sat quietly at a table with their hands where they could see them.
Funny how Ireland is much more authoritarian and top down in many regards compared to Germany, much more "I'll shut that bollox up!"

Wanderer78

bananabread12 wrote:

No, I don't think people who go out there and willingly put their lives on the line for an adrenaline rush should be entitled to free healthcare, absolutely not. I skydived on a few occasions and I was always made sign a waiver - if you are engaged in dangerous activities then you should automatically forego access to free healthcare. Let your own wallet patch you up and you'll learn fairly sharpish about taking such stupid risks. It's not the taxpayers fault that Jim John is a few eggs short of a dozen.

bananabread12 wrote:

Legalise all drugs, let adults smoke 100 cigarettes a day, allow alcohol to be sold at 6am for buttons, let them eat themselves into an early grave.......when is this country going to start treating adults like the adults they are instead of holding their hands like little children? People in this country need to learn to take some personal responsibility for themselves instead of having their hand held from cradle to grave.

It's good to see some have a 'great' understanding of the complexity of human behaviour in particular complex behavioural issues such as mental health issues and subsequent addiction problems such as alcoholism etc!

Sam Kade

In the news 2 days ago Ireland isn't the highest consumer of alcohol anymore and now they have to bring in minimum pricing because we have a problem with alcohol :rolleyes:

Minimum pricing won't do anything for anyone dependant on alcohol, they'll just make cutbacks elsewhere to get their fix.

jimgoose

Leroy42 wrote: »

<snip hardman pseudo-libertarian bollixology>

"Man," said the Ghost, "if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered what the surplus is, and where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be that in the sight of Heaven you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man's child. O God! to hear the insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!"

dr.fuzzenstein

This whole idea of "no healthcare for you!" is idiotic and offensive, sprung from small minds and tight wallets. I bet such people are conveniently off to the loo when it's time for their round.
That is not the way it works. And if you want it to work this way, sorry, life is tough. Deal.

OldNotWIse

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

This whole idea of "no healthcare for you!" is idiotic and offensive, sprung from small minds and tight wallets. I bet such people are conveniently off to the loo when it's time for their round.
That is not the way it works. And if you want it to work this way, sorry, life is tough. Deal.

Agree. And if we remove healthcare for drinkers, do we also do it for smokers? What about the 38% of the population who are overweight and who will suffer from obesity related illnesses? People involved in car crashes caused by their own speed, misjudgment and recklessness?

redarmyblues

Private drivers of diesel cars and their families should also be denied health care for endangering the health of both parties, furthermore they should have their houses sold from under them to pay for the health of innocent pedestrians and cyclists who have no choice but to breath their poisonous emissions.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/life/auto/2016/12/18/diesel-exhaust-fumes/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/volkswagen/11899676/The-statistics-about-diesel-are-crystal-clear.-Its-deadly.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2617425/The-deadly-diesel-deception-We-bullied-buying-diesel-cars-help-fight-global-warming-Now-experts-say-green-fuel-killing-thousands-us.html
etc, etc.

dr.fuzzenstein

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Agree. And if we remove healthcare for drinkers, do we also do it for smokers? What about the 38% of the population who are overweight and who will suffer from obesity related illnesses? People involved in car crashes caused by their own speed, misjudgment and recklessness?

And that will eventually lead to massive cop-out when providing health care in general, along the same lines as "pre-existing conditions" can leave people facing bills of tens of thousands of dollars for vital surgery in the US, even though they have valid health care cover. It's the ultimate blackmail "I'm sure you want to keep your husband/father/other relative a bit longer, well, that'll be $60k for that bypass please. While you decide, I'll be on the golf course".
And I'm very happy to say my diesel is Euro 3 and leaves a very impressive cloud of shmoke when flooring it.

Foxhound38

I'm an adult - I and a lot of other adults would be just delighted if the Government would feck off with itself and start treating us as such as long as we are not harming anyone else. They inconvenienced us a few years ago by preventing those of us who work nights from legally purchasing a bottle of wine at a shop or off-licence on the way home if it's after 10PM, and now they are trying to hit those of us who don't want to spend big money on the occasional drink in the pocket for the privilege too. If I was a cynical man, I'd wonder whether this is all just a way for politicians to drive customers to their vintner mates instead of the shops and off-licences - if I was was a cynical man, of course.

What happened to just letting adults be adults and make their own choices? And don't make me laugh about the health aspect - this law isn't aimed at alcoholics (who will just impoverish themselves and pay the extra money, as all addicts would).

OldNotWIse

Foxhound38 wrote: »

I'm an adult - I and a lot of other adults would be just delighted if the Government would feck off with itself and start treating us as such as long as we are not harming anyone else. They inconvenienced us a few years ago by preventing those of us who work nights from legally purchasing a bottle of wine at a shop or off-licence on the way home if it's after 10PM, and now they are trying to hit those of us who don't want to spend big money on the occasional drink in the pocket for the privilege too. If I was a cynical man, I'd wonder whether this is all just a way for politicians to drive customers to their vintner mates instead of the shops and off-licences - if I was was a cynical man, of course.

What happened to just letting adults be adults and make their own choices? And don't make me laugh about the health aspect - this law isn't aimed at alcoholics (who will just impoverish themselves and pay the extra money, as all addicts would).

Well said. They know already that increasing the price doesn't deter people. Sure look at cigarettes - something like twelve quid a box now? And people are still smoking. Those who drink to the point of harm will still do so - it just means those of us who can actually drink in moderation will be punished.

Another point worth mentioning is if you consider someone who is an alcoholic, and the effect that might be having on their family - children who have to go without because mam or dad is spending the children's allowance on drink - yeah sure hike the price up, that wont negatively impact upon the child even more. I am sure the dipso parent will drink the same amount but have even less to spend on school shoes and food see sense when the price goes up and stop drinking to excess.

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

...And I'm very happy to say my diesel is Euro 3 and leaves a very impressive cloud of shmoke when flooring it.

And for those of you unversed with the Motors forum, I am very proud to be able to say that I wrote Dr. Fuzz's signature. :pac::pac::pac:

KrustyUCC

FactCheck: Is minimum unit alcohol pricing "proven" to work?
Health Promotion Minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy made a big claim about the effectiveness of the government’s alcohol policy, this week. We tested it.

http://www.thejournal.ie/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-ireland-facts-2932210-Aug2016/

The rationale for this piece of legislation is nothing to do with health really

5.3 Keeping Communities Vibrant
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.

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

Mr. teddywinkles

KrustyUCC wrote: »

FactCheck: Is minimum unit alcohol pricing "proven" to work?
Health Promotion Minister Marcella Corcoran Kennedy made a big claim about the effectiveness of the government’s alcohol policy, this week. We tested it.

http://www.thejournal.ie/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-ireland-facts-2932210-Aug2016/

The rationale for this piece of legislation is nothing to do with health really

5.3 Keeping Communities Vibrant
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.

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

What the fook is below cost selling anyways. Don't understand that at all. Maybe I'm thick. Is it not a free market the last time I checked. Sell your wares as you see fit for profit even if that's a smaller profit. A load of ****e.

Leroy42

Below cost selling is based on the premise that people will come to your store to get the cheap products and also pick up other items whilst they are there in order to deliver the profits.

So a supermarket can sell below the cost they bought the product for for two reasons. It creates footfall and advertising, social media etc it also gets people to buy other stuff whilst they are in the shop (crisps, BBQ food, carry out the household shop etc).

They are essentially using a loss on alcohol to drive other sales, which people deem to be less than responsible.

Of course every business does this to some extent. Pubs run loss leaders in turns of sport, music etc to bring in the crowd that whilst there will buy food and drink. It really isn't any different.

Mr. teddywinkles

Leroy42 wrote: »

Below cost selling is based on the premise that people will come to your store to get the cheap products and also pick up other items whilst they are there in order to deliver the profits.

So a supermarket can sell below the cost they bought the product for for two reasons. It creates footfall and advertising, social media etc it also gets people to buy other stuff whilst they are in the shop (crisps, BBQ food, carry out the household shop etc).

