Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Which is fine. The judgemental attitude of a few non-drinkers stinks though.

Wow, you are easily spooked. A tiny minority of the country has such an effect on you?

It really does leave the question open. Why is there this dependency on alcohol for enjoying ourselves, such that a price increase creates such pushback?

There are so many other things we could be doing to make ourselves relax and.or feel better. We 24 hour entertainment, we have transport to almost anywhere we want to go, we have an almost endless array of things we could be doing.

Yet time and again, we see posters on this thread saying they simply want to relax or unwind after a hard week etc. But nobody seems to question why we accept that alcohol is the only answer.

The drinks companies have convinced us all that we need this product to enjoy ourselves. That the game itself is boring, that our friends aren't really that funny. By enjoying this product you can have an even better time.

I think we need to seriously look at how we accepted that as a fact. Why we are depended on this product to aid our lives. It signifies something deeper is at fault, yet nobody seems to care to work it out.

odyssey06 wrote: »

What 'financial harm' are they causing? What financial costs are incurred over and above that of an average person?
If they don't drink, will they impose zero costs on the health service? No, because teetotallers get sick too and need treatment from the health service. And they get arthritis. And dementia. And cancer, strokes and heart attacks.
What about the pension costs? What about prescription and GP costs? Nursing home care?
For all we know, someone who dies at 60 from irresponsible drinking 'saves' the state hundreds of thousands of euros. Have you accounted for them in your cold equation?

Those who drink too much tend to be sick more and contribute less and are more likely to receive benefits for things like incapacity to work. By contrast, healthy people tend to be able to work more and for longer and contribute more to things like pensions. Problem drinkers tend to suffer chronic, long term and ongoing illnesses that non drinkers would be less likely to suffer from. Drunks frequently clog up A&Es. Reduce the number of drunks and that hefty Garda overtime bill could be trimmed back a bit also.

kerryjack wrote: »

Yes and what about all the tax they have paid on drink and fags as the 2 usually goes together.

If they don`t want to pay the tax they should give up drinking and smoking. Besides, clean living folk take no pleasure in seeing these people kill themselves.

If most cases of prices increases we have little choice but to accept. Motor Tax, levies, bin charges. You can shop around but if you want to drive you need insurance for example.

Drink is it a necessity (or at least it shouldn't be). But time and again, people have shown that they are indeed willing to put up with price increases. During the recession, the price of drink did not fall at all. But didn't limited only because of lack of funds, not out of any demand that the market reflect the realities.

The producers know, this, so do the pubs, and the government. It really should be an area that if they put the price up, or introduce MAP, that is has a seriously negative effect on the entire market. But producers know this is actually in their interests. Either people move back to the pub or simply accept the higher price. Either way they win.

And they win because we are too dependent on the product. We simply cannot see how we can enjoy ourselves without it. Out with friends, and no drink? Never. Watch a match, with no booze, not a chance.

realitykeeper wrote: »

I disagree. Prevention is better than cure.

This makes zero sense in relation to the post you were replying to unless you still are under the mistaken belief that this is somehow a tax increase which it is very much not.

This legislation won’t impact me as I don’t drink cheap polish lager or red wine you could strip paint off a trawler with. Tramp juice.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

This legislation won’t impact me as I don’t drink cheap polish lager or red wine you could strip paint off a trawler with. Tramp juice.

You're deluding yourself if you think the price of your malbec or bottle of Dungarvan BC won't be going up to avoid being priced the same as the cheap Polish stuff so it can avoid being seen as 'tramp juice'.

kylith wrote: »

You're deluding yourself if you think the price of your malbec or bottle of Dungarvan BC won't be going up to avoid being priced the same as the cheap Polish stuff so it can avoid being seen as 'tramp juice'.

That’s a very rudimentary prediction that doesn’t take account of a myriad of market conditions. Craft beer drinkers already are happy to pay a premium for the product they are purchasing. Same as those who buy good wine. Price sensitivity isn’t as important to them. They might just buy one less bottle of beer if your prediction was to come true. It’s the large volume at a cheap price products that are in trouble. And they won’t be mourned by anyone only students, misers, and alcoholics.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Spoken like a low-rent Aonghus Von Bismarck

Less of the insults, please.

I’m a man who likes to drink. I just don’t see this legislation impacting me that much. Drink is very cheap here. Paying a few more quid for good stuff is probably a good idea.