Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

McMurphy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its fine. You dont get impacted by marketing and marketing has no impact.

That would go against all the psychological evidence, all the billions spent every year on marketing by companies across all markets and products type, and all the examples of Apple, Dyson, BMW.

But you are probably right.

What's your point?

Marketing definitely works, I don't think that's up for debate (there's a marketing team within my own company).

We are discussing the possibility that a brewing company have actually developed a marketing genius ploy - by not actually marketing therefore being extremely clever at it, and making their product (which is available pretty much everywhere) exclusive.

I think.

Some products sell themselves, by taste/quality.

That's not actually up for debate either is it?

Doctor Jimbob

I'm not sure how marketing is relevant to this thread at all to be honest. It might make people choose one brand over another but I'm not sure it's going to make a difference between drinking and not drinking.

Fr Tod Umptious

weldoninhio wrote: »

It would depend on what they have. Not all pubs in my town have O’Haras, so I sometimes drink Guinness, sometimes Carlsberg, sometimes Heineken, sometimes Hophouse. I’ve no other go to beer. In off licences I generally try what’s new.

No, that's not what I asked.
I don't care what you drink now.

What did you drink when you first started to drink regularly?

I doubt it was 51 state or it's equalivent at the time.

I'd guess it was something more "big brand", the kind you see on billboards, TV ads, and sponsoring sports.

Fr Tod Umptious

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not sure how marketing is relevant to this thread at all to be honest. It might make people choose one brand over another but I'm not sure it's going to make a difference between drinking and not drinking.

I brought up advertising.

Because I think reduced advertising is as important, if not more important, than price when it comes to trying to crub problem drinking in this country in the futute.

The Rape of Lucretia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'd guess it was something more "big brand", the kind you see on billboards, TV ads, and sponsoring sports.

Or the other route - whatever is cheapest.

Doctor Jimbob

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I brought up advertising.

Because I think reduced advertising is as important, if not more important, than price when it comes to trying to crub problem drinking in this country in the futute.

That's fair. I don't have an issue with the idea of reduced advertising myself. Would probably be more effective than the pricing idea.

realitykeeper

I am 100% in favour of minimum pricing of alcohol. For a start, alcohol at present is cheaper than water in some cases. Alcohol products are sometimes dumped on the market if it is convenient for the supplier or retailer to do so and this can be a problem for all of society. Who wants to live in a country where alcoholics can get cheap drink. Just because everyone is not an alcoholic does not mean everyone is not effected. People drunk on cheap drink can cause all kinds of problems, in the home, on the road, in public, in some workplaces and they cost the taxpayer money to hospitalize and so on. Just one encounter with these individuals can be life changing for a lot of people if someone gets killed.

I suspect a lot of the people who complain about the introduction of minimum pricing while claiming not to be a problem drinker are in denial. High taxes on drink are wonderful. If people are concerned about the vintners association lobbying for this, why not lobby for a vintners tax, i.e. a special tax just for being a pub owner (on top of their other taxes). If that is brought in, maybe we can keep upping the anti by taxing off licences more and then pubs more and then the off licences again and so on.

Finally, stiffer penalties for alcohol related crime would be great.

odyssey06

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am 100% in favour of minimum pricing of alcohol. For a start, alcohol at present is cheaper than water in some cases. Alcohol products are sometimes dumped on the market if it is convenient for the supplier or retailer to do so and this can be a problem for all of society. Who wants to live in a country where alcoholics can get cheap drink. Just because everyone is not an alcoholic does not mean everyone is not effected. People drunk on cheap drink can cause all kinds of problems, in the home, on the road, in public, in some workplaces and they cost the taxpayer money to hospitalize and so on. Just one encounter with these individuals can be life changing for a lot of people if someone gets killed.

I suspect a lot of the people who complain about the introduction of minimum pricing while claiming not to be a problem drinker are in denial. High taxes on drink are wonderful. If people are concerned about the vintners association lobbying for this, why not lobby for a vintners tax, i.e. a special tax just for being a pub owner (on top of their other taxes). If that is brought in, maybe we can keep upping the anti by taxing off licences more and then pubs more and then the off licences again and so on.

Finally, stiffer penalties for alcohol related crime would be great.

Alcohol is cheaper than water. What a meaningless statement of nothingness. You don't have tap water in your house? Should our benchmark for the price of everything be the price of Evian?

An alcoholic is an alcoholic. Heroin is illegal and extremely expensive, and we have junkies. Your solution is no solution at all, what if the alcoholics aren't poor? Are you only bothered by poor alcoholics?
Is it only people drunk in supermarket booze that crash cars on the road? No one driving home from the pub? No? And if they can afford a car, would MUP really stop them from drink driving? Wouldn't more Garda checkpoints that actually stop and test people instead of faking results be a better strategy?
Let's start with "stiffer penalties for alcohol related crime would be great" and see how far that gets us before bringing in nonsense like MUP.

Your suspicions re: "lot of the people who complain about the introduction of minimum pricing while claiming not to be a problem drinker are in denial" are groundless, baseless and do not to connect with reality. It's obviously just a cheap pathetic debating trick to attack other posters without naming them directly.
"Anyone opposed to this must be an alco." Cop yourself on.
Why should I have to pay more than I should for any product, alcohol, medicine, food, just to line the pockets of retailers. As if people only get annoyed about arbitrary price increases in the cost of booze.

Finally, this is not a tax. Look up what a tax is. If you had done any research on MUP the first thing you would be aware of is that it's not a tax.

weldoninhio

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No, that's not what I asked.
I don't care what you drink now.

What did you drink when you first started to drink regularly?

I doubt it was 51 state or it's equalivent at the time.

I'd guess it was something more "big brand", the kind you see on billboards, TV ads, and sponsoring sports.

Think it was Dutch Gold and Strongbow in cans. In the pub I’d go for whatever lager they had. Usually Carlsberg, Heineken, Fosters etc whatever was available.

weldoninhio

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am 100% in favour of minimum pricing of alcohol. For a start, alcohol at present is cheaper than water in some cases. Alcohol products are sometimes dumped on the market if it is convenient for the supplier or retailer to do so and this can be a problem for all of society. Who wants to live in a country where alcoholics can get cheap drink. Just because everyone is not an alcoholic does not mean everyone is not effected. People drunk on cheap drink can cause all kinds of problems, in the home, on the road, in public, in some workplaces and they cost the taxpayer money to hospitalize and so on. Just one encounter with these individuals can be life changing for a lot of people if someone gets killed.

I suspect a lot of the people who complain about the introduction of minimum pricing while claiming not to be a problem drinker are in denial. High taxes on drink are wonderful. If people are concerned about the vintners association lobbying for this, why not lobby for a vintners tax, i.e. a special tax just for being a pub owner (on top of their other taxes). If that is brought in, maybe we can keep upping the anti by taxing off licences more and then pubs more and then the off licences again and so on.

Finally, stiffer penalties for alcohol related crime would be great.

Peoples lives are changed by cars, by getting hit by cars, by crashing cars. Emissions cause cancer. Drunk/stoned/psychotic people can get into their car and cause untold damage. Cars have been used as weapons around the world.

Should cars be given a high minimum price due to this?? No that would be ridiculous, same as this ridiculous MUP

goat2

There are sweets everywhere at all prices, these are costing the country more money than any beer, sugar tax should be put right up, sugar causes , cancer, diabetes, rotten teeth, obesity and is one of the biggest addictions known to man, more addictive than alcohol or ciggie, yet two year olds can buy it, tomato sauce is laiden with it, and most chips eaten are accompanied by t sauce, so if they are serious about health and the price of any item on the health board purse, think sugar first

Reputable Rog

realitykeeper wrote: »

I am 100% in favour of minimum pricing of alcohol. For a start, alcohol at present is cheaper than water in some cases. Alcohol products are sometimes dumped on the market if it is convenient for the supplier or retailer to do so and this can be a problem for all of society. Who wants to live in a country where alcoholics can get cheap drink. Just because everyone is not an alcoholic does not mean everyone is not effected. People drunk on cheap drink can cause all kinds of problems, in the home, on the road, in public, in some workplaces and they cost the taxpayer money to hospitalize and so on. Just one encounter with these individuals can be life changing for a lot of people if someone gets killed.

I suspect a lot of the people who complain about the introduction of minimum pricing while claiming not to be a problem drinker are in denial. High taxes on drink are wonderful. If people are concerned about the vintners association lobbying for this, why not lobby for a vintners tax, i.e. a special tax just for being a pub owner (on top of their other taxes). If that is brought in, maybe we can keep upping the anti by taxing off licences more and then pubs more and then the off licences again and so on.

