Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

McMurphy

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

This is why I cant understand why the govt seem reluctant to levy alcohol across-the-board whether it be pubs/hotels and restaurants or an offlicense, and ring-fence the levy for health care whether it be A&E or alcohol education or treatment centres.

They are peddling the idea that drink is bad. But only going after the shops and supermarkets, and wanting to up their prices, but only their prices.

The hospitality industry is getting off Scott free imo, they even got a vat reduction to aide them in enticing people through their doors to consume this unhealthy product.

You really couldn't make it up.

realitykeeper

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

People buy alcoholic drinks in pubs and people buy alcoholic drinks in off licences. So, upping the price of alcohol drinks wherever it happens to be sold, is a must.

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 would be a believer in the power of persuasion, i.e. drilling into young kids about the evils of alcohol. For older people who have already developed a problem, I think drunk tanks are only useful if their purpose is exclusively to keep hospital A & Es free of drunks. Extra Gardaí cost extra money and with the 200 billion euro national debt to consider, cheaper options are needed.

If there was no drink, there would be no drunks. Since prohibition would not be acceptable to society at large, I think the twin approach of preaching sobriety coupled with a slowly tightening noose around alcohol accessibility may bring the best long term results.

Leroy42

Again, that is all very well but this MAP does not address any of your concerns. We already have relatively higher priced alcohol, and we know that even in the tough times people still spend money on it. So simply upping the price is not the answer.

Particularly when it is only upping it in one particular area and the money raised it not of any benefit to society. It is simply taking money from the public to give to corporations. That doesn't make any sense.

By all means go with a MAP style set up, but by way of a levy, that is payable directly back to the government, and ringfenched to do the things, I think, most people would agree with. Things like education, more money for sports facilities, more money for dance halls, boxing gyms, skateboard parks, film clubs etc etc. Give people a reason not to drink rather that trying to force them not to.

We have the WEEE directive which places obligations on the producers/sellers of electrical products to help pay for the recycling. We should have a same thinking in terms of the damage that the products these companies sell can have in certain cases. To take it to the extreme, if a person can be shown to have drunk in a pub before having a drink driving accident should the pub be held partially liable for some of the states costs?

Should the drinks companies be given a specific target to reduce average consumption over X number of years of face increasing penalties? Should we place limits on the volume of alcohol sold to any one person?

I am not advocating any of these, simply ideas of what is possible. We need to start to think outside the box.

hatrickpatrick

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.

I can categorically tell you that I haven't. I can't think of a single instance in which a drunk individual has inconvenienced me, and I can definitely think of far more examples of sober people who've pissed me off in some way over the years.

So your entire argument - by using the word "everyone", which does not allow any wiggle room - is based on a demonstrably false premise. "Everyone" does not suffer, "some" do. Just as "some" cause trouble when drunk, not "everyone".

Ergo, any measure which targets "everyone" is an ethically and morally unjustified measure.

Simple speaking loudly in certain settings is enough to disturb others

Let's ban coffee, stimulants and while we're at it let's just ban extroverted people in general. Oh and also the hard of hearing, they tend to speak fairly loudly due to their condition. Also sports, since people singing and chanting after a victory - drunk or not - is likely to annoy others.

Moronic argument in the extreme.

EDIT:

realitykeeper wrote: »

If there was no drink, there would be no drunks. Since prohibition would not be acceptable to society at large, I think the twin approach of preaching sobriety coupled with a slowly tightening noose around alcohol accessibility may bring the best long term results.

So just for the record, you'd be principally in favour of prohibition, if it was politically palatable to introduce it?

ohnonotgmail

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Simple speaking loudly in certain settings is enough to disturb others

Let's ban coffee, stimulants and while we're at it let's just ban extroverted people in general. Oh and also the hard of hearing, they tend to speak fairly loudly due to their condition. Also sports, since people singing and chanting after a victory - drunk or not - is likely to annoy others.

Moronic argument in the extreme.

EDIT:



So just for the record, you'd be principally in favour of prohibition, if it was politically palatable to introduce it?

we would also have to ban gatherings of 2 or more foreign students during the summer.

The Rape of Lucretia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Again, that is all very well but this MAP does not address any of your concerns. We already have relatively higher priced alcohol, and we know that even in the tough times people still spend money on it. So simply upping the price is not the answer.

On the contrary. We know exactly that raising the price reduces consumption. So it is a major part of the answer.

The Rape of Lucretia

Leroy42 wrote: »

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?

Its the otherway around. Its roughly a 50% underfund from the alcohol industry.

Roughly, a few years ago, alcohol related treatment costs the state about €4B per year, and total revenue from the industry was approx €2B. Someone may have recent accurate figures on this.

The Rape of Lucretia

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So just for the record, you'd be principally in favour of prohibition, if it was politically palatable to introduce it?

Just for the record, I wouldnt be in favour of prohibition. Just a concerted variety of initiatives, dramatic price increases amongst them, that over the next 30-40 years would aim for a similar reduction as with smoking where it reduced from around 50% in the 1950s to below 20% today, with a continued downward trend expected for some years yet.

bpmurray

Who exactly is MUP supposed to address?

