Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

hatrickpatrick

Ace2007 wrote: »

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.

And students are consenting adults, so they should be allowed in principle to get as sh!tfaced as they choose in the privacy of their own homes.

The Rape of Lucretia

Deleted User wrote: »

Alcohol is just one of those things that people will buy regardless of the cost.
Went to a gig the other night and it cost 13 euro for 2 pints. Myself and my friend still had 4 each.
If the price goes up in supermarkets, I'll still buy as much as normal and just make cuts elsewhere.

The price of cigarettes went up a lot in recent years. People just switched to Vaping and bringing back large volumes of smokes from holidays.

They will buy less of it.
You might. They overall consumer market will not - they will buy less.
Education and price increases have reduced the prevalence of smokers. People are vaping because they wished they could give up tobacco and not vape, but cannot. And chose vaping as the lesser evil. Like alcoholics, those unable to give up smoking and so bringing them back from holidays are not really the consideration - they are already lost, and, literally dying off. The price increases are deterring people from taking it up. Improving their lives.

ohnonotgmail

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They will buy less of it.
You might. They overall consumer market will not - they will buy less.
Education and price increases have reduced the prevalence of smokers. People are vaping because they wished they could give up tobacco and not vape, but cannot. And chose vaping as the lesser evil. Like alcoholics, those unable to give up smoking and so bringing them back from holidays are not really the consideration - they are already lost, and, literally dying off. The price increases are deterring people from taking it up. Improving their lives.

they are in their hole. I assume you have some actual evidence to back that up?

hatrickpatrick

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They will buy less of it.
You might. They overall consumer market will not - they will buy less.
Education and price increases have reduced the prevalence of smokers. People are vaping because they wished they could give up tobacco and not vape, but cannot. And chose vaping as the lesser evil. Like alcoholics, those unable to give up smoking and so bringing them back from holidays are not really the consideration - they are already lost, and, literally dying off. The price increases are deterring people from taking it up. Improving their lives.

Smoking has a definite effect on anyone else who happens to be nearby inhaling it. Alcohol has a possible effect on others, if the drinker gets aggro or clumsily damages something. Huge difference. A possible effect is not a good enough reason to restrict individual liberty. And if smoking only caused disease in the smoker and not in passive smokers, I for one would be wholly and 100% opposed to attempting to control peoples' smoking behaviour by hitting their wallets.

listermint

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Alcohol is ineleastic. But people seem to think that means demand doesnt change with price. Not the case. Being inelastic means that demand versus price has a slope lower than 1. i.e. that a given % increase in price will prompt a lower than that % reduction in demand. Not that demand stays the same. The price inelasticity of alcohol is generally in the range 0.5. Or, a 20% increase in price will prompt a 10% reduction in demand.
Increasing the price of alcohol reduces consumption. This is indisputable.

Can you give us some significant backing to that research because it counters with research that is extensive in australia Which states

and a simultaneous
10% increase in the minimum prices of all types
reduced total consumption by 3.4%

So you are vastly inflating your figures to reach a conclusion, By vastly i mean making them up.

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

You can be, if you're oppposed to social engineering. I don't believe that "reduced consumption" is "a good thing" unless people reduce their consumption purely, completely and only by choice. No amount of coercion whatsoever is acceptable to me, as a basic principle of social liberalism. The government should not be attempting to mould how people choose to live their lives by restricting their freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

Interesting point, but for me the first time a group of early primates lived together as a group and co-operated according to some hierarchy that was social engineering. The idea of complete freedom in any sort of society is a myth. Governments do have a role in health promotion since dealing with ill health affects society.

listermint

facehugger99 wrote: »

You're very misguided if you believe a higher price won't have any effect on teenage drinking habits.

Are these the same teens that are now drinking less than their compatriots in Europe?

those teenagers?


Make a point will you but keep it factual.

McMurphy

facehugger99 wrote: »

You're very misguided if you believe a higher price won't have any effect on teenage drinking habits.

You'd have to wonder why the govt haven't legalised heroin and priced the junkies out of the market?

They could rid the country of the skag scourge in a few years.....(Assuming your plan is fool proof and price is a deterrent ):cool:

hatrickpatrick

joe40 wrote: »

Interesting point, but for me the first time a group of early primates lived together as a group and co-operated according to some hierarchy that was social engineering. The idea of complete freedom in any sort of society is a myth. Governments do have a role in health promotion since dealing with ill health affects society.

I just don't agree. People should be free to engage in escapism using whichever euphoriant they're personally attracted to, be it ecstasy, amphetamine, alcohol, marijuana, etc. For some people, for various reasons, the pursuit of happiness is far more difficult without help from the aforementioned substances.

