Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Ace2007 · 28-09-2018 03:22PM

Dublin Spur wrote: »

not minimum unit pricing anyway

So your saying you don’t agree with this soultion but fail to come up with another possible solution.

28-09-2018 03:25PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

So what’s your soultion to the problem?

Is it really that big of a problem? I can think of a lot of much bigger problems worth tackling in this country.

Young people like to get locked, a small minority cause trouble.

You'll find trouble in a lot of cities at that time anyways.

weldoninhio · 28-09-2018 03:31PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

They are in their bollocks.

If it's any thing like it was when I was growing up, a teenager who wanted to get langers, but might not necessarily had the funds would end up either "acquiring" the funds (their mams purse, or dad's jeans), robbed the booze from a cabinet in the house, or do without other stuff (chipper money or a taxi fare).

Going by his nonsense talk, you’d see very few teenagers with iPhones or Galaxy’s

Ace2007 · 28-09-2018 03:32PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is it really that big of a problem? I can think of a lot of much bigger problems worth tackling in this country.

Young people like to get locked, a small minority cause trouble.

You'll find trouble in a lot of cities at that time anyways.

What’s your thoughts on the cost of cigarettes? Should we reduce these? Less people smoke now due to education and the cost of them.

Same approach with drink might also work no?

Dublin Spur · 28-09-2018 03:37PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

So your saying you don’t agree with this soultion but fail to come up with another possible solution.

I'm not sure a solution is needed, the vast vast majority of people who take a drink behave themselves.

Do you agree that's its wrong that all drinkers should be charged more due to the drinking habbits of the few?

Surely we can all agree with that principle

listermint · 28-09-2018 03:38PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

So what’s your soultion to the problem?

Implementing much of Michael McDowell's cafe license laws and relax the licensing.

Education, increase education and health spending at second level.

and basically continue as we are.

Because consumption is going down.

ohnonotgmail · 28-09-2018 03:38PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

What’s your thoughts on the cost of cigarettes? Should we reduce these? Less people smoke now due to education and the cost of them.

Same approach with drink might also work no?

It might. so raise the excise duty on alcohol. Except the government will never agree to that because it will upset their vintner friends. the purpose of this measure was not about reducing consumption. It was about placating vintners.

28-09-2018 03:42PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

What’s your thoughts on the cost of cigarettes? Should we reduce these? Less people smoke now due to education and the cost of them.

Same approach with drink might also work no?

Smoking is kind of a different beast because most smokers don't actually enjoy smoking. They just sort of get addicted and then its hard to stop. Price increases led many to vaping instead.

People actually enjoy drinking though. Its a social thing. They want to drink. Its a different mentality and something that I think can't be stopped.

I drank a lot when I was younger. It was great fun, but you just sort of grow out of it eventually.

KrustyUCC · 28-09-2018 03:43PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It might. so raise the excise duty on alcohol. Except the government will never agree to that because it will upset their vintner friends. the purpose of this measure was not about reducing consumption. It was about placating vintners.

Exactly

Just for clarity again

5 Community and Rural Affairs 25

13 Health and Mental Health 47

Lets note where this proposal came from

5. Community and Rural Affairs

5.3 Keeping Communities Vibrant

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice
of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol consumption and the viability of pubs.

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

MUP is not addressing below cost selling of alcohol. It is setting a minumum price. All just to support their vintner buddies

This proposal was never about health

odyssey06 · 28-09-2018 03:53PM

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.

You say it by acting as if only people who predrink are a concern. As if nobody can get drunk in a pub.

If its only students so charge anyone with a student card more. That makes as much sense as mup.

What if the students arent poor? And still get locked? In a pub? Your justification for mup makes no sense if your concern is about 3am mayhem.

odyssey06 · 28-09-2018 03:58PM

If you want to tackle 3am mayhem get some guards on duty actually enforcing the drunk and disorderly laws as other countries do. And stagger closing times so everyone isnt thrown out onto streets at same time... as other countries do.

If you want to get teenagers out of fields knacker drinking either start arresting them or let 16yo buy beer or wine in pubs but not offies. As other countries do.

Our solution to problem drinking has publicans salivating. Even the ones who gleefully serve obviously drunk customers. That should tell you what you need to know.

hatrickpatrick · 28-09-2018 04:09PM

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.

And if they're negatively affecting others by their choices, that should be - and indeed is - a criminal offense, dealt with through the justice system.

But since not everyone who gets sh!tfaced behaves this way, it's something people should have a right to do unimpeded. Only the specific individuals who harm others should be targeted by the law.

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".

Only some people have dependents. Some people have none and have no interest in ever having any. Those individuals should be free to do whatever they like with their own lives.

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.

That'd be my own opinion anyway. Your body, your choice - period. Only when you begin specifically affecting someone else without their consent does it become anyone else's business. And if even one person is capable of getting sh!tfaced without negatively affecting another individual, then any law which isn't targeted against specific individuals is an unjust law. For the record, I have always and will always oppose drug prohibition for the same reason. It's your body, you should be entirely free to put whatever substance you feel like putting into it without restriction, so long as you do so in a manner which has no negative effects on anyone who didn't consent to those effects.

weldoninhio · 28-09-2018 04:13PM

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 · 28-09-2018 04:16PM

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 · 28-09-2018 04:16PM

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.

28-09-2018 04:28PM

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 · 28-09-2018 04:29PM

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 · 28-09-2018 04:29PM

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 · 28-09-2018 04:31PM

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 · 28-09-2018 04:32PM

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 · 28-09-2018 04:41PM

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 · 28-09-2018 04:42PM

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.

hatrickpatrick · 28-09-2018 05:09PM

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 · 28-09-2018 05:32PM

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 · 28-09-2018 05:38PM

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 · 28-09-2018 05:48PM

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 · 28-09-2018 05:49PM

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 · 28-09-2018 05:51PM

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.

28-09-2018 05:54PM

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

28-09-2018 05:55PM

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)

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments