Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Zubeneschamali

If the current orthodoxy is correct, how is it that allowing greater access to alcohol while making it more affordable and leaving advertising and sponsorship alone can coincide with huge drops in consumption?

Real world results from UK, Denmark and Italy.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/alcohol-policy-in-real-world.html

Reputable Rog

Leroy42 wrote: »

Or another way to look at it is that someone who has direct experience of the negative effects that alcohol can have on so many people rather than those lucky enough to not need the help feeling no empathy for those that do.



And what do you put this difference down to?

The difference is building a taboo around alcohol, hiding it away or restricting access only creates a mystique around a product.
I know of several people who moved to the Netherlands who would have used cannabis on a regular basis, since they've moved over there they don't bother with it or use it only occasionally, being allowed to make your own decisions leads people to being more responsible.

Fr Tod Umptious

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the current orthodoxy is correct, how is it that allowing greater access to alcohol while making it more affordable and leaving advertising and sponsorship alone can coincide with huge drops in consumption?

Real world results from UK, Denmark and Italy.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/alcohol-policy-in-real-world.html

Maybe it’s’ part of an overall trend towards a healthier lifestyle and attempts to have a healthier lifestyle in Western society.

Anecdotally - I’m in my mid 40s and I’m drinking far less than the generation before in my family was drinking when they were in their mid 40s.

Again anecdotally a hell of a lot of my peers, both male and female, are out doing adventure races, triathlons, marathons, half marathons, cycles etc.
Far more than would have been doing that a generation ago.

High levels of alcohol consumption do not fit with that lifestyle

Leroy42

Reputable Rog wrote: »

The difference is building a taboo around alcohol, hiding it away or restricting access only creates a mystique around a product.
I know of several people who moved to the Netherlands who would have used cannabis on a regular basis, since they've moved over there they don't bother with it or use it only occasionally, being allowed to make your own decisions leads people to being more responsible.

I would agree with you, except that it appears that the Irish seem to have a particular issue with alcohol. You only have to look at the almost panic buying of beer before Good Friday to witness that.

Up to a certain point people are allowed to make their own decisions, and in some cases the decisions are terrible. No issue there, but it also effects others it becomes a societal problem.

I would all for opening up the laws to allow total freedom for a period to review the effects but not much hope of that happening

A Rogue Hobo

The Good Friday binge buying is a different issue though. That's more to do with a majority percentage in this country identifying themselves as lapsed Catholics or not religious, and want complete seperation of state and church. Drinking on Good Friday, especially amongst 18-35 year olds is more of a middle finger to that fact more than anything else. Now that they're getting rid of the ban on Good Fridays you won't see half as many people purchasing alcohol that day, again it ties back into overregulation making people wanting to do it more.

Reputable Rog

The drink situation reminds me of the time when we had the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe which happened to co-incide with restricted access to contraception.
The Irish soloution is suppress everything from drink to sexuality.
It's Interesting to see the MUP proposed us 70% higher than that in Scotland, just further the cement the rip off existence in this country.

osarusan

If it was simple as that - restricting something makes people want to do it more, then wouldn't smoking rates be increasing?

I think our relationship with alcohol can't be broken down quite so easily.

odyssey06

osarusan wrote: »

If it was simple as that - restricting something makes people want to do it more, then wouldn't smoking rates be increasing?
I think our relationship with alcohol can't be broken down quite so easily.

In Australia there was a time where bars closed at 6pm.
Cue insane drinking between work finishing at 5pm and the bars closing at 6pm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_o%27clock_swill

Everywhere I read about restricting alcohol I see dysfunctional drinking culture as a result.

Imagine if smokers could only smoke for 1 hour during the day? I don't think the reaction would be the same. So I don't think it's a good comparison.
If smoking wasn't linked to cancer to the extent it is, it is questionable whether the restrictions applied would have any impact.

osarusan

odyssey06 wrote: »

In Australia there was a time where bars closed at 6pm.
Cue insane drinking between work finishing at 5pm and the bars closing at 6pm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_o%27clock_swill

Everywhere I read about restricting alcohol I see dysfunctional drinking culture as a result.

