Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

14-11-2019 03:25PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Anyone who laments the loss of alcohol advertising, especially around places kids gather, is a fcking moron in my eyes.

Charming.

Well anyone who accepts what the government spouts in the name of protecting our children from the daemon drink is a moron in mine.

elperello · 14-11-2019 06:17PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's all about the long term

Take the everydsy prevalence of alcohol away, ie. advertising, and people become less aware of it and thus less likely to consume it.

Take smoking for example.
Would a teenager today from a non-smoking household be able to name as many cigarette brands as a teenager from a non smoking household could in 1983.

I doubt it.
Because a teenager today if far less exposed to cigarette branding than they were in 1983.

Some will claim advertising does not work, if that's the case why do drinks companies spend billions on it.

Thanks for the reply but I was really looking for more information about the banning of advertising up to 200m from schools. I find it hard to believe that children can be influenced by a hoarding if it is inside the 200m limit but not by one say 250m away.

The argument about branding is interesting.
As I recall my childhood I remember the bold kids who smoked or drank and they didn't care about brands. It was the excitement or devilment of doing something forbidden and the desire to appear tough to the rest of us that drove them.

Ultimately the most effective method of preventing underage drinking is diligent and pro-active parenting. The second is policing and enforcement of the raft of legislation already in place.

14-11-2019 07:24PM

elperello wrote: »

Thanks for the reply but I was really looking for more information about the banning of advertising up to 200m from schools. I find it hard to believe that children can be influenced by a hoarding if it is inside the 200m limit but not by one say 250m away.

The argument about branding is interesting.
As I recall my childhood I remember the bold kids who smoked or drank and they didn't care about brands. It was the excitement or devilment of doing something forbidden and the desire to appear tough to the rest of us that drove them.

Ultimately the most effective method of preventing underage drinking is diligent and pro-active parenting. The second is policing and enforcement of the raft of legislation already in place.

Of course the kids don't care about the brand, but they certainly are aware of the brands.

Take smoking again.
As a kid I knew exactly what a pack of Major, Carrols, Benson etc looked like because I had seen them in countless newspapers, magazines, billboards and shops.

So when I tried smoking at the age of about 13 I knew that I could walk into a shop and ask for "10 Major" because I knew that Major was a popular cigarette brand.

Now I had no idea about the difference between Major and Rothmans and not did I care, but I knew what to ask for when I went into that shop.

Fast forward to now.
Do you think kids (from non smoking households) know what the popular cigarette brands out there are?
Do you think they would be as confident as I was about going into a shop and asking for a pack of cigarettes without any real idea about how to ask for them ?

Branding is huge.

Just look at Guinness and the way they appropriate themselves on everything to do with rugby.

Don't you think that Guinness know full well that there are kids watching rugby that will become familiar with the Guinness brand and know about it when they get around to start drinking themselves ?

I really can't understand any adult who would have an issue with curtailing the level of advertising by drinks companies.
If you are a drinker you already know where to get it, how much it costs and what you like and don't like.
Less advertising is no skin off your nose.

elperello · 14-11-2019 08:40PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Of course the kids don't care about the brand, but they certainly are aware of the brands.

Take smoking again.
As a kid I knew exactly what a pack of Major, Carrols, Benson etc looked like because I had seen them in countless newspapers, magazines, billboards and shops.

So when I tried smoking at the age of about 13 I knew that I could walk into a shop and ask for "10 Major" because I knew that Major was a popular cigarette brand.

Now I had no idea about the difference between Major and Rothmans and not did I care, but I knew what to ask for when I went into that shop.

Fast forward to now.
Do you think kids (from non smoking households) know what the popular cigarette brands out there are?
Do you think they would be as confident as I was about going into a shop and asking for a pack of cigarettes without any real idea about how to ask for them ?

Branding is huge.

Just look at Guinness and the way they appropriate themselves on everything to do with rugby.

Don't you think that Guinness know full well that there are kids watching rugby that will become familiar with the Guinness brand and know about it when they get around to start drinking themselves ?

