Non-alcoholic beer and the law (sale, supply and watershed time)

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

In Ireland, beverages containing less than 0.5% alcohol by volume are not considered alcoholic per se, they don't even have excise duty attached.

Certain juices and citruses contain naturally occurring alcohol in that range, yet is openly sold to children.

Some of the more modern N/A beers contain no alcohol whatsoever.

When I purchase N/A beer, the self service till always flags for ID. In my local Tesco, the "zero zone" is located away from the regular alcohol section and is not fenced off out of hours. Yet when I tried to purchase some Erdinger Alkoholfrei at 11 AM this morning, I was denied.

Is this just lazy implementation of the POS software it is something else at play?

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Erdinger Alkoholfrei is not alcohol free though.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Maurice Nervous Jaw wrote: »

Erdinger Alkoholfrei is not alcohol free though.

Can you not read?
It's in the OP.

Beverages <0.5% ABV are not classified as such.
It's literally in the OP. Christ.

ohnonotgmail

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

In Ireland, beverages containing less than 0.5% alcohol by volume are not considered alcoholic per se, they don't even have excise duty attached.

Highlighted for Dogmunde who appears to have reading comprehension difficulties.

Certain juices and citruses contain naturally occurring alcohol in that range, yet is openly sold to children.

Some of the more modern N/A beers contain no alcohol whatsoever.

When I purchase N/A beer, the self service till always flags for ID. In my local Tesco, the "zero zone" is located away from the regular alcohol section and is not fenced off out of hours. Yet when I tried to purchase some Erdinger Alkoholfrei at 11 AM this morning, I was denied.

Is this just lazy implementation of the POS software it is something else at play?

did you try asking them?

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did you try asking them?

I'm not having an argument with an 18 year old till girl on a tenner an hour. She's not paid to get customer abuse.

I'm here for an informed legal discussion on the matter.

ohnonotgmail

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I'm not having an argument with an 18 year old till girl on a tenner an hour. She's not paid to get customer abuse.

I'm here for an informed legal discussion on the matter.

who mentioned abuse? ask a manager. it may just be store policy.

con747

I don't think Boards do informed legal discussion, but if they did it would probably be the best........

silent_spark

The same has happened to me in another retailer, so it’s not Tesco specific. It might as well have been five bottles of spirits I was trying to buy the way they reacted. Morto.

Pkiernan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did you try asking them?

Easist thing to do

corks finest

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

In Ireland, beverages containing less than 0.5% alcohol by volume are not considered alcoholic per se, they don't even have excise duty attached.

Highlighted for Dogmunde who appears to have reading comprehension difficulties.

Certain juices and citruses contain naturally occurring alcohol in that range, yet is openly sold to children.

Some of the more modern N/A beers contain no alcohol whatsoever.

When I purchase N/A beer, the self service till always flags for ID. In my local Tesco, the "zero zone" is located away from the regular alcohol section and is not fenced off out of hours. Yet when I tried to purchase some Erdinger Alkoholfrei at 11 AM this morning, I was denied.

Is this just lazy implementation of the POS software it is something else at play?

Becks is niceeeeeeee ( blue)


Mod
stop shouting

Brand_New

Since the market for these low or non alcoholic beers is usually people over 18 it's probably not worth their while changing the system they have in place.
You would probably have better luck in a small off licence.

Legally they can refuse to sell you any item.

bobbyy gee

some non alcohol beer is 1%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/9lun8s/so_non_alcoholic_drinks_cannot_be_sold_until/

Brand_New

bobbyy gee wrote: »

some non alcohol beer is 1%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/9lun8s/so_non_alcoholic_drinks_cannot_be_sold_until/

How do you access that Reddit page?

Timberrrrrrrr

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I'm not having an argument with an 18 year old till girl on a tenner an hour. She's not paid to get customer abuse.

I'm here for an informed legal discussion on the matter.

Why would you abuse her over something that's not her fault? You know there are ways to ask politely right?

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

bobbyy gee wrote: »

some non alcohol beer is 1%
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/9lun8s/so_non_alcoholic_drinks_cannot_be_sold_until/

Read the op.

Thanks. It's there in black and white.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Brand_New wrote: »

Legally they can refuse to sell you any item.

Who said otherwise?

