Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

The Rape of Lucretia

listermint wrote: »

The only ignorance on display here is your stance on alcohol which is that no one should be allowed to drink because any amount is bad for you.

Ridiculously ignorant

Then you need to reread my posts. I have not said no one should be allowed to drink. But that there should be a strong campaign over the coming decades to educate people to the point that they will choose not to.
Again, the similarity with smoking is appropriate. It is not banned. But restricted and kept away from harming rhe rest of us. And attitudes have swung against it voluntarily. Ireland can do the same for alcohol and be at the leading edge of the improvement of peoples lives in the world.

elperello

They have adjourned the twilight zone without passing the Bill.

hatrickpatrick

elperello wrote: »

They have adjourned the twilight zone without passing the Bill.

Did they say how many amendments they had left to discuss, or when they might try to pass it again?

EDIT: Also, the bill has to go back to the Seanad, I believe it gets re-introduced at committee stage if significant amendments were made in the Dáil but I could stand corrected on this? Copying the UK system as we often do, the Seanad only has two years to debate the bill if it gets passed by the Dáil. If either the Seanad doesn't get it through report stage and back to the Dáil, or the Dáil doesn't accept the Seanad's amendments or even debate them, once it's been passed by the Dáil the government can declare it to be passed once two years have elapsed.

Garibaldi?

So we are to be treated with cancer warnings when we order that bottle of vino on a night out! Nanny state or what!

McMurphy

Garibaldi? wrote: »

So we are to be treated with cancer warnings when we order that bottle of vino on a night out! Nanny state or what!

No, on a night out you will be expected to be drinking the non carcinogenic type of wine, which can only be found in VFI owned pubs.

Nights in whereupon you stop off at the offlicense after a 10 hr grind to buy a bottle of plonk from the offlicense/supermarket for yourself and the wife to sip is their target, - That stuff is only the dangerous stuff apparently.

Pauliedragon

It seems young people are drinking less than ever. Do we need to waste time and money on these laws when it seems society is enforcing the desired effect of these laws all by itself?
http://www.thejournal.ie/teenage-drinking-ireland-4254933-Sep2018/

tigerboon

I'm in Italy at the moment. You can get a bottle of wine for less than €2. They have a similar standard of living as ourselves. The streets aren't full of drunks and people are big into hiking, cycling etc. Fit and healthy.
The problem is not the price of a bottle of wine in Aldi. Most of the p**sheads I'm aware of spend their time in pubs and bookies.

tigerboon

tigerboon wrote: »

I'm in Italy at the moment. You can get a bottle of wine for less than €2. They have a similar standard of living as ourselves. The streets aren't full of drunks and people are big into hiking, cycling etc. Fit and healthy.
The problem is not the price of a bottle of wine in Aldi. Most of the p**sheads I'm aware of spend their time in pubs and bookies.

Aside from price, there is one main difference between ourselves and italy. Opening hours. Italy has some restrictions on hours you can but alcohol, such as buying alcohol from a vending machine between midnight and 7am is not allowed. :rolleyes:

Pubs, clubs restaurants etc. don't all close at the same time. They close when, well, when the manager has had enough and wants to go home. Result? Thousands of drunks don't all get ejected at the same time. People don't order 6 vodkas at 11pm because they know there is little to no chance of another drink after closing time around 11.30.

Funnily enough, our highly restrictive licensing laws are actually adding to our alcohol problems in this country.

Reputable Rog

Just stopped off in the Centra near work this morning, they had "wow €1.50" stickers on bottles of Heineken and Brahma. Clearly there's no justification for MUP.

Garibaldi?

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

ohnonotgmail

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

It is very easy to know what is right. this bill was introduced to support publicans. It was in the FG manifesto saying exactly that. anybody who tells you differently is lying.

Doctor Jimbob

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

No, because it's a bill blatantly designed to help the pubs and has nothing whatsoever to do with public health.

KrustyUCC

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

Doubtful

It's amazing that this bloody bill has got as far as it has

I really hope other EU countries get this billed stopped

To remind people where this so called 'health bill' has come from

"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

Politicians and supporters of the bill are peddling lies about cheap alcohol in this country

We already have some of the most expensive alcohol in Europe

Take a can of Perlenbacher in Lidl

On sale in Spain for €0.35. On sale here €1.05

Already 200% dearer than in Spain

Under this bill it will increase to €1.89 which is 440% dearer for the exact same can

No doctor could claim that the same can is over 5 times more damaging to the health of an Irish person than a spanish person yet every single Irish person who purchases a can will be hit with the increases

This bill has never been about health. It's all about trying to get people back to the pubs

Hotblack Desiato

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

Putting on a seat belt, or waiting to smoke until you're not forcing others to breathe it in, doesn't cost you any money.

Imagine if you had to put 50c into the seat belt holder to attach the belt every time, or else your car wouldn't start. Then you were told that the "minimum seat belt charge" was for your own good, when the money was going straight to the car manufacturers.

earlytobed

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Putting on a seat belt, or waiting to smoke until you're not forcing others to breathe it in, doesn't cost you any money.

Imagine if you had to put 50c into the seat belt holder to attach the belt every time, or else your car wouldn't start. Then you were told that the "minimum seat belt charge" was for your own good, when the money was going straight to the car manufacturers.

I think a better analogy would be the time extra duty was put on cider because "the young people were going mad on cider".

Leroy42

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Putting on a seat belt, or waiting to smoke until you're not forcing others to breathe it in, doesn't cost you any money.

Imagine if you had to put 50c into the seat belt holder to attach the belt every time, or else your car wouldn't start. Then you were told that the "minimum seat belt charge" was for your own good, when the money was going straight to the car manufacturers.

Well, look at the plastic bag tax. There were cried from retailers, what were the pensioners going to do, what if I just popped into a shop.

That this was effectively another tax and no point since China polluted way more and sure the fumes from your car caused more damage and didn't the products have wrapping on them anyway so the entire problem isn't being solved.

Here we are a few years later and you don't see many people claiming their lives have been drastically changed.

McMurphy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, look at the plastic bag tax. There were cried from retailers, what were the pensioners going to do, what if I just popped into a shop.

That this was effectively another tax and no point since China polluted way more and sure the fumes from your car caused more damage and didn't the products have wrapping on them anyway so the entire problem isn't being solved.

Here we are a few years later and you don't see many people claiming their lives have been drastically changed.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

"Cheap" supermarket bottle of budweiser @ 1.65€ a bottle = bad for ones health.
5€ bottle of budweiser in VFI members premises = will put hairs on yer chest.

Leroy42

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

"Cheap" supermarket bottle of budweiser @ 1.65€ a bottle = bad for ones health.
5€ bottle of budweiser in VFI members premises = will put hairs on yer chest.

No, I'm not ignored it, I was simply making a counter point to a particular argument.

What will be interesting is consumers actions if this goes through. There is no doubt that this is beneficial primarily to the big names (Diageo etc) and secondly to the Vintners (Although I am skeptical as to the extent of that).

In the former, this will give them back a portion of the market that was taken from them by pricing, the likes of Lidl and Aldi beer etc. As there will be a minimum then most people will opt for the beer they know.

The most powerful weapon consumers have is buying, or more accurately not buying. So the best way to counteract this is simply to stop buying. Refuse to buy the products until the law is changed back. Would people be prepared to do that? I really doubt it in which case it makes sense for the likes of Diageo and the vintners to try it as there is no downside but plenty of potential upside

The Rape of Lucretia

Leroy42 wrote: »

The most powerful weapon consumers have is buying, or more accurately not buying. So the best way to counteract this is simply to stop buying.

This is why the minimum pricing is a great thing. Whether it doesnt affect pubs or not, whether the discounters lose sales, or whether more profit is channelled to the producers. The bottom line is average higher price. Producing reduced consumption. An unalloyed good thing. Nobody can seriously be against this initiative.

oceanman

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is why the minimum pricing is a great thing. Whether it doesnt affect pubs or not, whether the discounters lose sales, or whether more profit is channelled to the producers. The bottom line is average higher price. Producing reduced consumption. An unalloyed good thing. Nobody can seriously be against this initiative.

plenty of people are against it..

Leroy42

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is why the minimum pricing is a great thing. Whether it doesnt affect pubs or not, whether the discounters lose sales, or whether more profit is channelled to the producers. The bottom line is average higher price. Producing reduced consumption. An unalloyed good thing. Nobody can seriously be against this initiative.

I think you'll find that there is a significant amount of people against this initiative.

