Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

odyssey06

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

Yep, that was how they tried to hook you in...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Total_Abstinence_Association

In the 20th Century, the term Pioneer became synonymous with teetotallism among Irish Catholics, and the PTAA influenced public policy. In 1923, Eoin O'Duffy as Commissioner of the Garda Síochána (Civic Guard) encouraged members to join the PTAA, and allowed Gardaí to wear the Pioneer pin on their uniforms, in exemption to a general ban on symbols and adornments...
Roman Catholic children in Ireland who make their Confirmation (typically at the age of 11–12) are encouraged to promise, or "take the pledge", not to drink alcohol until they are at least 18 (the legal drinking age in Ireland). The PTAA is active in this drive.

Zubeneschamali

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

Hence the decline in numbers in recent decades.

soups05

quick question for posters who agree with minimum pricing, what do you see as the next nanny state interference? smoking then drinking, so surely they will tackle the gambling addiction next? will we see a ban on bookies? a restriction on how much you can place on a horse/dog/football match?

or will this area be left alone as there is no profit to be made for politicians/vested interests.

minimum pricing is a joke, and i personally will berate any idiot who supports it come election time, but in the meantime i intend to email local politicians requesting their views and advising them on the votes they will lose if this is pushed through.

if more people were willing to stand up and be counted then these idiots will have to start running the country for the people, not the bankers/vintners/special interests groups.

r93kaey5p2izun

The poll options are stupid so can't vote. I think we have a problem with alcohol in this country but I don't agree with minimum alcohol pricing

odyssey06

Benjamin Plump Soberness wrote: »

The poll options are stupid so can't vote. I think we have a problem with alcohol in this country but I don't agree with minimum alcohol pricing

I think we have a problem in this country with personal responsibility... and one of the symptoms of that is manifested with alcohol. I am all for policies that encourage personal responsibility i.e. by clamping down when people over indulge in alcohol and break many of our existing laws on drunken behaviour.

It seems too hard somehow for our police and courts to actually enforce the laws...

elperello

Benjamin Plump Soberness wrote: »

The poll options are stupid so can't vote. I think we have a problem with alcohol in this country but I don't agree with minimum alcohol pricing

You can vote with a clear conscience.

The truth is that some people have a drink problem and they should be supported in getting their act together. You and the rest of us who just enjoy a quiet drink in our own homes should not be asked to pay rigged market prices as a means of helping them.

Fr Tod Umptious

Kivaro wrote: »

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.

I'd argue that the "voting" majority don't care to much about the minimum pricing of alcohol when it comes to election decisions etc.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'd argue that the "voting" majority don't care to much about the minimum pricing of alcohol when it comes to election decisions etc.

I think instinctively they care about whether politicians treat them as adult citizens or patronise them as helpless children... they may not articulate it that way, but when people treat politicians with contempt, it is usually when they don't treat the voters as adults.
The voters can respect a politician without always agreeing with them.

elperello

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'd argue that the "voting" majority don't care to much about the minimum pricing of alcohol when it comes to election decisions etc.

You are probably right.
When they go to get a few bottles of wine in for the Christmas or buy a case of beer for a Summer barbecue the penny will drop.

r93kaey5p2izun

elperello wrote: »

You can vote with a clear conscience.

The truth is that some people have a drink problem and they should be supported in getting their act together. You and the rest of us who just enjoy a quiet drink in our own homes should not be asked to pay rigged market prices as a means of helping them.

No I cannot. I believe the issues around alcohol in this country are very significant and widespread and therefore cannot vote for the second poll option even though I disagree with minimum pricing. It's a stupid poll.

BarryD2

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think we have a problem in this country with personal responsibility... and one of the symptoms of that is manifested with alcohol. I am all for policies that encourage personal responsibility i.e. by clamping down when people over indulge in alcohol and break many of our existing laws on drunken behaviour.

It seems too hard somehow for our police and courts to actually enforce the laws...