B.A._Baracus

Op,
Non-alcoholic drinks are considered the same as alcohol when it comes to what time you can buy them. It's 12:30pm on Sundays and 10:30am every other day.

Sure, something random like a can of coke could have more alcohol than non-alcoholic drinks but they are treated the same.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Can you not read?
It's in the OP.

Beverages <0.5% ABV are not classified as such.
It's literally in the OP. Christ.

Hi Christ,

They may not be classed as alcoholic drinks for the purposes of Customs & Excise but there is no differentiation under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts.

:rolleyes:

cobhguy28

Maurice Nervous Jaw wrote: »

Hi Christ,

They may not be classed as alcoholic drinks for the purposes of Customs & Excise but there is no differentiation under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts.

:rolleyes:

Non Alcoholic drinks are not Intoxicating Liquors so where are there covered by the act?

Peregrinus

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Non Alcoholic drinks are not Intoxicating Liquors so where are there covered by the act?

"Intoxicating liquor" is defined for the purposes of the licensing acts to include any "spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry . . ." etc etc. There is no exception or carve-out for beer, etc, which has had the alcohol removed from it. Basically, it's beer if you have made it by the fermentation of malt, etc, and it doesn't cease to beer if you subsquently remove the alcohol (which is why you can sell it as "beer" rather than "nonalcoholic malt-based drink"). But, since it's "beer", it's within the definition of "intoxicating liquor".

If you make a non-alcoholic product which doesn't involve the fermentation of malt, etc, and never has any alcohol in it that need to be removed, that's not intoxicating liquor and its sale is not restricted by the licensing acts. And there are many common examples, e.g. cola drinks. And if you could devise a process not involving fermentation that produced a drink somewhat resembling beer that was naturally alcohol-free and did not need to have the alcohol removed from it, the sale of that would not be restricted by the licensing acts. But it wouldn't be beer, and you couldn't call it beer or suggest that it was beer without running foul of the trade descriptions legislation.

cobhguy28

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Intoxicating liquor" is defined for the purposes of the licensing acts to include any "spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry . . ." etc etc. There is no exception or carve-out for beer, etc, which has had the alcohol removed from it. Basically, it's beer if you have made it by the fermentation of malt, etc, and it doesn't cease to beer if you subsquently remove the alcohol (which is why you can sell it as "beer" rather than "nonalcoholic malt-based drink"). But, since it's "beer", it's within the definition of "intoxicating liquor".

If you make a non-alcoholic product which doesn't involve the fermentation of malt, etc, and never has any alcohol in it that need to be removed, that's not intoxicating liquor and its sale is not restricted by the licensing acts. And there are many common examples, e.g. cola drinks. And if you could devise a process not involving fermentation that produced a drink somewhat resembling beer that was naturally alcohol-free and did not need to have the alcohol removed from it, the sale of that would not be restricted by the licensing acts. But it wouldn't be beer, and you couldn't call it beer or suggest that it was beer without running foul of the trade descriptions legislation.

So its still the 1872 definition.

Peregrinus

cobhguy28 wrote: »

So its still the 1872 definition.

So far as I know, yes.

It seems to me that the producers of the non-alcoholic products could press for a change to exclude those products. But most of the producers mainly produce alcholic products, and they have no particular desire to open up new distribution chains just for the nonalcoholic varieties. Plus, they don't think it would be good for product image if, e.g. nonalcoholic beer came to be seen as a "gateway drink" for teenages who can't buy the hard stuff.

Besides, an awful lot of the consumers of the nonalcoholic products drink them in company with friends who are drinking alcoholic products; they are not really interested in buying them at a time when their friends cannot buy alcoholic beer.

So, basically, nobody is particularly motivated to seek a change to the law so that nonalcoholic beers are excluded from the operation of the licensing acts.

Bikerman2019

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why would you abuse her over something that's not her fault? You know there are ways to ask politely right?

Why would you abuse anyone?


It is not difficult to be polite and speak in a civilised manner to a manager

ohnonotgmail

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Why would you abuse anyone?


It is not difficult to be polite and speak in a civilised manner to a manager

no idea but the OP seems to think that asking why the store handles non-alcoholic drinks the way it does would lead to abuse

I'm not having an argument with an 18 year old till girl on a tenner an hour. She's not paid to get customer abuse.

cobhguy28

Peregrinus wrote: »

So far as I know, yes.