They are essentially using a loss on alcohol to drive other sales, which people deem to be less than responsible.

Of course every business does this to some extent. Pubs run loss leaders in turns of sport, music etc to bring in the crowd that whilst there will buy food and drink. It really isn't any different.

Technically if your still making a profit on something is it not below cost selling. I'd doubt looking at the price of alcohol now even if its a good offer is hardly giving it away for super markets which buy in bulk.

Leroy42

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

Technically if your still making a profit on something is it not below cost selling. I'd doubt looking at the price of alcohol now even if its a good offer is hardly giving it away for super markets which buy in bulk.

Well yes, but the recent (not sure when) legislation made it an offence to sell below the cost so currently it is not below cost selling.

But there is no doubt that supermarkets use alcohol at very low margins to bring in customers. And it works.

But pubs really do the same thing. They offer free sports on TV, free music, etc. All this is essentially done to drive in the customers to buy their main product, alcohol.

There is nothing to stop a pub laying on buses, or free softdrinks (coca-cola every year run a Christmas promotion for designated driver but the pubs generally simply pocket the free product profits)

Pubs have certainly evolved over the last 20 years. Many offer food services etc but in reality they have been caught out by a cheaper alternative. The cost of a pint is simply too high. You can argue about the need for a barman for pints, but what justification is there so charging €5 for a bottle when the same bottle can be bought for €2 in the offy next door.

listermint

Well folks, The only way to get yourself heard is to contact your local TD, get your family and friends to contact them too.

My vote will be removed from you and going to someone else should this come to pass. its as simple as that, You can respond with all the prepared health nonsense with single threaded paid for studies that you like. But il be removing my vote from you and your party if you let this pass.


These Weasels only listen to volume, if you turn it up they take notice.

Political currency is the election that will be happening and most likely it will happen next year.

Akrasia

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Agree. And if we remove healthcare for drinkers, do we also do it for smokers? What about the 38% of the population who are overweight and who will suffer from obesity related illnesses? People involved in car crashes caused by their own speed, misjudgment and recklessness?

I think we should bring in death panels staffed by self righteous libertarians who are experts in pointing out how everyone else is so flawed and irresponsible that they don't deserve any of their hard earned tax money.

osarusan

Akrasia wrote: »

I think we should bring in death panels staffed by self righteous libertarians who are experts in pointing out how everyone else is so flawed and irresponsible that they don't deserve any of their hard earned tax money.

Can I be in charge? I know ways of killing that cost next to nothing.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well yes, but the recent (not sure when) legislation made it an offence to sell below the cost so currently it is not below cost selling.

But there is no doubt that supermarkets use alcohol at very low margins to bring in customers. And it works.

But pubs really do the same thing. They offer free sports on TV, free music, etc. All this is essentially done to drive in the customers to buy their main product, alcohol.

There is nothing to stop a pub laying on buses, or free softdrinks (coca-cola every year run a Christmas promotion for designated driver but the pubs generally simply pocket the free product profits)

Pubs have certainly evolved over the last 20 years. Many offer food services etc but in reality they have been caught out by a cheaper alternative. The cost of a pint is simply too high. You can argue about the need for a barman for pints, but what justification is there so charging €5 for a bottle when the same bottle can be bought for €2 in the offy next door.

Or the most maddening thing of all, charging 2.50 for a 'pub sized' bottle of non alcoholic soft drink

McMurphy

listermint wrote: »

Well folks, The only way to get yourself heard is to contact your local TD, get your family and friends to contact them too.

My vote will be removed from you and going to someone else should this come to pass. its as simple as that, You can respond with all the prepared health nonsense with single threaded paid for studies that you like. But il be removing my vote from you and your party if you let this pass.


These Weasels only listen to volume, if you turn it up they take notice.

Political currency is the election that will be happening and most likely it will happen next year.

This.

In particular FF TD's should be emailed and reminded if they're even contemplating supporting this waffle, that any notion you had of voting for them will be gone.

Regardless if you ever had a notion of voting for them to begin with.

But FF want that power back, the threat of losing votes will shake them to the core.