The idea of complete freedom in private, alone, with nobody involved except one's self is a fairly fundamental philosophical concept which is supported by many people, not just something I pulled out of thin air. Complete, total, and unfettered control and ownership over one's own body, and the decisions which affect it while affecting nobody else's.

Hotblack Desiato

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

People didn't need to use these bags, they just took them because they were convenient and 'free'. Shops were happy to have people carrying bags with their logo on them, cheap advertising (Now I often come out of Dunnes with shopping in a Lidl reusable bag, or out of a Lidl with a Dunnes bag!)

The reason to reduce their use was litter, not air pollution.

joe40 wrote: »

The prices associated with drinking in pubs including taxi etc is very high that is why pubs are closing down all over the place.

That's only one reason among many. Drink-driving enforcement and a change in lifestyles being others. Pubs used to be pretty much the only social outlet for many people apart from Sunday mass. This has changed. If you wanted to see a film you used to have to go to a cinema, maybe a drink in the pub beforehand and a couple after. Now you can sit and relax and watch on the big screen at home.

Also pubs are not "closing down all over the place". The odd badly run pub or one with landlord issues will shut down in Dublin. It either reopens later, or the licence moves somewhere else and a new pub opens. With licences transferring out of rural areas, the numbers of pubs in the cities is going up. The reason rural pubs are closing down is because the young people aren't there, the 30/40somethings with kids can't afford it, and the 70something oulfellas who would sit in a pub all day drinking are dying off.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Increasing the price of alcohol reduces consumption. This is indisputable.

When I was younger, I had very little money for drink. But I still found a way. Sometimes I wouldn't buy lunch during the week and save the money. We would walk home even if it was unsafe to ensure we had enough for our drink.
I even sold DVD's / CD to make some extra funds at times.
We knew every pub that drinks promotions on and what nights they were on.

We just wanted a few drinks, and we always found a way to get them.

DEFTLEFTHAND

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's where you're wrong. 8 cans of decent beer, say Perlenbacher, will on occasion cost as little as €7.30 in Lidl. 12 cans of bog-standard beer (Galahad) will cost the same, again in Lidl. So for those already on a tight budget who avail of these discounted prices, this will be a huge difference.

Paint stripper would be a worthy substitute for Galahad.

Christ it's awful. They were selling 12 cans of it for around 8 quid not too long ago in my Aldi.


Still wouldn't touch it, lol.

The Rape of Lucretia

listermint wrote: »

Can you give us some significant backing to that research

I can. There are very many reputable studies that confirm the effect. Variances between countries, income bands, types of alcohol etc, but the overall picture is very consistent.

http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Price/Factsheets/How-does-the-price-of-alcohol-affect-consumption.aspx

https://blog.euromonitor.com/2014/08/price-elasticities-in-alcoholic-drinks.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/566785/demand-price-elasticity-for-selected-alcoholic-drinks-worldwide/

facehugger99

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're very misguided if you think this is anything other than an effort to prop up the pubs.

Why would the pubs need propping up if the price is not effecting consumption levels?

Ace2007

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And students are consenting adults, so they should be allowed in principle to get as sh!tfaced as they choose in the privacy of their own homes.

yes, but are they doing it in their own homes, go into Dublin tonight - you will see people binge drinking under the definition of binge drinking - asked them and they will say they aren't - as they are uneducated.

stay out till 3/4am - you will see young lads fighting because they couldn't handle the drink and emotions.

got to A&E around 5/6am and you'll see the effects of these drunken young people - some will have cuts and bruises, others may have more serious conditions, you know some innocent people have been stabbed and attacked and lost their lives because these "consenting adults" got sh!tfaced as you like to put it.

go to AA meetings, and find out the impact drink has had on the lives of many, again many innocent people - spouse and children - due to a "consenting adult".

I wonder would people have the same response if Coke was sold legally and cheaply, as a few bumps wont' do any harm, and sure people are consenting adults, if they get addicted and fcuk up their lives, well that's there issues.

KrustyUCC

Yet the prices for everybody will be increased even for those who have nothing to do with any of scenarios you describe

Our prices are already amongst the highest in Europe

ohnonotgmail

Ace2007 wrote: »

yes, but are they doing it in their own homes, go into Dublin tonight - you will see people binge drinking under the definition of binge drinking - asked them and they will say they aren't - as they are uneducated.

stay out till 3/4am - you will see young lads fighting because they couldn't handle the drink and emotions.

got to A&E around 5/6am and you'll see the effects of these drunken young people - some will have cuts and bruises, others may have more serious conditions, you know some innocent people have been stabbed and attacked and lost their lives because these "consenting adults" got sh!tfaced as you like to put it.

go to AA meetings, and find out the impact drink has had on the lives of many, again many innocent people - spouse and children - due to a "consenting adult".