It certainly won't touch alcoholics: by their nature, they have a physical dependency on alcohol so they'll still buy it, irrespective of the price, and may even switch to much more dangerous substances like methylated spirits.

On the other hand, it'll probably impact people who live so far from the pub that they would have to drive, i.e. the rural folk that certain Kerry politicians want to be exempt from drink-driving legislation, but only those who live far from the N.I. border.

Realistically any reduction in consumption will be minimal, and sales in Newry will go out through the roof, so there will be little if any gain to the state coffers. Of course, it's a godsend for pubs since by reducing the difference between prices in pubs and off-licences, it'll increase their business.

oceanman

bpmurray wrote: »

Who exactly is MUP supposed to address?

It certainly won't touch alcoholics: by their nature, they have a physical dependency on alcohol so they'll still buy it, irrespective of the price, and may even switch to much more dangerous substances like methylated spirits.

On the other hand, it'll probably impact people who live so far from the pub that they would have to drive, i.e. the rural folk that certain Kerry politicians want to be exempt from drink-driving legislation, but only those who live far from the N.I. border.

Realistically any reduction in consumption will be minimal, and sales in Newry will go out through the roof, so there will be little if any gain to the state coffers. Of course, it's a godsend for pubs since by reducing the difference between prices in pubs and off-licences, it'll increase their business.

cant really see it increasing the pub business very much, even if its 2euro a can of beer ect...its still way cheaper than paving 5euro plus in the pub. agree with you about cross border trade though, retailers in places like newry will be rubbing their hands.

Reputable Rog

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Just for the record, I wouldnt be in favour of prohibition. Just a concerted variety of initiatives, dramatic price increases amongst them, that over the next 30-40 years would aim for a similar reduction as with smoking where it reduced from around 50% in the 1950s to below 20% today, with a continued downward trend expected for some years yet.

It's actually at a steady 22% and probably higher when social smokers are factored in.

Greyfox

realitykeeper wrote: »

I would be a believer in the power of persuasion, i.e. drilling into young kids about the evils of alcohol.

Doing this is exactly whats making teenagers think alcohol is the coolest thing in the world. Teenagers overdo it when they start drinking BECAUSE we keep telling them how wrong drinking alcohol is. punishing everybody by increasing the price is not a solution, education is

The Rape of Lucretia

Greyfox wrote: »

Doing this is exactly whats making teenagers think alcohol is the coolest thing in the world. Teenagers overdo it when they start drinking BECAUSE we keep telling them how wrong drinking alcohol is.

They ignore the warnings because the warning doesnt align with the example set them by the same adults giving them the warning. Real adults lead by example.

Gunmonkey

oceanman wrote: »

cant really see it increasing the pub business very much, even if its 2euro a can of beer etc...its still way cheaper than paying 5euro plus in the pub.

While maybe they wont see an increase in trade, can see it as them bloodying the nose of the supermarkets/off-licenses. Because anyone can see a straight increase on excise on alcohol would have the same (or greater) impact: booze costs more = less overall consumption, more tax to be funneled into health service/Gardaí....but then the vinters would have to put up their prices too so the gulf between pub-shop prices would remain the same...and we cant be having that, right!

Can imagine we might be treated to a nice advertising blitz straight after the legislation comes into effect on how "De pub is de place to be, lads!"

I still hope we will get some cigarette style warning labels plastered over all the pubs; pictures of diseased livers attached to every tap and warning signs on the entrances saying how the consumption of the liquids from this premises will lead to cancer, heart disease and early death! Seeing as the vinters are sooooo concerned about the health and welfare of the people of this nation.

Garibaldi?

I bet there are some people stocking up for the Christmas celebrations already before it goes up!

Capt'n Midnight

bpmurray wrote: »

Who exactly is MUP supposed to address?

It certainly won't touch alcoholics: by their nature, they have a physical dependency on alcohol so they'll still buy it, irrespective of the price, and may even switch to much more dangerous substances like methylated spirits.

On the other hand, it'll probably impact people who live so far from the pub that they would have to drive, i.e. the rural folk that certain Kerry politicians want to be exempt from drink-driving legislation, but only those who live far from the N.I. border.

Realistically any reduction in consumption will be minimal, and sales in Newry will go out through the roof, so there will be little if any gain to the state coffers. Of course, it's a godsend for pubs since by reducing the difference between prices in pubs and off-licences, it'll increase their business.

It won't affect sales in Newry because the plan is to introduce something similar up there too.

It won't reduce consumption of brand name drinks or drinking in pubs or restaurants because they are already above the minimum price.

It won't increase tax revenue because there is no extra tax collected.



It's like the bad old days of censorship where the paperback version of some books were banned at at time when the hardback wasn't.

It's just an old fashioned paywall.
And the supermarkets would be forced to pocket the increase.


"If you're going to do this damn silly thing, don't do it in this damn silly way."

If the price is to be increased, then use excise duty, which has been the norm for the last four and a half centuries, and ringfence the revenue for healthcare.

