Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

weldoninhio

Ace2007 wrote: »

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.

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


DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

odyssey06

weldoninhio wrote: »

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
DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.

Drinks in pubs are all watered down so you dont get the buzz no matter how much you drink???

I wouldnt put it past the vintners!

hatrickpatrick

Ace2007 wrote: »

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.

And those who enjoy getting locked would have less craic. Society has no right to impose that on every individual, only on those who specifically cause trouble for others.

Fr Tod Umptious

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.

It's not about current alcoholics.

It's about reducing the level of future problem drinkers.

A way to achieve that is by a higher entry price.

odyssey06

Sure its a wonder we need drink driving laws at all. If high prices deter drinking then who could afford a car and the price of a pint in a pub. Because earning 100k a year and therefore not hit by MUP means no matter how much you have to drink you can never cause any problems or become an alcoholic.

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's not about current alcoholics.

It's about reducing the level of future problem drinkers.

A way to achieve that is by a higher entry price.

AKA: social engineering. It's perfectly legitimate to oppose social engineering in and of itself, regardless of the motivations behind it.

ohnonotgmail

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's not about current alcoholics.

It's about reducing the level of future problem drinkers.

A way to achieve that is by a higher entry price.

well then raise excise duty. that way the government coffers benefit from the increase in prices not the retailers. But this change was not proposed to reduce problem drinking. It was proposed to get people out of their houses and back into pubs.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's not about current alcoholics.

It's about reducing the level of future problem drinkers.

A way to achieve that is by a higher entry price.

And no alcoholics are made in the pub?

Your strategy wont work and is profoundly illiberal.

Publicans want this measure. It is not a way to achieve anything except a transfer of money to those who sell alcohol.

The Rape of Lucretia

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

AKA: social engineering. It's perfectly legitimate to oppose social engineering in and of itself, regardless of the motivations behind it.

In this case, more legitimate to support it though.

The people need the state to oppose, in their best interest, the social engineering power of the behemoth that is the drinks industry.

Cut out the billions that industry spends on glamourising, making alcohol ubiquitous, constructing a success/celebration alcohol link, and drenching of sports, and the need for government initiated anti-alcohol social engineering could be curtailed.

facehugger99

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There's a huge difference between choosing the cheaper of two options and continuing to buy something if it becomes more expensive.

Ah, so price does have a huge impact on how alcohol is consumed - correct?

One might even contend that the consumption of alcohol is highly affected by the pricing of the same product.

Doctor Jimbob

facehugger99 wrote: »

Ah, so price does have a huge impact on how alcohol is consumed - correct?

One might even contend that the consumption of alcohol is highly affected by the pricing of the same product.

It doesn't have an impact on whether or not it's consumed, which is the question at hand here.

hatrickpatrick

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

In this case, more legitimate to support it though.

The people need the state to oppose, in their best interest, the social engineering power of the behemoth that is the drinks industry.

Cut out the billions that industry spends on glamourising, making alcohol ubiquitous, constructing a success/celebration alcohol link, and drenching of sports, and the need for government initiated anti-alcohol social engineering could be curtailed.

I have no problem with restricting advertising as you've described, it is indeed another form of social engineering. The pricing aspect, however, is a coercive measure - in that it's not "we'll educate people or restrict advertising so that people will choose to drink less", it's "we'll raise the price of drink so that people who want to drink more will be forced not to because they can't afford it". This is specifically targeted towards young students - the politicians have said as much in the Dáil and Seanad. And that's a form of social engineering I will always oppose, regardless of what it's targeted at. Coercive measures to force or even just corral people to make certain lifestyle choices are authoritarian, and authoritarianism is just something I believe our society could do without.

By all means, deal with other forms of social engineering in terms of advertising etc. But don't coerce people to make lifestyle choices by making it artificially financially unattractive to make the ones you don't approve of.

listermint

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's not about current alcoholics.

It's about reducing the level of future problem drinkers.

A way to achieve that is by a higher entry price.