Finally, stiffer penalties for alcohol related crime would be great.

Is there not a nice long mass you could attend in your area?

Fr Tod Umptious

goat2 wrote: »

There are sweets everywhere at all prices, these are costing the country more money than any beer, sugar tax should be put right up, sugar causes , cancer, diabetes, rotten teeth, obesity and is one of the biggest addictions known to man, more addictive than alcohol or ciggie, yet two year olds can buy it, tomato sauce is laiden with it, and most chips eaten are accompanied by t sauce, so if they are serious about health and the price of any item on the health board purse, think sugar first

The whatabourety is worse than any NI thread

Sweets do not make you come home and beat your spouse or kids
No one spends the whole household income on sweets
Sweets do not make you make decisions that you regret later
No one comes out of a sweet shop and beats the s**t out of someone else

And did it every dawn on all of theses people who pedal the sweets, fast food, fizzy drinks causes obesity line ever realise that alcohol is not exactly fat free ?

Billy86

odyssey06 wrote: »

The Apple situation is completely different, they are launching entirely new products to the market. They had to get people to buy an iPod who otherwise may not have had anything comparable.

When the iPod was launched in 2001, MP3 players had been around for a solid three years with a variety of brands available and some even achieving a little bit of success on the market. The iPod however, was marketed infinitely better and might be the best example of top quality marketing in my lifetime - those silhouetted ads with the white headphones were crucial in it taking off to the extent that it did. The absolutely phenomenal job done on advertising the iPod was so impactful and so influential that it has it's own, quite lengthy, Wikipedia entry - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_advertising#cite_note-The_iPod_Silhouettes-3 . I wouldn't be surprised to see if the marketing and advertising industries list it up there with other insanely successful campaigns like Coca Cola's "Holidays are Coming" jingle, Nike's "Just Do It" slogan, De Beers' "diamonds are forever" claim, etc etc.

There is a reason why many Apple users swear absolutely blind that their computer with integrated graphics and a 5th gen i3 processor are "just better, faster and more powerful" than a PC with a dedicated graphics card, more ram and a 7th gen i5 processor. It's also why Apple charge more for a computer with the same components as it's PC equivalent, and never have any issues with sales. That's not at all intended as a dig at Mac users and I fully understand that some prefer things like the screen, keyboard and OS etc (and you can just as easily get Macs more powerful than PCs, as they both use the same parts under the cover). But the equivalent would be someone claiming their Toyota Corolla was simple better, faster and more powerful than someone else's Audi R8 simply because it was a Toyota.

You absolutely know your marketing is working fantastically when you get claims like that, and Apple's marketing over the last 20-odd years has simply been second to none.

EDIT: Also to add, the iPod didn't blow up immediately either by and means. The silhouette ads got some usage in 2003 but really kicked off from 2004-2008, and lo-and-behold...

Fr Tod Umptious

odyssey06 wrote: »

Alcohol is cheaper than water. What a meaningless statement of nothingness. You don't have tap water in your house? Should our benchmark for the price of everything be the price of Evian?

An alcoholic is an alcoholic. Heroin is illegal and extremely expensive, and we have junkies. Your solution is no solution at all, what if the alcoholics aren't poor? Are you only bothered by poor alcoholics?
Is it only people drunk in supermarket booze that crash cars on the road? No one driving home from the pub? No? And if they can afford a car, would MUP really stop them from drink driving? Wouldn't more Garda checkpoints that actually stop and test people instead of faking results be a better strategy?
Let's start with "stiffer penalties for alcohol related crime would be great" and see how far that gets us before bringing in nonsense like MUP.

Your suspicions re: "lot of the people who complain about the introduction of minimum pricing while claiming not to be a problem drinker are in denial" are groundless, baseless and do not to connect with reality. It's obviously just a cheap pathetic debating trick to attack other posters without naming them directly.
"Anyone opposed to this must be an alco." Cop yourself on.
Why should I have to pay more than I should for any product, alcohol, medicine, food, just to line the pockets of retailers. As if people only get annoyed about arbitrary price increases in the cost of booze.

Finally, this is not a tax. Look up what a tax is. If you had done any research on MUP the first thing you would be aware of is that it's not a tax.

Arragh, I would not worry too much about it.

I got accused in one of these treads about MUP a few years back of being a problem drinker because I don't drink in front of my kids.

realitykeeper

odyssey06 wrote: »

Finally, this is not a tax. Look up what a tax is. If you had done any research on MUP the first thing you would be aware of is that it's not a tax.