It seems to me that the producers of the non-alcoholic products could press for a change to exclude those products. But most of the producers mainly produce alcholic products, and they have no particular desire to open up new distribution chains just for the nonalcoholic varieties. Plus, they don't think it would be good for product image if, e.g. nonalcoholic beer came to be seen as a "gateway drink" for teenages who can't buy the hard stuff.

Besides, an awful lot of the consumers of the nonalcoholic products drink them in company with friends who are drinking alcoholic products; they are not really interested in buying them at a time when their friends cannot buy alcoholic beer.

So, basically, nobody is particularly motivated to seek a change to the law so that nonalcoholic beers are excluded from the operation of the licensing acts.

I see that in Dublin they use the same definition of Intoxicating liquor in the bye laws for drinking in public.


https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RecreationandCulture/Documents/Intox%20Bye-Laws%202008.pdf

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no idea but the OP seems to think that asking why the store handles non-alcoholic drinks the way it does would lead to abuse

It's not really abuse but, to be fair, the checkout operator does not know, and does not need to know, why they are or are not permitted to sell this or that item at this or that time. Knowing these things is not their job, and they have not involvement in or influence over the instructions they are given about what to sell. And it's probably stressful for a retail assistant to have a customer asking questions that they can't be expected to know the answer to - especially when the customer is obviously asking the questions because they are dissatisfied with the rules.

So, yeah, you would need to ask this in a very non-confrontational way, and expect to get no useful answer. If you actually want information, as opposed to merely venting your feelings, apply yourself to the store manager, whose job involves fielding queries of this kind.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not really abuse but, to be fair, the checkout operator does not know, and does not need to know, why they are or are not permitted to sell this or that item at this or that time. Knowing these things is not their job, and they have not involvement in or influence over the instructions they are given about what to sell. And it's probably stressful for a retail assistant to have a customer asking questions that they can't be expected to know the answer to - especially when the customer is obviously asking the questions because they are dissatisfied with the rules.

So, yeah, you would need to ask this in a very non-confrontational way, and expect to get no useful answer. If you actually want information, as opposed to merely venting your feelings, apply yourself to the store manager, whose job involves fielding queries of this kind.

I completely agree.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

So far as I know, yes.

It seems to me that the producers of the non-alcoholic products could press for a change to exclude those products. But most of the producers mainly produce alcholic products, and they have no particular desire to open up new distribution chains just for the nonalcoholic varieties. Plus, they don't think it would be good for product image if, e.g. nonalcoholic beer came to be seen as a "gateway drink" for teenages who can't buy the hard stuff.

Besides, an awful lot of the consumers of the nonalcoholic products drink them in company with friends who are drinking alcoholic products; they are not really interested in buying them at a time when their friends cannot buy alcoholic beer.

So, basically, nobody is particularly motivated to seek a change to the law so that nonalcoholic beers are excluded from the operation of the licensing acts.

Indeed the Licensing Act 1872 definition is still the legal definition as per its enacted version.

The UK is a little ahead of us, they changed the law in 2003 to exempt 0.5% ABV from the definition of alcohol, their laws around selling of alcohol are based on the definition of alcohol as opposed to the definition of intoxicating liquor unlike here.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

GM228 wrote: »

Indeed the Licensing Act 1872 definition is still the legal definition as per its enacted version.

The UK is a little ahead of us, they changed the law in 2003 to exempt 0.5% ABV from the definition of alcohol, their laws around selling of alcohol are based on the definition of alcohol as opposed to the definition of intoxicating liquor unlike here.

Interesting, so are Tesco breaking the law by not having their "Zero Zone" cordened off with the rest of the booze?

GM228

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Interesting, so are Tesco breaking the law by not having their "Zero Zone" cordened off with the rest of the booze?

The law does not require the area to be cordoned off for alcohol products so makes no odds.

Grolschevik

cobhguy28 wrote: »

I see that in Dublin they use the same definition of Intoxicating liquor in the bye laws for drinking in public.


https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/RecreationandCulture/Documents/Intox%20Bye-Laws%202008.pdf

Interesting. So the entire premise of those Heineken Zero ads is problematic, in Dublin at least...

