Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

kingtiger

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Agreed the savings at this stage wont be huge.
But it's a start and it's a message to the people of Ireland..
With, I would imagine and hope more stringent and tougher(as some may feel)bills and laws to come!

Lol, what do you want Sahria law

The Hill Billy

A "message to the people of Ireland"? Get off your generalizing high horse. The majority of the people in the country do not abuse alcohol. Those who do will continue to abuse alcohol regardless of the price - even it it means that they (or their dependents) forego a meal or two to pay for their expensive gargle.

Galwayguy35

Young people who binge drink will still do so even if they put up the prices, and as the poster above me correctly points out an alcoholic will find the money for drink no matter what it costs.

As for this other bolloxology of banning advertising and putting booze behind a screen or something in shops it's just ridiculous.

Galwayguy35

They've been putting up the price of fags for years and young people are still starting to smoke.

It will be the same with this.

Leroy42

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Agreed the savings at this stage wont be huge.
But it's a start and it's a message to the people of Ireland..
With, I would imagine and hope more stringent and tougher(as some may feel)bills and laws to come!?

I won't comment on your drink driving comments.DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE, that train has passed, if you drink and drive may the full force of the law bear down upon you.

So you have no data for your assertion that lives will be saved.
You have nothing to back up your assertion that it will lead to savings in the health budget
No have nothing at all to say about saving Garda time.

So it seems you want to increase the cost of a product, outside of the normal rules of capitalism, on the basis on opinions and gut instinct.

So exactly why are you in favour of this since your stated reasons have no basis.

An whilst I agree with you 100% on the notion that drink driving is no longer acceptable, you need to take into account that at the present time we at least 1 member of the dail calling for special dispensation to be given to country inhabitants on the basis that a few drinks never hurt anybody. To simply ignore that reality, and the reality that many still feel that way is short sighted.

Unless the pubs are forced to provide adequate and cost effective (to the consumer not them) means to travel back home then it is a no brainer to think that some people will consider this a viable option. You and I may not like it, but that it what will happen.

Donal55

kingtiger wrote: »

Lol, what do you want Sahria law

Sangria Law perhaps.

GhostyMcGhost

Sam Quentin wrote: »

That's life, responsible drinkers shouldn't be concerned at all!?
As long as it's saving lives and cutting down on abuse in families and on the streets.
Cutting down on the health bill.
Cutting down on Garda man hours.

So that makes it ok to punish the people who get up in the morning and work their bollox off all week for a hard earned drink

Punish them because those that couldn’t be arsed getting up in the morning and drinking cans till 6am want to punch each other around the A&E room?

Yeah cheers for that. I’m only delighted at this bill

Someone making more money out of this and it sure as feck isn’t me

hatrickpatrick

Did it go to a vote in the Seanad today, or how does that process work? It was withdrawn last time over objections, so for those hoping this happens again, what's the time frame? When do we find out if it's progressing to the next step?

mistersifter

Cant say I'm 100% informed about this bill but since minimum pricing is all about protecting people's health, I suppose as the price of alcohol goes up, non-alcoholic drinks will be subsidized correspondingly (or even just a little!) in order to further bolster the government's plan to save us all from cirrhosis!? No?

Ipso

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Did it go to a vote in the Seanad today, or how does that process work? It was withdrawn last time over objections, so for those hoping this happens again, what's the time frame? When do we find out if it's progressing to the next step?

Not sure how it works in the Seanad, but in the Dail they go on late and then head of to the bar.

Mr. teddywinkles

Sam Quentin wrote: »

That's life, responsible drinkers shouldn't be concerned at all!?
As long as it's saving lives and cutting down on abuse in families and on the streets.
Cutting down on the health bill.
Cutting down on Garda man hours.

How? Be sure to say this to the guard breaking up drunken fights outside your local

Sam Quentin

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

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you have no data for your assertion that lives will be saved.
You have nothing to back up your assertion that it will lead to savings in the health budget
No have nothing at all to say about saving Garda time.

So it seems you want to increase the cost of a product, outside of the normal rules of capitalism, on the basis on opinions and gut instinct.

So exactly why are you in favour of this since your stated reasons have no basis.

An whilst I agree with you 100% on the notion that drink driving is no longer acceptable, you need to take into account that at the present time we at least 1 member of the dail calling for special dispensation to be given to country inhabitants on the basis that a few drinks never hurt anybody. To simply ignore that reality, and the reality that many still feel that way is short sighted.

Unless the pubs are forced to provide adequate and cost effective (to the consumer not them) means to travel back home then it is a no brainer to think that some people will consider this a viable option. You and I may not like it, but that it what will happen.

I thought my points were common knowledge..
I will not explain how less drinking will save on health bill.
And I will not explain how less drinking will save/free up Garda resources.

Not this particular bill but as I stated previously>> the Government is making small steps in the right direction..

Noveight

Sam Quentin wrote: »

But it's a start and it's a message to the people of Ireland..
With, I would imagine and hope more stringent and tougher(as some may feel)bills and laws to come!?

The problem is you believe a change in legislation will solve Ireland's problematic relationship with alcohol.

It won't.

hatrickpatrick

Watching now, still being debated. Not looking good TBH - senators seem broadly in favour of minimum pricing, opposition is mainly to the issue of retailers and structural separation

One or two comments earlier about cross border shopping, so if that gains traction we could still see the bill stalled. They've scheduled it for discussion again tomorrow afternoon according to the Oireachtas website, so if we're hoping for another filibuster I sincerely hope it can go on long enough to further stall the bill... We'll have to wait and see

Senator Black has to leave the chamber early because she has a gig.

Im going to say it, only in Ireland.

VinLieger

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I thought my points were common knowledge..
I will not explain how less drinking will save on health bill.
And I will not explain how less drinking will save/free up Garda resources.

Not this particular bill but as I stated previously>> the Government is making small steps in the right direction..

Your points have no basis in fact.

There is zero evidence MUP will reduce consumption. In fact consumption is already decreasing year over year since the mid 2000's so why do we need MUP in the first place?

Are you really under the insane impression problem drinkers who are the issue and cause of the major costs relating to alcohol on our health system will suddenly stop drinking over night?

If you are you must have zero experience with addiction as addicts do not care about the cost it takes to feed said addiction. They will either just spend more OR turn the the black market and consume even more dangerous substances thus increasing instead of decreasing their health issues.

Leroy42

Sam Quentin wrote: »

I thought my points were common knowledge..
I will not explain how less drinking will save on health bill.
And I will not explain how less drinking will save/free up Garda resources.

Not this particular bill but as I stated previously>> the Government is making small steps in the right direction..

Common knowledge? What does that mean? Do you mean that the common man knows that inserting MUP will lead to all these things? Because funnily enough there no actual evidence to back up this claim. There is research done in Canada, but it cannot be concluded from it that MUP was the main factor in the reduction in alcohol consumption.

You don't need to explain how reduced drinking will lead to reduced health spending and Garda time, but you do need to show how MUP, which is what we are debating, will lead to a reduction in alcoholic consumption.

Particularly when there is absolutely nothing being done in terms of the amount of drink consumed in a pub. The availability of alcohol has continued to increase over the last 20 or more years yet since 2005 our consumption rates have continued to decline.

I am all for reducing the embedded nature of alcohol within our culture. But MUP shows no signs of being able to achieve that. On the other hand, I would be quite willing for additional taxes to be placed on alcohol if those taxes were ring-fenced to be directed to addiction programs, educational programs. Social schemes (such as increased community activities), subsidising non alcoholic drinks.

I have proposed that all manufacturers must place a certain % of their alcoholic sales of non alcohol beverage into the market. They can price that at no higher than the selected equivalent. (if they don't sell any that is there money down the drain). This will force them to produce realistic non alcoholic alternatives rather than the half arses attempts currently

Am I hearing this right that MUP has been withdrawn?

flutered

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

How? Be sure to say this to the guard breaking up drunken fights outside your local

mine is now a barren place, it does not open until after 7:00pm, closes at 12:00 midnight, any night the number of patrons top six the bar man is estatic, no taxi in the area, garda clampdown on dui, me i dont bother going out anymore, as i have to use my car to go for a drink, saying that i do have a drink at home one night a week, perhaps a smaller one if they put up the price of it

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Am I hearing this right that MUP has been withdrawn?

Where did you hear this?

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Am I hearing this right that MUP has been withdrawn?

Really is that what they meant, i only just tuned in?

VinLieger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Where did you hear this?

I heard them mention some bits being removed, didn't hear what exactly

hatrickpatrick

Listening to it now, those speaking are still primarily objecting to structural separation while saying "minimum unit pricing is a good idea", so I'm not getting my hopes up yet...

VinLieger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Listening to it now, those speaking are still primarily objecting to structural separation while saying "minimum unit pricing is a good idea", so I'm not getting my hopes up yet...

The "arent we all great" circle jerk is sickening considering the misinformation they keep spouting

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Where did you hear this?

One senator said "now that we are not implementing MUP..." And another reffered to it being removed from the amendment.

Maybe I picked it up wrong.

VinLieger

Turned it off after that eejit claimed "we have to pass this soon, the public expect it and want it"

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

One senator said "now that we are not implementing MUP..." And another reffered to it being removed from the amendment.

How long ago was this? I'll have to watch back once it's uploaded, at the moment we can only watch in real time O_o

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How long ago was this? I'll have to watch back once it's uploaded, at the moment we can only watch in real time O_o

Check the time of my post and its about 3 or 4 minutes before that.

weldoninhio

Sam Quentin wrote: »

That's life, responsible drinkers shouldn't be concerned at all!?
As long as it's saving lives and cutting down on abuse in families and on the streets.
Cutting down on the health bill.
Cutting down on Garda man hours.

It won’t cut down on abuse though. Alcoholics will just have less money for food etc, their families will suffer more.

Sam Quentin

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

Leroy42 wrote: »

Common knowledge? What does that mean? Do you mean that the common man knows that inserting MUP will lead to all these things? Because funnily enough there no actual evidence to back up this claim. There is research done in Canada, but it cannot be concluded from it that MUP was the main factor in the reduction in alcohol consumption.

You don't need to explain how reduced drinking will lead to reduced health spending and Garda time, but you do need to show how MUP, which is what we are debating, will lead to a reduction in alcoholic consumption.

Particularly when there is absolutely nothing being done in terms of the amount of drink consumed in a pub. The availability of alcohol has continued to increase over the last 20 or more years yet since 2005 our consumption rates have continued to decline.

I am all for reducing the embedded nature of alcohol within our culture. But MUP shows no signs of being able to achieve that. On the other hand, I would be quite willing for additional taxes to be placed on alcohol if those taxes were ring-fenced to be directed to addiction programs, educational programs. Social schemes (such as increased community activities), subsidising non alcoholic drinks.

I have proposed that all manufacturers must place a certain % of their alcoholic sales of non alcohol beverage into the market. They can price that at no higher than the selected equivalent. (if they don't sell any that is there money down the drain). This will force them to produce realistic non alcoholic alternatives rather than the half arses attempts currently

MUP and less visibility of alcohol and anything advertising alcohol, is obviously targeting the younger generation..
As I stated small steps in the right direction.. And maybe in 15/20 years or so we will have reduced the amount of dependants!?

Also I agree you have some great points and a mature attitude to alcohol.