Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Leroy42

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Pricing is a massive factor in youth consumption as they tend to have less disposable income.

People whinging about having to pay €2 for a can?
First world problems.

Then the answer is to either stop young people buying it or increase the rpice for young people.

We already have laws (18yo) regarding the selling of alcohol so that can't be the issue.

Help!!!!

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

Help!!!! wrote: »

No but why force someone to pay €2 for a can when its 98c right now

Because it costs Irish society a lot more than 98c when the societal costs of alcohol abuse are taken into account.

Anyway, somebody buying a drink or two a week would not be bothered by even a 50% price increase. It's the people who, for want of a better phrase, spend much more on alcohol who are getting upset.

You could always do home brewing as well, lads. It was all the rage, along with the Soda Stream, in the hard-pressed 1980s.

pilly

elefant wrote: »

Specifically as a result of the cost of cigarettes?

Why doesn't Ireland have the lowest smokers per capita in the EU if it is cost that is causing a fall?

Definitely as a result of the cost. That's why vaping is taking off big time.

I don't know how our smokers per capita compare with EU but I know it's a lot lower than it was even 5 years ago and I know it's lower than Spain where cigarettes were dirt cheap but are slowly rising also.

Fact is the price of smoking is going up in all European countries. If you take the exchange rate into account it's more expensive in the UK so there isn't the big price differences there used to be.

Help!!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it costs Irish society a lot more than 98c when the societal costs of alcohol abuse are taken into account.

Anyway, somebody buying a drink or two a week would not be bothered by even a 50% price increase. It's the people who, for want of a better phrase, spend much more on alcohol who are getting upset.

You could always do home brewing as well, lads. It was all the rage, along with the Soda Stream, in the hard-pressed 1980s.

So make the people causing the problems pay from their pay/dole & leave law abiding drinkers alone

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it costs Irish society a lot more than 98c when the societal costs of alcohol abuse are taken into account.

Anyway, somebody buying a drink or two a week would not be bothered by even a 50% price increase. It's the people who, for want of a better phrase, spend much more on alcohol who are getting upset.

You could always do home brewing as well, lads. It was all the rage, along with the Soda Stream, in the hard-pressed 1980s.

But this is exactly the point. For those that drink reasonably, they will simply reduce their consumption or pay the higher price. Since they are not a problem area either one makes no difference.

For those who have money and a drinking problem, it will just mean that they have less money after buying the drink. So that savings fund, the money spent on the kids going out will be hit, not the drink.

For those that don't have the money this will result in looking for higher grade drink at the price, or possible alternatives like drugs. Their addiction is not being tacked at all. What little money they did keep for other things like clothes, family etc, will be wiped out.

So, this solves none of the problems people have cited

STB.

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

STB. wrote: »

People who have died from passive social drinking is a massive problem isn't it.

Pick a better analogy and one that actually holds water.

Perhaps ask the children and spouses of alcoholics if somebody's alcohol abuse impacts on the health of people close to them?

VinLieger

pilly wrote: »

No, it's up obviously.

So smoking as a whole probably hasn't decreased just the sale of cigarettes

STB.

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps ask the children and spouses of alcoholics if somebody's alcohol abuse impacts on the health of people close to them?

Perhaps read the very quote you just quoted from me and you will understand, before you go off on your think of the children nonsense.

S O C I A L

and the context.

Jeez its like the amateur debating society in here.

elefant

pilly wrote: »

Definitely as a result of the cost. That's why vaping is taking off big time.

I don't know how our smokers per capita compare with EU but I know it's a lot lower than it was even 5 years ago and I know it's lower than Spain where cigarettes were dirt cheap but are slowly rising also.

Fact is the price of smoking is going up in all European countries. If you take the exchange rate into account it's more expensive in the UK so there isn't the big price differences there used to be.

I don't believe for a second that the soaring price of cigarettes in Ireland is to thank for our percentage of smokers dropping.