Peregrinus

Grolschevik wrote: »

Interesting. So the entire premise of those Heineken Zero ads is problematic, in Dublin at least...

I haven't seen the ads. What's the premise?

Grolschevik

Peregrinus wrote: »

I haven't seen the ads. What's the premise?

Pretty much that you can drink Heineken Zero in circumstances where you can't drink or shouldn't drink real Heineken. One being in the driver's seat of a car, albeit in a place that's obviously not covered by Dublin city byelaws.

Peregrinus

Grolschevik wrote: »

Pretty much that you can drink Heineken Zero in circumstances where you can't drink or shouldn't drink real Heineken. One being in the driver's seat of a car, albeit in a place that's obviously not covered by Dublin city byelaws.

Thanks. Does the ad look like it's set in Dublin?

(I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer is "no". Drinks companies tend to set their ads in sunny, aspirational places full of smiling young people enjoying outdoor leisure activities in mixed-sex groups. Think Southern California, not Crumlin.)

Grolschevik

Peregrinus wrote: »

Thanks. Does the ad look like it's set in Dublin?

(I'm going to hazard a guess that the answer is "no". Drinks companies tend to set their ads in sunny, aspirational places full of smiling young people enjoying outdoor leisure activities in mixed-sex groups. Think Southern California, not Crumlin.)

No, it looks like a stylised California, complete with Chips style motorcycle cop.

Peregrinus

Grolschevik wrote: »

No, it looks like a stylised California, complete with Chips style motorcycle cop.

Bingo! I claim my prize.

Grolschevik

Can't remember what the ad taglines suggest. Must look it up on YouTube.

bobbysands81

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Can you not read?
It's in the OP.

Beverages <0.5% ABV are not classified as such.
It's literally in the OP. Christ.

Maybe they didn’t like your attitude???

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Maybe they didn’t like your attitude???

My response to a stupid post which happened in the future (relative to the purchase) made them refuse me ???

And it's nothing to do with the liquor act which I'm trying to discuss here?

Idiotic post.

ohnonotgmail

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

My response to a stupid post which happened in the future (relative to the purchase) made them refuse me ???

And it's nothing to do with the liquor act which I'm trying to discuss here?

Idiotic post.

you have already received an answer

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Is there any appetite to change the existing act? I doubt it, N/A beers have a very small market so probably not.

I think the government should get the ball rolling. They should be doing everything that they can to encourage no or low alcohol alternatives.

It just seems farcical that certain juices contain more alcohol yet you dare not sip an NA beer before Sunday Mass. A person buying two or three bottles of NA beer seems to be treated the same as a person buying a trolley full of vodka.

Peregrinus

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

It just seems farcical that certain juices contain more alcohol yet you dare not sip an NA beer before Sunday Mass.

Oh, you can drink it; you just can't buy it before Sunday Mass. The trick is to get it on your way home from Confession the night before.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have already received an answer

What?? An answer from whom?



I hadn't received a proper answer that addressed my question when that drivel was posted. He simply parroted part of my question.

ohnonotgmail

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

What?? An answer from whom?



I hadn't received a proper answer that addressed my question when that drivel was posted. He simply parroted part of my question.

Post #20

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have already received an answer

Have already received an answer

Or

Had already received an answer?

What are you trying to say? There's a world of difference, grammatically speaking.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Post #20

What does my "attitude" in an early post have to do with the answer post # 20???

ohnonotgmail

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

What does my "attitude" in an early post have to do with the answer post # 20???

the reason you were refused is contained in post #20.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the reason you were refused is contained in post #20.

So why did you bring up my "attitude" in post 3 when I was simply replying to an idiotic post??

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the reason you were refused is contained in post #20.

My apologies.

You weren't the one who said I had an attitude..sorry pal that was Bobby sands.

On nights this week so I'm all over the place :pac:

Losty Dublin

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, you can drink it; you just can't buy it before Sunday Mass. The trick is to get it on your way home from Confession the night before.

Unfair; as a Protestant I feel discriminated against here. How am I going to get drink now?:)

bobbysands81

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

So why did you bring up my "attitude" in post 3 when I was simply replying to an idiotic post??

You should be nice to people when you’re looking for their help.