What future problem drinkers consumption is down year on year for the last decade.

Irish teenagers drink less than their European peers.

Why are you consistently showing lies that there is an increasing problem here. It's lies pure unadulterated lies.

facehugger99

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It doesn't have an impact on whether or not it's consumed, which is the question at hand here.

Of course it does.

Particularly by the very young which is the demographic that will benefit the most from this measure.

If Johnny Cheap-slab has to pay a little extra to facilitate this, so what?

odyssey06

facehugger99 wrote: »

Of course it does.

Particularly by the very young which is the demographic that will benefit the most from this measure.

If Johnny Cheap-slab has to pay a little extra to facilitate this, so what?

The "very young", what are they, in infant school? Good job they banned communion wine.

I think your main target here isn't underage drinking, you seem to have an issue with Johnny Cheap slab otherwise why would you use derogatory names for that demographic?
If your problem was underage drinking which is already illegal, you'd be a bit more concerned about enforcing the laws which we already have on the statute books.
What if they are underage and not broke?

hatrickpatrick

facehugger99 wrote: »

Particularly by the very young which is the demographic that will benefit the most from this measure.

Depends how you define "benefit". Those who enjoy getting drunk and will find it harder to do so because they can't afford it aren't benefitting at all, not in the immediate term anyway.

If Johnny Cheap-slab has to pay a little extra to facilitate this, so what?

So, it's profoundly unfair and more importantly illiberal / authoritarian. We're supposed to have moved past that as a society.

hatrickpatrick

odyssey06 wrote: »

The "very young", what are they, in infant school? Good job they banned communion wine.

I think your main target here isn't underage drinking, you seem to have an issue with Johnny Cheap slab otherwise why would you use derogatory names for that demographic?
If your problem was underage drinking which is already illegal, you'd be a bit more concerned about enforcing the laws which we already have on the statute books.
What if they are underage and not broke?

It's very obvious that most proponents of minimum pricing are trying to target broke students and young adults who enjoy "the sesh", because they find it distasteful. Pure authoritarianism.

Fr Tod Umptious

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well then raise excise duty. that way the government coffers benefit from the increase in prices not the retailers. But this change was not proposed to reduce problem drinking. It was proposed to get people out of their houses and back into pubs.

Sorry, you are confusing me with someone who agrees with MUP, I don't

I think it's very flawed

If it was an excise put on all alcohol sales it would be far better

What I am arguing is that people saying that higher prices are a bad idea will not affect alcoholics

It's won't but higher pricing is a barrier to entry, which will affect the next generation of drinkers.

This should really be about the long term, just like the way this country dealt with smoking in the long term.

Personally I think advertising and sponsorship should be targeted first, or at least at the same time, as pricing

Fr Tod Umptious

listermint wrote: »

What future problem drinkers consumption is down year on year for the last decade.

Irish teenagers drink less than their European peers.

Why are you consistently showing lies that there is an increasing problem here. It's lies pure unadulterated lies.

And long may it continue, and even increase (the rate of decrease that is)

facehugger99

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think your main target here isn't underage drinking, you seem to have an issue with Johnny Cheap slab otherwise why would you use derogatory names for that demographic?

Nah, you have it assbackward mate.

It's only Johnny Cheap-slab that has an issue with minimum alcohol pricing. I just don't think his 'I want to be able to keep drinking 20e slabs' views should be accorded much weight.

Doctor Jimbob

facehugger99 wrote: »

Of course it does.

Particularly by the very young which is the demographic that will benefit the most from this measure.

If Johnny Cheap-slab has to pay a little extra to facilitate this, so what?

Citation needed

odyssey06

facehugger99 wrote: »

Nah, you have it assbackward mate.

It's only Johnny Cheap-slab that has an issue with minimum alcohol pricing. I just don't think his 'I want to be able to keep drinking 20e slabs' views should be accorded much weight.