The plummet in smoker numbers since 2004 isn't to do with the smoking ban you don't think? There was a change in culture, smoking was denormalised. Something needs to be done at a cultural level to reduce the level of alcohol abuse prevalent in Ireland.

Trying to force grown adults into changing their behaviour by making something too expensive for them is nonsense policy.

Help!!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps ask the children and spouses of alcoholics if somebody's alcohol abuse impacts on the health of people close to them?

Well ask the children and spouses when they have less money for food because those people aint gonna stop because of price increases

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Pricing is a massive factor in youth consumption as they tend to have less disposable income.

People whinging about having to pay €2 for a can?
First world problems.

Please show me your evidence to backup the statement pricing is a massive factor in youth consumption?

pilly

STB. wrote: »

People who have died from passive social drinking is a massive problem isn't it.

Pick a better analogy and one that actually holds water.

I've never yet seen proof of anyone actually dying from passive smoking either but that's a whole different argument for a whole different forum.

My point is simply that no-one is forced to buy either cigarettes or drink, they are not essentials so we don't have a constitutional right to them or something.

Really, it's the heavy drinkers who are kicking off at this issue because a real social drinker doesn't buy €1 cans anyway.

Same as heavy smokers kicking off at the price of cigarettes, makes no difference. No valid argument for either.

Ineedaname

To the people who think is a good idea.

For an alcoholic when minimum pricing comes in which will take the hit? the booze or the kids?

As someone who grew up around alcoholics I can tell you one thing for fact. It ain't the former.

Anybody who thinks this will do anything to discourage problem drinking is living in a fantasy land.

Leroy42

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

Leroy42 wrote: »

But this is exactly the point. For those that drink reasonably, they will simply reduce their consumption or pay the higher price. Since they are not a problem area either one makes no difference.

For those who have money and a drinking problem, it will just mean that they have less money after buying the drink. So that savings fund, the money spent on the kids going out will be hit, not the drink.

For those that don't have the money this will result in looking for higher grade drink at the price, or possible alternatives like drugs. Their addiction is not being tacked at all. What little money they did keep for other things like clothes, family etc, will be wiped out.

So, this solves none of the problems people have cited

This presupposes people with a drink problem will not get help for it. For many if not most people with drink problems it is a transitory problem and they eventually cop on and get out of the cycle. A 50% increase in the price of their drug of choice will be the straw that broke the camel's back for very many. Another major reason to add to the health and inter-personal reasons.

Help!!!!

pilly wrote: »

I've never yet seen proof of anyone actually dying from passive smoking either but that's a whole different argument for a whole different forum.

My point is simply that no-one is forced to buy either cigarettes or drink, they are not essentials so we don't have a constitutional right to them or something.

Really, it's the heavy drinkers who are kicking off at this issue because a real social drinker doesn't buy €1 cans anyway.

Same as heavy smokers kicking off at the price of cigarettes, makes no difference. No valid argument for either.

That's bull!!! I buy my cans in Aldi for 98c because I like the taste I'm not drinking to get ****faced

pilly

STB. wrote: »

Perhaps read the very quote you just quoted from me and you will understand, before you go off on your think of the children nonsense.

S O C I A L

and the context.

Jeez its like the amateur debating society in here.

It's not at all sociable to drink your slab of 24 cans for a euro in your house. :D

MeatTwoVeg

Most moderate drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer or wine won't even notice this measure. They're not going to be buying the slabs of cheap muck anyway or horrible plonk.


It's the people drinking lots of cheap alcohol that'll be hit.

pilly

Help!!!! wrote: »

That's bull!!! I buy my cans in Aldi for 98c because I like the taste I'm not drinking to get ****faced

Okay so. :rolleyes:

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Most moderate drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer or wine won't even notice this measure. They're not going to be buying the slabs of cheap muck anyway or horrible plonk.


It's the people drinking lots of cheap alcohol that'll be hit.

Your naivety is hilarious. Do you honestly think the "premium" brands are not gonna increase their prices in line with the amount the cheaper ones are forced to hit so as to maintain their "premium" image?

Cantona's Collars

VinLieger wrote: »

Your naivety is hilarious. Do you honestly think the "premium" brands are not gonna increase their prices in line with the amount the cheaper ones are forced to hit so as to maintain their "premium" image?

True,I can't imagine the makers of Heineken,Bud etc. not to mention Craft Beers allowing their 'premium' brand being priced on a par with Dutch Gold or Galahad.They'll lump on a bit to the prices of their drinks to keep them 'premium'.

STB.

pilly wrote: »

I've never yet seen proof of anyone actually dying from passive smoking either but that's a whole different argument for a whole different forum.

My point is simply that no-one is forced to buy either cigarettes or drink, they are not essentials so we don't have a constitutional right to them or something.

Really, it's the heavy drinkers who are kicking off at this issue because a real social drinker doesn't buy €1 cans anyway.

Same as heavy smokers kicking off at the price of cigarettes, makes no difference. No valid argument for either.

Well you need to educate yourself more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

It was you who tried to make an analogy comparing both cigarettes and alcohol and minimum pricing. You picked the wrong analogy.

So now its the heavy drinkers that are kicking off now is it ? Oh and social drinkers do not drink cheap alcohol/beer.

Go back to bed. I am not even going to explain how embarrassing your preconceived notions are about social drinkers and what they do and dont drink and your classing of society and what they should be able to afford or not afford.

What the hell has essential goods or non essential goods have to do with constitutional rights? I can only assume I am debating this with someone who is not above the age to drink in the first instance ?

Any moves here with alcohol pricing will be quickly headed off by competition law.

MeatTwoVeg

VinLieger wrote: »

Your naivety is hilarious. Do you honestly think the "premium" brands are not gonna increase their prices in line with the amount the cheaper ones are forced to hit so as to maintain their "premium" image?

Their prices are already well above the minimum pricing limits.
This will only effect the stack it high, sell it cheap merchants.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I thought this is against EU competition law?

osarusan

pilly wrote: »

because a real social drinker doesn't buy €1 cans anyway.

Completely disagree. Plenty of social drinkers will buy alcohol for that price.

Glenster

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

Help!!!! wrote: »

That's bull!!! I buy my cans in Aldi for 98c because I like the taste I'm not drinking to get ****faced

Gross. You are de-invited to Christmas.

Help!!!!

Glenster wrote: »

Gross. You are de-invited to Christmas.

Its ok you don't have to kiss me :P

VinLieger

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Their prices are already well above the minimum pricing limits.
This will only effect the stack it high, sell it cheap merchants.

Most 500ml cans of beer will cost 2 euro under MUP.
Heineken is around 1.99 for a single right now, do you honestly imagine they will stay at the same price when Dutch Gold is also priced at 1.99?

A 12 pack is at 18 euro right now, so bit of a discount for a multi pack, this will now be forced up to 24 euro with MUP. Do you again believe this wont increase when Dutch Gold is the same price at 24?

Smirnoff is priced at 28 for a 700ml bottle which is about the minimum price for 700ml vodka proposed under this law. Do you believe it wont increase to avoid being the same price as tesco vodka and other cheaper "non-premium" brands.

The long and the short of it is you have consistently shown time and again you havent a clue what your talking about and make wild statements that can be easily disproved and also refuse to back them up when called on as you have no evidence whatsoever.

osarusan

And also:

In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:

Heart disease

For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.

It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

MeatTwoVeg

VinLieger wrote: »

The long and the short of it is you have consistently shown time and again you havent a clue what your talking about and make wild statements that can be easily disproved and also refuse to back them up when called on as you have no evidence whatsoever.

Oh the irony.

Please post up the evidence for your claims above.

And no, making up a narrative to suit your argument doesn't count.

DEFTLEFTHAND

osarusan wrote: »

And also:





http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

I hate reading reports like that. It makes me think of the high levels of vehicle fumes I breathe in everyday on my walk to and from work.