Sure, that's the key - some tough love. If you wanna drink heavily and poison yourself, then carry on. But don't expect much treatment in the health system. Get into a drunken brawl and end up in A&E, to back of queue etc.

goose2005

soups05 wrote: »

quick question for posters who agree with minimum pricing, what do you see as the next nanny state interference? smoking then drinking, so surely they will tackle the gambling addiction next? will we see a ban on bookies? a restriction on how much you can place on a horse/dog/football match?

or will this area be left alone as there is no profit to be made for politicians/vested interests.

minimum pricing is a joke, and i personally will berate any idiot who supports it come election time, but in the meantime i intend to email local politicians requesting their views and advising them on the votes they will lose if this is pushed through.

if more people were willing to stand up and be counted then these idiots will have to start running the country for the people, not the bankers/vintners/special interests groups.

It's a disgrace that you can buy a bag of sweets for 50 cents. We should set a minimum price of €5 per 100 g of sugar. That'll be the next thing

Arcade_Tryer

soups05 wrote: »

quick question for posters who agree with minimum pricing, what do you see as the next nanny state interference?

Minimum alcohol pricing is a tax on the poor more so than nanny state interference in the lives of the middle class, which is grossly over exaggerated.

baylah17

The UK border is an hour away and the euro worth around 95 pence
Well done our government on providing a boom to UK supermarkets and off licences

hatrickpatrick

To be honest I'm surprised no one's mentioned the obvious elephant in the room here - minimum alcohol pricing is specifically designed to target students who like to binge drink but generally don't have a huge amount of disposable income. I'd imagine it's specifically geared towards preventing the VFI losing money to 'pre drinks', where people have a few cans / bottles at a house party before going out because of how moronically expensive it is to have several drinks in the pub on a regular basis - particularly for young people.

The thing is, it won't have any impact on the cheap prices in places like Wetherspoons or Dublin nightclubs on weekdays (unless the minimum price is so high that it's off the deep end batsh!t insane, and I doubt even our government would do something that stupid while in office) so it still won't achieve what they want it to achieve. Young people won't stop pre-drinking and go to the pub, they'll simple pre-drink less and gravitate even more to big nightclubs that have drink promotions. So if anything, it will actually cause less young people to regard the pub as a viable option for a night out.

Reputable Rog

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be honest I'm surprised no one's mentioned the obvious elephant in the room here - minimum alcohol pricing is specifically designed to target students who like to binge drink but generally don't have a huge amount of disposable income. I'd imagine it's specifically geared towards preventing the VFI losing money to 'pre drinks', where people have a few cans / bottles at a house party before going out because of how moronically expensive it is to have several drinks in the pub on a regular basis - particularly for young people.

The thing is, it won't have any impact on the cheap prices in places like Wetherspoons or Dublin nightclubs on weekdays (unless the minimum price is so high that it's off the deep end batsh!t insane, and I doubt even our government would do something that stupid while in office) so it still won't achieve what they want it to achieve. Young people won't stop pre-drinking and go to the pub, they'll simple pre-drink less and gravitate even more to big nightclubs that have drink promotions. So if anything, it will actually cause less young people to regard the pub as a viable option for a night out.

It's not applicable to on sales.

hatrickpatrick

Reputable Rog wrote: »

It's not applicable to on sales.

There you go then. So it won't actually have any real effect - there are nightclubs in Dublin where you can get a shot for €1 on a Saturday night. But I'm quite sure that this demographic is the real target of this legislation, not alcoholics. It's designed to hit the pre-drinking culture which cash-strapped young people have adopted in response to massive on-sales price inflation over the last decade. And of course, the rest of us who will get punished by it can go and f*ck ourselves.

hatrickpatrick

What I AM sure of is that stories like this will increase tenfold if the legislation passes, along with an increase in fairly nasty stories about what happens when people buy cheap counterfeit vodka which has been contaminated with methylated crap to increase its volume cheaply:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/over-500-litres-of-counterfeit-alcohol-seized-in-dublin-and-cork-1.3194983

More than 530 litres of alcohol was found hidden in a consignment of soft drinks and snacks that had arrived from Portugal.
If the alcohol had been sold in Ireland, it would have cost the exchequer €3,500 in lost tax income, Revenue said.
In a separate operation, 18 litres of suspected counterfeit vodka were seized after a search of a premises in north Cork on Monday.
Gardaí attended the scene with Revenue officers, and a number of counterfeit clothing items were also discovered.
A man in his 30s was arrested.
Revenue investigations in both cases are ongoing, with a view to prosecution.
Revenue said the searches are part of its ongoing efforts to target the sale and supply of illegal and counterfeit alcohol.
It added that anyone tempted to buy cheap alcohol, tobacco or other items from an irregular source should consider if what they are being sold may be counterfeit.
In addition it warned that counterfeit vodka often contains high quantities of methanol, a poisonous chemical that can cause breathing difficulties, liver damage or blindness; and isopropyl alcohol, a chemical solvent commonly found in nail varnish remover.

If the law does pass, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets revisited after a year or two due to health scares and lost tax revenue from an explosion in counterfeiting of spirits with impure stuff.

con___manx1

its simon harris that came up with this bill just so everyone in Wicklow on boards knows not to vote for that little prick again. probably the youngest member of the dail aswell. what kind of muppet is he

Leroy42

Does it really not involve on sales? That would seem very strange. In most cases pub sales would be priced well above MUP.

Shelflife

Leroy42 wrote: »

Does it really not involve on sales? That would seem very strange. In most cases pub sales would be priced well above MUP.

It does , it's just that on-sales prices are so high that it will have no impact on them.

Fr Tod Umptious

con___manx1 wrote: »

its simon harris that came up with this bill just so everyone in Wicklow on boards knows not to vote for that little prick again. probably the youngest member of the dail aswell. what kind of muppet is he

This bill has been on the go for years now, to the best of my knowledge it was Roisin Shorthall when she was still in Labour and a junior minister in the 2011-2016 government that started the ball rolling.

Simon Harris just happens to be the one that is tasked with it now.

hatrickpatrick

Shelflife wrote: »

It does , it's just that on-sales prices are so high that it will have no impact on them.

Wetherspoons regularly have managers' specials where you can get a pint of a soon-to-be-discontinued ale for €1.50, so if it really does apply to on sales I'd add Wetherspoons to the list of companies which will potentially be taking court action to block it.

Dexter Bip

baylah17 wrote: »

The UK border is an hour away and the euro worth around 95 pence
Well done our government on providing a boom to UK supermarkets and off licences

I take it that you're not from Cork then.

Winterlong

baylah17 wrote: »

The UK border is an hour away and the euro worth around 95 pence
Well done our government on providing a boom to UK supermarkets and off licences

I filled my boots up there last week (well, the car). The price difference of beer, wine and spirits compared to here is always an eye opener.

McMurphy

goose2005 wrote: »

It's a disgrace that you can buy a bag of sweets for 50 cents. We should set a minimum price of €5 per 100 g of sugar. That'll be the next thing

3 x 1.75L bottles of Coke in Tesco for €4.50. (Roughly 85c a litre)

1 x 200ml bottle of Coke in the local VFI member, owners bar = €3.00

Going by the VFI pricing structure, Tesco should be selling at €15 per litre.

Or 3 x 1.75l of Coke should be €78.75 :eek:


And yet there's not a peep outta the Vintners about it.

Reputable Rog

Rick Shaw wrote: »

3 x 1.75L bottles of Coke in Tesco for €4.50.

1 x 200ml bottle of Coke in the local VFI member, owners bar = €3.00:eek:


And not a peep outta the Vintners about it either.

Ah but the vintners are offering you an experience and they will look after you, make sure you have enough to drink.
Whereas at home you might choose what to watch or listen to yourself, use hot water to wash your hands and drink less. You yourself cannot be trusted, that's the message from the publicans.

flutered

Kivaro wrote: »

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.

you are in a nanny state, you drink habits are soon to be changed by the state, your id card will be in your wallet, you smart meter will be at the front of your gaff, the brits are supposed to be off their rocker because of brexit, yet they have refused to have anything to do with the above three, all attempts at them has been give up by the goverment

Bubbaclaus

I quite literally could not care less about this.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I quite literally could not care less about this.

That's not entirely true though, because here you are in the thread posting about it.

There's a myriad of subjects in AH that I don't care about, and the subjects of the threads care so little to me that I literally don't even open them, yet alone post in them to declare I've no interest in them.