I wonder would people have the same response if Coke was sold legally and cheaply, as a few bumps wont' do any harm, and sure people are consenting adults, if they get addicted and fcuk up their lives, well that's there issues.

these people you refer to out at all hours of the night have been in pubs. pubs will not be affected by these changes.

odyssey06

Ace2007 wrote: »

stay out till 3/4am - you will see young lads fighting because they couldn't handle the drink and emotions.

Did none of them come out of pubs and clubs where they paid way more than minimum prices for their drink?
Is it only the drink from supermarkets that leads you to throw punches? I've never been out at 3am on supermarket drink so that must be it cos I've never thrown a punch at 3am no matter how many JD and Cokes I paid over the odds for.

Being drunk and disorderly is an offence.
Violent conduct is an offence.
Sometimes drink is a pretext \ excuse not a cause.

If breaking multiple laws isn't a deterrence, relying on something as indirect as price is bonkers.

go to AA meetings, and find out the impact drink has had on the lives of many, again many innocent people - spouse and children - due to a "consenting adult".

It only takes one drink to become an alcoholic.

Ace2007

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

these people you refer to out at all hours of the night have been in pubs. pubs will not be affected by these changes.

So people don't pre drink with cheap drink?
It's the pre drinking the messes the majority of people up - drinks as much as they can before leaving their homes as it's cheaper than the pub.

If it becomes dearer than the pubs, than they won't drink as much...

odyssey06

Ace2007 wrote: »

So people don't pre drink with cheap drink?
It's the pre drinking the messes the majority of people up - drinks as much as they can before leaving their homes as it's cheaper than the pub.

So you can drink as much as you can in a pub without getting drunk?
Truly the Irish pub is a magical place where for every drink you have, it's actually a leprechaun in fairy land getting drunk.

ohnonotgmail

Ace2007 wrote: »

So people don't pre drink with cheap drink?
It's the pre drinking the messes the majority of people up - drinks as much as they can before leaving their homes as it's cheaper than the pub.

If it becomes dearer than the pubs, than they won't drink as much...

as i said already on this thread if you think that upping prices will have such fantastic outcomes then you should be campaigning for an increase in excise duties not MUP. Or is MUP better because it disproportionately affects poorer people and god knows we cant be having poor people enjoy themselves.

Hotblack Desiato

Ace2007 wrote: »

If it becomes dearer than the pubs, than they won't drink as much...

Maybe the answer to obesity is making cooking at home dearer than going to a restaurant??

Your post is right up there among the dumbest things I've read, ever.

ohnonotgmail

odyssey06 wrote: »

So you can drink as much as you can in a pub without getting drunk?
Truly the Irish pub is a magical place where for every drink you have, it's actually a leprechaun in fairy land getting drunk.

ah no the vintners will tell you that they look after their customers and they would never serve somebody who was already drunk.

odyssey06

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as i said already on this thread if you think that upping prices will have such fantastic outcomes then you should be campaigning for an increase in excise duties not MUP. Or is MUP better because it disproportionately affects poorer people and god knows we cant be having poor people enjoy themselves.

Only poor people can cause problems when they get drunk.

If it's a bunch of students with loaded parents no matter how drunk they get or how many fights they start it cannot be an issue.

Ace2007

odyssey06 wrote: »

So you can drink as much as you can in a pub without getting drunk?
Truly the Irish pub is a magical place where for every drink you have, it's actually a leprechaun in fairy land getting drunk.

Did I say that?
Students pre drink and usually get locked before they head into town because the drink is cheaper.

Yes they will continue to buy drink in pubs but at that stage the majority of them either don’t care about the price cause of the buzz they are having or so drunk they don’t realise - you ever see those comic videos of waking up and checking your wallet dying with hangover?

Now if you remove the pre drinking element they won’t spend as much money in a pub as it would cost a lot more.

Dublin Spur

responsible drinkers getting hammered (excuse the pun) due to drinking habits of irresponsible drinkers

another case of the tail wagging the dog

KrustyUCC

People should just remove the pub element

Also if these students are locked before they get to town how do they get into pubs?

Surely the vintners won't allow drunk students into their premises

Ace2007

Dublin Spur wrote: »

responsible drinkers getting hammered (excuse the pun) due to drinking habits of irresponsible drinkers

another case of the tail wagging the dog

So what’s your soultion to the problem?

Dublin Spur

Ace2007 wrote: »

So what’s your soultion to the problem?

not minimum unit pricing anyway

facehugger99

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Is that a serious question?

If the consumption of alcohol is as inelastic as is being claimed, why would people migrate from the on trade to the off trade?