I really can't understand any adult who would have an issue with curtailing the level of advertising by drinks companies.
If you are a drinker you already know where to get it, how much it costs and what you like and don't like.
Less advertising is no skin off your nose.

Perhaps we could skip the smoking issue because I don't think there is much of an argument between us about it. Smoking is bad for you and there is no case to be made for children smoking.

I don't doubt that drink companies want to promote awareness of their products but I don't think preventing them from doing so will help. As I said in a previous post I believe both parental responsibility and enforcement of existing laws is the way to go.

As regards curtailing drink advertising I think you have put your finger on why I took little notice until now of the restrictions in the Bill.

Foolishly I did indeed think it was "no skin off my nose" but seeing the painting out of the image of a pint in Cork has changed my view. The type of fundamentalist approach being adopted by the Government disturbs me.

beggars_bush · 14-11-2019 08:42PM

Alcohol is a drug and needs to be regulated, along with the advertising and sales

There are also estimated to be 1 million teetotallers in Ireland, so not everyone is going out getting sloshed every weekend

elperello · 14-11-2019 09:09PM

beggars_bush wrote: »

Alcohol is a drug and needs to be regulated, along with the advertising and sales

There are also estimated to be 1 million teetotallers in Ireland, so not everyone is going out getting sloshed every weekend

Indeed, technically you are correct about alcohol and it is indeed regulated.However any legislation which attempts to regulate drink needs to have regard to it's place in our culture and history.

I have no argument whatsoever with anyone who decides not to drink nor do I hold any brief for those who are "going out getting sloshed every weekend".

Both options are open to adults but personally I wouldn't recommend either.

14-11-2019 09:15PM

elperello wrote: »

Perhaps we could skip the smoking issue because I don't think there is much of an argument between us about it. Smoking is bad for you and there is no case to be made for children smoking.

I don't doubt that drink companies want to promote awareness of their products but I don't think preventing them from doing so will help. As I said in a previous post I believe both parental responsibility and enforcement of existing laws is the way to go.

As regards curtailing drink advertising I think you have put your finger on why I took little notice until now of the restrictions in the Bill.

Foolishly I did indeed think it was "no skin off my nose" but seeing the painting out of the image of a pint in Cork has changed my view. The type of fundamentalist approach being adopted by the Government disturbs me.

Seriously ?
You thought the removal of a admittedly unorthodox piece of advertising to be a fundamentalist approach ?

What are you on about ?

It was a commercial entity, not something historic or sacred, there will probably be something in it's place before too long, the building owner has already said he is open to offers.

This is not ISIS tearing down ancient building in Syria for Christ sake

Get real.

elperello · 14-11-2019 09:27PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Seriously ?
You thought the removal of a admittedly unorthodox piece of advertising to be a fundamentalist approach ?

What are you on about ?

It was a commercial entity, not something historic or sacred, there will probably be something in it's place before too long, the building owner has already said he is open to offers.

This is not ISIS tearing down ancient building in Syria for Christ sake

Get real.

Yes I felt that the removal of what was a piece of public art because it included an image of a pint was quite extreme.

I didn't say it was historic or sacred and certainly didn't draw any comparison with the ISIS.

Please try to accept my bona fides without indulging in hyperbole.

14-11-2019 09:31PM

elperello wrote: »

Yes I felt that the removal of what was a piece of public art because it included an image of a pint was quite extreme.

I didn't say it was historic or sacred and certainly didn't draw any comparison with the ISIS.

Please try to accept my bona fides without indulging in hyperbole.

It was not just a picture of a pint, it was a pint of particular brand of drink , it had "Murphy's" written across the glass.

It was not public art, it was advertising.

MacroomMuralBefore121119_large.jpg?width=600&s=bn-963667

MacroomMuralBefore121119_large.jpg?width=600&s=bn-963667

elperello · 14-11-2019 09:37PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It was not just a picture of a pint, it was a pint of particular brand of drink , it had "Murphy's" written across the glass.

It was not public art, it was advertising.

It's definitely a picture of a pint to me.

A mural painted by two local artists is public art by any definition.