Imagine if smokers could only smoke for 1 hour during the day? I don't think the reaction would be the same. So I don't think it's a good comparison.
If smoking wasn't linked to cancer to the extent it is, it is questionable whether the restrictions applied would have any impact.

Was our drinking culture less dysfunctional before it became so restricted?

EDIT: That's a genuine question by the way.

i can appreciate that, for example, there will not be a closing time rush of booze if there is no closing time, but I think it's simplistic to put our drinking culture down to the regulation around it.

Zubeneschamali

osarusan wrote: »

Was our drinking culture less dysfunctional before it became so restricted?

It used to be more restricted and more dysfunctional.

I remember getting locked into pubs in Dublin during Holy Hour - no-one would leave because they could not get back in.

Fr Tod Umptious

osarusan wrote: »

Was our drinking culture less dysfunctional before it became so restricted?

Ireland's (pub) drinking culture has become less restricted in recent years.

Prior to the early 2000s pubs closed at 11:00pm in winter (Oct to April) and 11:30pm in summer (April to Oct)

Sunday closing was 10:00 and 10:30 if I recall, with pubs closed for an hour in the afternoon on a Sunday

Now they are open all day Sunday until 11:30pm, 12:30am on Friday and Saturday and on the Sunday before a bank holiday Monday

They were open until 12:30am on Thursdays but that was reverted to 11:30pm after a couple of years due to increased work and school absenteeism (nanny state move if you ask me)

You also have a lot more "late bars" that re open until 2am + in towns now that you had a decade or more ago.

Off licences hours have however been cut, 10pm closing came in recent years.

There's the VFI/LVF lobby again

redarmyblues

You would be forgiven for thinking that falling rates of alcohol consumption are the real driver behind this and that the Vintners are desperate to get their clammy hands on what remains. You could also argue that the trend towards drinking at home has been a driver in reducing drinking, no rounds, no one for the road etc. The hand wringing story of Irish and their unhealthy relationship with alcohol so beloved of middle aged journos, is largely a befuddled recollection, of the toxic pub culture of their youth. The youth of today do not have the same unhealthy attitude to drinking as their forebears and if the young adults in my family are anything to go by are not interested in much at all.

Zubeneschamali

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Sunday closing was 10:00 and 10:30 if I recall, with pubs closed for an hour in the afternoon on a Sunday

In Dublin, Holy hour was an hour every day, 2.30 to 3.30, and two hours on Sundays.

odyssey06

osarusan wrote: »

Was our drinking culture less dysfunctional before it became so restricted?
EDIT: That's a genuine question by the way.
i can appreciate that, for example, there will not be a closing time rush of booze if there is no closing time, but I think it's simplistic to put our drinking culture down to the regulation around it.

It may not be the answer to the whole equation but simplistic? No way.
Prohibition was simplistic nonsense, for example.

The problem with dysfunctional drinking cultures is that it can take time to rinse them out of the culture even when the original trigger is removed.
One of the causes of dysfunctional drinking is regulations, as noted in my "six o'clock swill reference".
I think less regulation would lead to a healthier relationship, a 16 yo having three pints with his mates in the pub is in better place than the same bunch of lads in a field tearing through cans... And they are in the field tearing through the cans picking up a dysfunctional attitude to alcohol because of those regulations.

I reject mandatory pricing in light of this on principle and in practice - there is no real evidence from its real world examples that it will even do what its advocates claim it will. I disregard completely as evidence 'models' and projections run on a computer in Sheffield.