Indeed you are correct on that point although I find little else to agree with in the rest of your rather long winded wannabe rebuttal. MUP is not a tax, but anything that makes alcohol less affordable is a good thing, be that a minimum price or an increase in tax.

Minimum pricing is great where it applies to bad things like alcohol but it is terrible where it applies to good things like work. In short, the MUP for alcohol should be increased frequently by a hefty amount but the minimum wage really ought to be abolished.

Luke-m

realitykeeper wrote: »

Minimum pricing is great where it applies to bad things like alcohol but it is terrible where it applies to good things like work. In short, the MUP for alcohol should be increased frequently by a hefty amount but the minimum wage really ought to be abolished.

A quick question, should it apply to suncreams, red meat and beverages above 65c? They are all a carcinogenic.

Minimum wage? You really are a FG stooge.

realitykeeper

Luke-m wrote: »

A quick question, should it apply to suncreams, red meat and beverages above 65c? They are all a carcinogenic.

Minimum wage? You really are a FG stooge.

I think it should apply to something like alcohol, I read somewhere on this thread that the new minimum for alcohol would be one euro per unit. Rather than putting a minimum price on something like red meat, why not just double down by increasing the minimum alcohol price again and again.

Luke-m

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think it should apply to something like alcohol, I read somewhere on this thread that the new minimum for alcohol would be one euro per unit. Rather than putting a minimum price on something like red meat, why not just double down by increasing the minimum alcohol price again and again.

I agree that we really need to tackle the alcohol intake. But I’m not so sure MUP is the right road to go down. The road you are talking about is the cigarette road which is tax tax tax again and again. It won’t work with alcohol. I initially thought the money raised from MUP would go to educate young people about the dangers of the stuff, but it doesn’t seem to be the case that it will go there at all. Just another tax take as others have mentioned. It’s very disheartening to say the least. As others have mentioned fg are all about protecting the Pub.

Ps. Famous fg deflect with the minimum wage? Do you believe we should abandon it?

Billy86

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think it should apply to something like alcohol, I read somewhere on this thread that the new minimum for alcohol would be one euro per unit. Rather than putting a minimum price on something like red meat, why not just double down by increasing the minimum alcohol price again and again.

This man does not drink, but my oh my he loves his red meat. 😆

hatrickpatrick

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Sweets do not make you come home and beat your spouse or kids

Neither does alcohol, unless you're in a minority of individuals who has a violent disposition which alcohol brings out through its lowered inhibitions.

No one spends the whole household income on sweets

Most drinkers don't do this either. Furthermore, many drinkers have no dependents, and thus if they spend the whole household income on alcohol they're only hurting themselves.

Sweets do not make you make decisions that you regret later

If people want to take something which leads them to make regrettable decisions, that's entirely their own business.

No one comes out of a sweet shop and beats the s**t out of someone else

The vast majority of drinkers don't do this either.

If even one single person can get plastered and hurt absolutely nobody except themselves, then a measure which penalises that individual in order to restrict others from doing bad things is, in principle, an unfair and thus morally wrong measure to pursue.

realitykeeper

Billy86 wrote: »

This man does not drink, but my oh my he loves his red meat. ��

No, it really would not bother me personally if they put a minimum price or extra tax on red meat also but the reason I say it would be better if they concentrated on upping the price of alcohol is because of the social consequences you get with alcohol that you don`t get with red meat.

You can eat a lot of red meat and not be a danger on the roads. Eating red meat does not increase the incidence of domestic violence, nor will it cause one to roar at the top of ones voice in the middle of the street at four in the morning.

Mr. teddywinkles

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.

Ah the old night out after the being to the supermarket. Been there many a time and had meself a good drunken brawel at 3am outside Tesco's. Memorable times. Btw y'all still see that crap no matter what price drink is. That's social issues not what the price of drink is

hatrickpatrick

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, it really would not bother me personally if they put a minimum price or extra tax on red meat also but the reason I say it would be better if they concentrated on upping the price of alcohol is because of the social consequences you get with alcohol that you don`t get with red meat.

You can eat a lot of red meat and not be a danger on the roads. Eating red meat does not increase the incidence of domestic violence, nor will it cause one to roar at the top of ones voice in the middle of the street at four in the morning.