Are you suggesting that the mural without the brand would be less damaging to schoolchildren?

listermint · 14-11-2019 09:43PM

beggars_bush wrote: »

Alcohol is a drug and needs to be regulated, along with the advertising and sales

There are also estimated to be 1 million teetotallers in Ireland, so not everyone is going out getting sloshed every weekend

Are the all as obnoxious as some of the anti alcohol posters in here ?
Painful to listen to and void of any useful facts.

Continually disregarding the fact that alcohol consumption is down and the youth simply are less and less interested as each year goes by.

But sure look. Mad as a bag of spanners.

listermint · 14-11-2019 09:44PM

The posters. Not the youth

Leroy42 · 14-11-2019 09:47PM

listermint wrote: »

Are the all as obnoxious as some of the anti alcohol posters in here ?
Painful to listen to and void of any useful facts.

Continually disregarding the fact that alcohol consumption is down and the youth simply are less and less interested as each year goes by.

But sure look. Mad as a bag of spanners.

So the problems being called up by many posters here are clearly not. The country, as you say yourself, is moving away from alcohol and surely it's right that the government try to enable society achieve its desire in this respect.

14-11-2019 09:49PM

elperello wrote: »

It's definitely a picture of a pint to me.

A mural painted by two local artists is public art by any definition.

Are you suggesting that the mural without the brand would be less damaging to schoolchildren?

The mural is a piece of advertising because the brand owner is actually paying the building owner to have it there

Regardless of who painted it it's a piece of advertising not a piece of public art.

I have passed it many times, it's presence or otherwise does not bother me.

I have not read the legislation so I don't know if it allows unbranded "advertising"(oxymoron I know) or not.

A unbranded image would of course not have the same subliminal effect on children as a branded one would have but it would still be promoting alcohol so yea it would be equally damaging

14-11-2019 09:51PM

listermint wrote: »

Are the all as obnoxious as some of the anti alcohol posters in here ?
Painful to listen to and void of any useful facts.

Continually disregarding the fact that alcohol consumption is down and the youth simply are less and less interested as each year goes by.

But sure look. Mad as a bag of spanners.

Which is good, so why not continue that trend by reducing advertising.

What exactly is peoples problem with reduced advertising ?

hatrickpatrick · 14-11-2019 10:01PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Which is good, so why not continue that trend by reducing advertising.

What exactly is peoples problem with reduced advertising ?

Not all of us agree that social engineering is a good thing. Your posts are predicated on the idea that the government should be trying to push people towards one kind of lifestyle or another instead of leaving people alone to make their own life choices. Not everyone agrees with that and many of us are diametrically opposed to it.

Leroy42 · 14-11-2019 10:05PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not all of us agree that social engineering is a good thing. Your posts are predicated on the idea that the government should be trying to push people towards one kind of lifestyle or another instead of leaving people alone to make their own life choices. Not everyone agrees with that and many of us are diametrically opposed to it.

You have got it confused. The government is trying to stop commercial entities from pushing people into choosing their product.

The government are not stopping anybody (of legal age) from drinking. We are still free to make whatever choices we want, but less influenced by those looking solely to profit.

cj maxx · 14-11-2019 10:05PM

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

beggars_bush wrote: »

Alcohol is a drug and needs to be regulated, along with the advertising and sales

There are also estimated to be 1 million teetotallers in Ireland, so not everyone is going out getting sloshed every weekend

True. And any advertising limits such as before, after and during soccer , rugby matches when teens are watching should be welcomed.
Minimum pricing however is not the way to go. Anyone around the border can testify that Good Friday was the best piss up of the year . And anyone who has gone shopping in late November up to Christmas to the likes of newry can testify seeing all D and W reg vans loading up with booze because of price. Minimum pricing will just make it an all year round trip and encourage smuggling gangs

14-11-2019 10:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not all of us agree that social engineering is a good thing. Your posts are predicated on the idea that the government should be trying to push people towards one kind of lifestyle or another instead of leaving people alone to make their own life choices. Not everyone agrees with that and many of us are diametrically opposed to it.