But I don't think it is the whole equation. I read a book by an Irish American academic called The Hair of the Dog which argued that it was a legacy of the Irish reaction to the famine. The culture of bachelor 'boys' who drank together because of "relatively few and late marriages, religiously imposed chastity, and cultural segregation of the sexes." It was this culture that led to the persistence of the 'rounds' system in Ireland when it was dropped in most other european countries with the move to industrial labour and away from guilds and cottage industry and the paying of occupational fines in alcohol.
http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01219-6.html

So there can be other things amiss with societies (and or individuals) which can lead to dysfunctional relationships with alcohol.
But at a general level, if alcohol is regulated in such a way as to denormalise and mystify it... that society will have great difficulty in coming to a non dysfunctional relationship with alcohol.

Zubeneschamali

There were also far less restaurants serving beer or spirits - restaurants mostly only got wine licenses.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ireland's (pub) drinking culture has become less restricted in recent years. Prior to the early 2000s pubs closed at 11:00pm in winter (Oct to April) and 11:30pm in summer (April to Oct)

Correlation is not causation... but I am struck by the dates you note and the below article.

I don't see how anyone can argue that mandatory pricing is needed to deal with some sort of growing alcohol crisis...

In 2001, alcohol consumption in Ireland was at its peak. Ireland had the highest level of alcohol consumption in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) database. Over the last 15 years, consumption has fallen 23.9pc, according to the report.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/alcohol-consumption-declines-25pc-in-ireland-over-the-last-15-years-34541434.html

odyssey06

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There were also far less restaurants serving beer or spirits - restaurants mostly only got wine licenses.

I actually liked that quirk

And I actually, on a personal level, like the Good Friday ban on alcohol, because it is traditional, because it breaks up the usual patterns of behaviour...

But I cannot rationally defend the ban for the rest of society.

Zubeneschamali

odyssey06 wrote: »

In 2001, alcohol consumption in Ireland was at its peak.

30 years ago, Ireland was a long way from the top of the Euro league of drinkers, but we also had a high population of teetotalers.

As a kid, I remember hearing that as many as 1 adult in 3 was a Pioneer [* may not have been true!], and the other 2 adults nearly managed to drink us back into the top 10.

The Pioneers went broke in 2011.

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

30 years ago, Ireland was a long way from the top of the Euro league of drinkers, but we also had a high population of teetotalers.

As a kid, I remember hearing that as many as 1 adult in 3 was a Pioneer [* may not have been true!], and the other 2 adults nearly managed to drink us back into the top 10.

The Pioneers went broke in 2011.

No need to thank me. It was my pleasure to keep the side up for my country.

Fr Tod Umptious

odyssey06 wrote: »

Correlation is not causation... but I am struck by the dates you note and the below article.

I don't see how anyone can argue that mandatory pricing is needed to deal with some sort of growing alcohol crisis...

In 2001, alcohol consumption in Ireland was at its peak. Ireland had the highest level of alcohol consumption in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) database. Over the last 15 years, consumption has fallen 23.9pc, according to the report.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/alcohol-consumption-declines-25pc-in-ireland-over-the-last-15-years-34541434.html

July 6th 2000 the new times came into force
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/longer-pub-opening-hours-come-into-operation-today-1.289498

But on the consumption thing, 2001 was real boom time in Ireland, a lot of spending money in the country.

The crash of 2008 obviously would have taken a lot out of it, as would stricter drink driving laws, not only would one avoid drinking and driving at night but one would have to be cautious about how much to drink if one was driving the next morning.

And as I said earlier there is a trend towards healthier lifestyles which does not mix with alcohol consumption.

And at the end of the day these proposed laws just seem to be some attempt at a leg up for an already declining pub industry.

osarusan

odyssey06 wrote: »

It may not be the answer to the whole equation but simplistic? No way.
Prohibition was simplistic nonsense, for example.