It is based on no clear data.
It takes no account of social drinkers (ie only a few drinks a week/month).
There is no clear defined outcomes.
The money is going to the producers rather than to fund services.
It doesn't deal with the problems associated with drinkers in the pub.
It places an unfair advantage to established brands as pricing is no longer a tool.
It places no obligations on producers/sellors.
Who is going to fund the policing of this? Are we, as a state, really going to prosecute people for buying/selling bargains?

joe40

As someone who enjoys drinking, both at home and in pubs, I fully support this idea. Even with minimum pricing alcohol in supermarkets will still be significantly lower than pubs, so if your only mission is to drink as much as possible for as little as possible, the supermarket will still be an option and 10 to 20 euro will still get you hammered. This would not go far in a pub so the two will not be equivalent.

There is also no point comparing ourselves with European countries, our drinking culture is totally different. Apart from the excess that is observed I actually prefer our pub culture. I have often seen a group of European tourists share a pint of Guinness.
I like drinking but the excessive stuff is damaging to our society. Junior cert students getting hammered on cheap drink is a disgrace

odyssey06

joe40 wrote: »

I like drinking but the excessive stuff is damaging to our society. Junior cert students getting hammered on cheap drink is a disgrace

It's not cheap and it's already illegal for junior cert students to be drinking.
If the concern is about underage drinking blitz this, don't punish responsible adults too.
It's perfectly possible to not drink to excess at supermarket prices.

joe40

If you're not drinking to excess the extra price will be minimal.
Maybe I'm wrong but for arguments sake 8 x 500ml cans of beer would be a good nights drinking for me. By official standards well into excess territory but even to keep things in the real world, 8 pints (a gallon of beer) would be a good drink but common enough.
How would the minimum pricing affect this price. Currently 8 cans of lager will cost about 13 euro, how much will this go up by. (genuine question by the way, I don't know)

ohnonotgmail

joe40 wrote: »

If you're not drinking to excess the extra price will be minimal.
Maybe I'm wrong but for arguments sake 8 x 500ml cans of beer would be a good nights drinking for me. By official standards well into excess territory but even to keep things in the real world, 8 pints (a gallon of beer) would be a good drink but common enough.
How would the minimum pricing affect this price. Currently 8 cans of lager will cost about 13 euro, how much will this go up by. (genuine question by the way, I don't know)

and what actual difference will the proposed change make to the problems you highlighted? I'm not expecting an answer to that btw because there is absolutely no data to suggest it makes a difference. This change is purely to help publicans, nothing more.

Leroy42

joe40 wrote: »

If you're not drinking to excess the extra price will be minimal.
Maybe I'm wrong but for arguments sake 8 x 500ml cans of beer would be a good nights drinking for me. By official standards well into excess territory but even to keep things in the real world, 8 pints (a gallon of beer) would be a good drink but common enough.
How would the minimum pricing affect this price. Currently 8 cans of lager will cost about 13 euro, how much will this go up by. (genuine question by the way, I don't know)

But why penalise 'normal# drinkers at all? Why should I have not now pay €44 for a slab of beer, that I can drink over a number of weeks or use at a party when currently I can get it for €20.

It makes no sense why I am being asked to pay double the price I am currently paying.

joe40

I think it will have an effect on the levels of excess drinking but obviously only time will tell.
For me personally as someone who (a) likes drinking and (b) hates spending more than I need to, I still think this is something as a society is worth doing, and I'm willing to pay the extra in the supermarket.
I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption. I do understand peoples objection but for me on balance I think it is something worth doing.

RasTa

Wonder if they want to go down the Canada or Swedish route where the government control the liquor

odyssey06

joe40 wrote: »

I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption.

Why? Alcoholics won't drink less, some people drink methylated spirits ffs.

We already have some of the highest prices around for alcohol. If your theory was correct no further action would be needed.

Ace2007

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why? Alcoholics won't drink less, some people drink methylated spirits ffs.

We already have some of the highest prices around for alcohol. If your theory was correct no further action would be needed.

Why pick the extreme case?
Alcoholics wont but students who can’t afford drink wil be affected - if I see a bottle of wine is 8€ I might buy it if same bottle is 18€ I probably won’t.

Given how so many people on threads complaint about being broke cause of high rents - they won’t have money to buy drink which in turn will mean less alcoholic issues whether these are social or health wise.