Only some people who get drunk behave badly while doing so. The majority do not. Collective punishment is highly unethical in any context.

listermint

realitykeeper wrote: »

No, it really would not bother me personally if they put a minimum price or extra tax on red meat also but the reason I say it would be better if they concentrated on upping the price of alcohol is because of the social consequences you get with alcohol that you don`t get with red meat.

You can eat a lot of red meat and not be a danger on the roads. Eating red meat does not increase the incidence of domestic violence, nor will it cause one to roar at the top of ones voice in the middle of the street at four in the morning.

Your username does not match with anything you ever post.

realitykeeper

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Only some people who get drunk behave badly while doing so. The majority do not. Collective punishment is highly unethical in any context.

Collective punishment is precisely what you get by not taxing the hell out of alcohol and introducing minimum pricing. Everyone suffers from the unborn child of an alcoholic to vulnerable pensioners where there is antisocial behaviour. Many of those who think they behave properly when they have been drinking are mistaken and are in denial. Simple speaking loudly in certain settings is enough to disturb others, people who have been drinking need to have their inappropriate behaviour pointed out to them and often they become argumentative when it is.

Upping the price of drink is a must. Ireland needs to work on its sobriety.

Leroy42

realitykeeper wrote: »

Upping the price of drink is a must. Ireland needs to work on its sobriety.

Has does upping the price of drink in off licences change any of that? Much of the anti social behaviour is due to people coming out of pubs. They already pay nearly 5 times the price of the offy, so price isn't the factor in that case.

I certainly agree what a far lower tolerance to alcohol related issues is required. But that needs extra policing. I would be in favour, for example, of a €1 levy on all alcoholic products (you could amend it based on volume etc) that went straight to poliicing and justice.

To fund drunk tanks, extra garda patrols, extra garda checkpoints for drink drivers. Increased places in educational programs etc.

But this law does none of that. It is simply people pretending to care about able to say they did something

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

I certainly agree what a far lower tolerance to alcohol related issues is required. But that needs extra policing. I would be in favour, for example, of a €1 levy on all alcoholic products (you could amend it based on volume etc) that went straight to poliicing and justice.
To fund drunk tanks, extra garda patrols, extra garda checkpoints for drink drivers. Increased places in educational programs etc.
But this law does none of that. It is simply people pretending to care about able to say they did something

I agree with you this is something that needs a policing solution.

But I disagree with on the levy idea because the levy is already there sufficient to fund all the things you have described. It's about allocation of resources.

Ireland already has:
• The highest wine excise in the EU 28
• The second highest beer excise in the EU 28 behind Finland
• The third highest spirits excise in the EU 28 after Sweden and Finland

From excise alone €1.2 billion goes directly to state coffers.
That excludes VAT, and income taxes and corporation taxes on drinks related jobs and sales.

Doctor Jimbob

realitykeeper wrote: »

Collective punishment is precisely what you get by not taxing the hell out of alcohol and introducing minimum pricing. Everyone suffers from the unborn child of an alcoholic to vulnerable pensioners where there is antisocial behaviour. Many of those who think they behave properly when they have been drinking are mistaken and are in denial. Simple speaking loudly in certain settings is enough to disturb others, people who have been drinking need to have their inappropriate behaviour pointed out to them and often they become argumentative when it is.

Upping the price of drink is a must. Ireland needs to work on its sobriety.

Upping the price of drink is not a solution to the problem, unless you think people with more money can't be alcoholics or engage in antisocial behavior. There would be some merit in increased taxation if the additional tax raised went to initiatives to reduce harm caused by alcohol, but minimum pricing is complete and utter nonsense.

Leroy42

odyssey06 wrote: »

I agree with you this is something that needs a policing solution.

But I disagree with on the levy idea because the levy is already there sufficient to fund all the things you have described. It's about allocation of resources.

Ireland already has:
• The highest wine excise in the EU 28
• The second highest beer excise in the EU 28 behind Finland
• The third highest spirits excise in the EU 28 after Sweden and Finland

From excise alone €1.2 billion goes directly to state coffers.
That excludes VAT, and income taxes and corporation taxes on drinks related jobs and sales.

But if you don't raise more money, then the money needs to come from somewhere. Should be reduce spending on hospitals, or special needs assistants? How about we cut funding to sport?

I certainly agree that resources can and should be used better, but the levy idea gets the people that use the product to help pay for the extra services.