The problem with dysfunctional drinking cultures is that it can take time to rinse them out of the culture even when the original trigger is removed.
One of the causes of dysfunctional drinking is regulations, as noted in my "six o'clock swill reference".
I think less regulation would lead to a healthier relationship, a 16 yo having three pints with his mates in the pub is in better place than the same bunch of lads in a field tearing through cans... And they are in the field tearing through the cans picking up a dysfunctional attitude to alcohol because of those regulations.

I reject mandatory pricing in light of this on principle and in practice - there is no real evidence from its real world examples that it will even do what its advocates claim it will. I disregard completely as evidence 'models' and projections run on a computer in Sheffield.

But I don't think it is the whole equation. I read a book by an Irish American academic called The Hair of the Dog which argued that it was a legacy of the Irish reaction to the famine. The culture of bachelor 'boys' who drank together because of "relatively few and late marriages, religiously imposed chastity, and cultural segregation of the sexes." It was this culture that led to the persistence of the 'rounds' system in Ireland when it was dropped in most other european countries with the move to industrial labour and away from guilds and cottage industry and the paying of occupational fines in alcohol.
http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-01219-6.html

So there can be other things amiss with societies (and or individuals) which can lead to dysfunctional relationships with alcohol.
But at a general level, if alcohol is regulated in such a way as to denormalise and mystify it... that society will have great difficulty in coming to a non dysfunctional relationship with alcohol.

I don't disagree with anything you've said there.

What I said was simplistic was to put a dysfunctional relationship with alcohol purely down to the regulations around it, when as you say, that's not the whole equation.

If we accept that it's not the whole equation, then it won't be wholly solved simply by easing/removing restrictions.

Either way, minimum pricing won't do anything to address it, as it's purely for the benefit of publicans, with health issues just a legitimising facade.

Shelflife

The main problem is the measures included in the bill will make little or no difference to the issue of problem drinking.

Problem drinkers will still drink to excess regardless of the price and regardless of whether or not they have to enter a cordoned off section of a shop or not, as one recovering alcoholic said to me , at my worst you could have put barbed wire around it and I still would have got in.

All that happens with this bill is that the sensible majority who drink in moderation will now have to pay more for their alcohol and will now have to enter a cordoned off area of a shop in order to access it.

The retailers esp the smaller ones will have the added expense of blocking off an area of their shop ( Frances Black with her €500 estimate is clearly in cloud cuckoo land with that price) they will also have the added expense of adding security to this area of their shop which is now blocked off .

Sales will drop as shoppers wont want to be followed into this restricted area by a shop assistant and redundancies will follow as shop make less money or get out of the off licencing altogether.

This will impact the smaller shop more than the bigger supermarkets as they will be able to block off a bigger section and simply assign staff to that area full time.

Problem drinker will still come in, still buy too much alcohol, will still drink the same but will cut back on other essentials such as food , light and heat. Their personal situation becomes worse as result of it all and everyone is a loser.

What I cant understand is the amount of media time given to the likes of Frances Black and Kenny Egan , they represent a small minority who are in favour of this or who think this is a good and well thought out piece of legislation.

Why dont the media give a balanced take on this with 10 interviews with people who think its a bad idea for every one who thinks its a good idea ?

pilly

Shelflife wrote: »

The main problem is the measures included in the bill will make little or no difference to the issue of problem drinking.

Problem drinkers will still drink to excess regardless of the price and regardless of whether or not they have to enter a cordoned off section of a shop or not, as one recovering alcoholic said to me , at my worst you could have put barbed wire around it and I still would have got in.

All that happens with this bill is that the sensible majority who drink in moderation will now have to pay more for their alcohol and will now have to enter a cordoned off area of a shop in order to access it.

The retailers esp the smaller ones will have the added expense of blocking off an area of their shop ( Frances Black with her €500 estimate is clearly in cloud cuckoo land with that price) they will also have the added expense of adding security to this area of their shop which is now blocked off .

Sales will drop as shoppers wont want to be followed into this restricted area by a shop assistant and redundancies will follow as shop make less money or get out of the off licencing altogether.