It won't be a godsend for the pubs.
Unless there are lots of people who drink at home to save money but will readily to the pub when the price goes up.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Its the otherway around. Its roughly a 50% underfund from the alcohol industry.

Roughly, a few years ago, alcohol related treatment costs the state about €4B per year, and total revenue from the industry was approx €2B. Someone may have recent accurate figures on this.

Got a link to where that €4 billion figure came from?

Capt'n Midnight

Restrict alcohol and you open a market for counterfeit booze.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45709203

At least 42 people have died after drinking contaminated bootleg alcohol in Iran, a government spokesman said.

Health ministry spokesman Iraj Harirchi said 16 people had gone blind and 170 had undergone dialysis after trying the tainted drink.

In the past three weeks, at least 460 people across five provinces have been hospitalised, with the youngest victim a 19-year-old woman.

The Rape of Lucretia

Deleted User wrote: »

Got a link to where that €4 billion figure came from?

Not handy, but the HSE I think.

hatrickpatrick

Garibaldi? wrote: »

I bet there are some people stocking up for the Christmas celebrations already before it goes up!

Brewing a couple of Christmas stouts myself Honestly if there's one good thing about this legislation it's that it piqued my initial interest in home brewing, and having been doing it since April I'd highly recommend it, if MUP doesn't end up passing even just for the craic and the sense of achievement when you get it right. I'm still only using pre-extracted kits and starting to make minor alterations, but even then you end up paying €20-€30 for 40 pints of beer which is far superior to what you'd get in the average supermarket or Offie for the same price.

Obviously as far as Christmas goes this won't help with the traditional whiskey stockpile, but most whiskeys are either already over the MUP or utter sh!te. Cheap whiskey is in no way analogous to cheap beer in terms of taste or even drinkability. I do feel it's going to have an impact on the current gin trend though, plenty of 70cl and 1L bottles of decent gin are available below what would be the minimum if the bill were to pass and that I can imagine pissing people off. For instance, you can get Gordons 1L from Tesco or Dunnes at less than €20 regularly enough if they have a special offer and you use one of the spend and save €10 off vouchers. And some of the amendments which are being pushed after committee stage seem to rule out the possibility of getting around MUP with loyalty points, vouchers, or giving other products away for free in order to compensate for the increase drink cost :mad:

joe40

Plenty of the alcoholic drinks currently bought in supermarkets won't be affected by mup since they are already above the mup.
The pubs will still be considerably more expensive so I don't see how this will benefit them to any great extent.
Below cost selling by supermarkets of large volumes of cheap alcohol will be affected which. That is all. It is not been restricted I doubt a large scale return to poitin is on the cards.

Hotblack Desiato

Let's say Dutch Gold goes up in price to the same price Heineken is now, do you honestly think they will continue to sell Heineken at the same price as Dutch Gold? The so-called "premium" product will go up in price to differentiate it from the used-to-be-cheap product. Not that there's any such thing as cheap alcohol in Ireland.

VinLieger

joe40 wrote: »

Below cost selling by supermarkets of large volumes of cheap alcohol will be affected which.

Please tell me where i can buy this so called "cheap" alcohol, never seen it in Ireland, considering we have the 2nd highest prices in europe i think many would be interested

odyssey06

Anyone know if 'meal deals' would still be allowed? You can't sell a bottle of wine for less than €7 but could you sell a combined wine, main, side, dessert for €10?

I'd imagine a lot of supermarkets going down that route if permitted.

VinLieger

odyssey06 wrote: »

Anyone know if 'meal deals' are still allowed? You can't sell a bottle of wine for less than €7 but could you sell a combined wine, main, side, dessert for €10?

Not sure, but if M&S dine in for two offer gets killed ill be very sad, a side, main, dessert and bottle of wine for 14 euro is insanely good pricing

ohnonotgmail

odyssey06 wrote: »

Anyone know if 'meal deals' would still be allowed? You can't sell a bottle of wine for less than €7 but could you sell a combined wine, main, side, dessert for €10?

I'd imagine a lot of supermarkets going down that route if permitted.

these would also be outlawed. Any promotions that involve selling alcohol below the MUP would be banned.

Doctor Jimbob

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

these would also be outlawed. Any promotions that involve selling alcohol below the MUP would be banned.

What if you're technically selling the alcohol at the permitted price and heavily discounting the food?

VinLieger

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What if you're technically selling the alcohol at the permitted price and heavily discounting the food?

Shut up!!! they will add another amendment

ohnonotgmail

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What if you're technically selling the alcohol at the permitted price and heavily discounting the food?

No idea how it will work in practice.

andekwarhola

Reputable Rog wrote: »

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

It's typical of a lot of people in here.

Either recovering boozehounds themselves or butthurt about other boozehounds in their life so want to spoil it for everybody, including people that can handle alcohol, instead of addressing or dealing with their own issues.

What's even more ludicrous that this is purely a piece of legislation to help a specific sector of the alcohol industry in Ireland but they're so excited about the chance to wag the finger and project their issues on others that they choose not to join the dots.