The agenda of your posts is obvious, there's no real concern in them for underage drinkers, or anyone else's health.
It's just a trojan horse for this puritan authoritarian interference. In France you can get cheaper beer and wine than that and all hell hasn't broken loose.

You're the one with the problem with ordinary people living their lives, it reeks off every post. Give me Johnny cheap slab anyday than Johnny gets off on telling other people how to live their lives.

facehugger99

:pac:

odyssey06 wrote: »

The agenda of your posts is obvious, .

As is yours - Don't take away me cheap beer and fcuk the societal consequences.

Unfortunately for you, the Government agree with my 'agenda'.;)

Doctor Jimbob

facehugger99 wrote: »

:pac:

As is yours - Don't take away me cheap beer and fcuk the societal consequences.

Unfortunately for you, the Government agree with my 'agenda'.;)

Ahhh so you're a publican!

facehugger99

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ahhh so you're a publican!

and you're a Doctor

Doctor Jimbob

facehugger99 wrote: »

and you're a Doctor

Eh?

Fr Tod Umptious

facehugger99 wrote: »

:pac:

As is yours - Don't take away me cheap beer and fcuk the societal consequences.

Unfortunately for you, the Government agree with my 'agenda'.;)

Seems to be the majority opinion around here.

Might be something to do with age demographics

If I was twenty years younger I might be up in arms about it, now I couldn't give a tupenny hoot about the price of booze.

Fr Tod Umptious

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

In this case, more legitimate to support it though.

The people need the state to oppose, in their best interest, the social engineering power of the behemoth that is the drinks industry.

Cut out the billions that industry spends on glamourising, making alcohol ubiquitous, constructing a success/celebration alcohol link, and drenching of sports, and the need for government initiated anti-alcohol social engineering could be curtailed.

There are rugby union internationals on in November

Over the past few years the TV listing on RTE for these games live on a Saturday afternoon/evening has been "Guinness Series Live"

Now IMO that is seriously f**cked up.

No mention of sport, no mention of rugby, just the brand of the sponsor, the drinks company

That's how much infulence they have and how much they are willing to invest in brand recognition.

odyssey06

facehugger99 wrote: »

:pac:
As is yours - Don't take away me cheap beer and fcuk the societal consequences.
Unfortunately for you, the Government agree with my 'agenda'.;)

You give the government cart blanch to interfere here, it's only a matter of time before they interfere in something that does bother you. And posh boys like Simon Harris just love interfering in things, anything to avoid facing up to the mess he's making of the hospitals.

It's my hard earned money, so yes, I object to the government unnecessarily raising the price of it and effecting a transfer a wealth from citizens to retailers. And I concede no moral high ground to anyone on that whether it's the price of alcohol, petrol, food, medicine, a pension or insurance policy.

It's both wrong and ineffective. I don't see any positive societal consequences flowing from this decision. If you want to tackle negative consequences of alcohol tackle it directly. This is a very weak, indirect and ineffective lever towards the negative consequences. It seems to assume only people short on cash can abuse alcohol.

This is a god awful unholy alliance of the puritans, the posh boys and the publicans. To expect any good consequences to flow from this you couldn't have been paying attention to Irish history.

odyssey06

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

There are rugby union internationals on in November
Over the past few years the TV listing on RTE for these games live on a Saturday afternoon/evening has been "Guinness Series Live"
Now IMO that is seriously f**cked up.
No mention of sport, no mention of rugby, just the brand of the sponsor, the drinks company
That's how much infulence they have and how much they are willing to invest in brand recognition.

Brand recognition. It's about directing spending from A to B. We don't need advertising budgets to drink. There is no relationship between overall alcohol consumption and advertising \ marketing budget on same. The country was awash with spirits in the 1820s and nary an morketing executive in sight.

Look at all the non-stout alcoholic Guinness products launched with big budgets to great fanfare over the last 30 years... Guinness Black, Guinness Light... Guinness could have sponsored every sporting competition known to man, those products would still have died a quick death.
And yet the non-Guinness named Hop House 13 is doing well...