This will impact the smaller shop more than the bigger supermarkets as they will be able to block off a bigger section and simply assign staff to that area full time.

Problem drinker will still come in, still but too much alcohol, will still drink the same but will cut back on other essentials such as food , light and heat. Their personal situation becomes worse as result of it all and everyone is a loser.

What I cant understand is the amount of media time given to the likes of Frances Black and Kenny Egan , they represent a small minority who are in favour of this or who think this is a good and well thought out piece of legislation.

Why dont the media give a balanced take on this with 10 interviews with people who think its a bad idea for every one who thinks its a good idea ?

Very well put.

A Rogue Hobo

osarusan wrote:

If it was simple as that - restricting something makes people want to do it more, then wouldn't smoking rates be increasing?

Well they've stayed pretty constant in or around 29% the last few years, but considering 700million counterfeit cigarettes are sold in Ireland every year its hard to tell what the real numbers are. Government likes to pat themselves on the back and say smoking has gone down good job us, but the reality is they seem to base it off cigarette sales, of which because of pricing people out of thr market they turn to illegal means its thought the government actually loses about 300 million euro a year on revenue over the whole thing. I do think overall the level has gone down though, but I think thats because theyre penalising those who wouldnt be smoking 20 a day into not buying them.

Personally as a smoker who is an advocate of the smoking ban i agree cigarettes shouldnt be cheap, but over a tenner is ridiculous too. Needs to be a middle ground. I wouldnt be smoking 20 a day by any stretch and i know every price increase is still hurting my.pocket.

But anyways this is about alcohol not smoking, i feel the two in some ways are different but similar issues. Raise the price of a pint to 9 quid and you'll see people stop drinking and buying it illegally pretty quickly too. Its not really a solution, it's just using a different problem to solve another problem.

odyssey06

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

30 years ago, Ireland was a long way from the top of the Euro league of drinkers, but we also had a high population of teetotalers.
As a kid, I remember hearing that as many as 1 adult in 3 was a Pioneer [* may not have been true!], and the other 2 adults nearly managed to drink us back into the top 10. The Pioneers went broke in 2011.

I share the * "may not have been true" about the highlight figures, but if we accept that Ireland once had a significant minority of total abstainers or almost total abstainers and that this has been falling over the decades...
Then it means that the per capita figures are not the whole story as the consumption is actually being spread more gradually amongst a wider population of drinkers.

So even less justification for this puritanical proposal..

Reputable Rog

I remember a time when the publicans were delighted with Good Friday closing, then off licences became more popular and suddenly they oppose Good Friday closing.

Kivaro

Shelflife wrote: »

.....
Why dont the media give a balanced take on this with 10 interviews with people who think its a bad idea for every one who thinks its a good idea ?

I find this to be the case with the Irish Media in general, especially RTE, when reporting on other social issues of the day. They seek to influence decision-makers with their biased reporting, which is not representative of the majority in the country.

Leroy42

Kivaro wrote: »

Shelflife wrote: »

.....
Why dont the media give a balanced take on this with 10 interviews with people who think its a bad idea for every one who thinks its a good idea ?

I find this to be the case with the Irish Media in general, especially RTE, when reporting on other social issues of the day. They seek to influence decision-makers with their biased reporting, which is not representative of the majority in the country.

Do we know what the majority of the country want?

Kivaro

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do we know what the majority of the country want?

Pretty much can assure you that the majority in this country do not want minimum alcohol pricing forced on us.
We are adults and should be treated by the Government accordingly.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

30 years ago, Ireland was a long way from the top of the Euro league of drinkers, but we also had a high population of teetotalers.

As a kid, I remember hearing that as many as 1 adult in 3 was a Pioneer [* may not have been true!], and the other 2 adults nearly managed to drink us back into the top 10.

The Pioneers went broke in 2011.

Open to correction, but I thought the Pioneers was a religious thing you opted for when you made your confirmation..?