Yea I agree that there are certain libertarian types out there you don't like government restrictions

But alcohol is known to be a problem, it's a fact that it causes health problems, emotional problems, domestic violence problems, etc etc.

So why not curtail the visibility of it in areas with high density of children, e,g, schools.

We already restrict where and when and too whom it can be sold.

In your opinion should those restrictions be removed also ?

elperello · 14-11-2019 10:09PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The mural is a piece of advertising because the brand owner is actually paying the building owner to have it there

Regardless of who painted it it's a piece of advertising not a piece of public art.

I have passed it many times, it's presence or otherwise does not bother me.

I have not read the legislation so I don't know if it allows unbranded "advertising"(oxymoron I know) or not.

A unbranded image would of course not have the same subliminal effect on children as a branded one would have but it would still be promoting alcohol so yea it would be equally damaging

I would hold that the fact that it was painted by two local artists and was an expression of their imagination qualifies it as art.

Have a read - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/24/section/14/enacted/en/html#sec14

Bizarrely if it was actually on a pub it would be legal. As we know our legislators don't want to upset the VFI or LVA.

An unbranded image could well be legal.

In any case it is very unlikely that a pint of black porter is an appealing image to underage drinkers. A can of whatever they can get behind a bush is more likely in my experience

odyssey06 · 14-11-2019 10:37PM

I have been drenched in Guinness advertising since forever. Soaked.
Even had a few Guinnesses on Arthurs Day...
And yet... I hardly ever touch the stuff.
Nothing to do with advertising or price.

Leroy42 · 14-11-2019 10:57PM

odyssey06 wrote: »

I have been drenched in Guinness advertising since forever. Soaked.
Even had a few Guinnesses on Arthurs Day...
And yet... I hardly ever touch the stuff.
Nothing to do with advertising or price.

Let's see. Do we take your anecdote as proof or look to the millions spent on advertising each year as proof.

Even you agree that you succumb to advertising by changing from your usual to Guiness on the brand created Arthur's day.

It has everything to do with advertising, unless you want us to believe you happened upon Arthur's day by yourself

cj maxx · 15-11-2019 12:01AM

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Can anyone post a photo of this art/ad. I gather it someone with a pint of stout ?

Hotblack Desiato · 15-11-2019 01:27AM

The most effective anti-tobacco and anti-alcohol measure ever introduced for the "young people of Ireland" (patronising term or what) was the invention of prepaid mobile phone credit.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Now I had no idea about the difference between Major and Rothmans and not did I care, but I knew what to ask for when I went into that shop.

I knew what to ask for aged 9 because my teacher told me to get him twenty Carroll's No.1 in the shop :eek: I still knew it was a stupid thing to smoke and I never did. Oh and the shop gave them to me no questions asked.

Hotblack Desiato · 15-11-2019 01:28AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Charming.

Well anyone who accepts what the government spouts in the name of protecting our children from the daemon drink is a moron in mine.

Especially when what they're really up to is trying to look after their publican friends (and many of them are publicans themselves.)

Pinch Flat · 15-11-2019 02:31AM

Was up north last weekend. Jaysus we do get shafted here for booze

15-11-2019 03:17AM

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Raising the price of alcohol will do **** all.

There are many countries that have far cheaper drink than us that drink less. It's a cultural issue.

15-11-2019 06:56AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Especially when what they're really up to is trying to look after their publican friends (and many of them are publicans themselves.)

I don't think MUP is a good solution.

But I have no problem with the advertising changes.

Even though both get lumped together, they are mutually exclusive in my opinion.

Leroy42 · 15-11-2019 09:08AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

If commercial entities pushing people into choosing their product is a bad thing, do you think all advertising should be banned? If you do, fair enough.

Yeah, because thats what I said! How do you go from curbing advertising on alcohol to stopping all advertising?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think it's unlikely that advertising has any significant effect on making people drink in the first place. I started drinking cheap cider in fields with my mates. In college I drank whatever lager happened to be cheap or on offer. I think most people are in the same boat.

What you happen to think isn't really the standard, or me for that matter. Advertising works. We know this because of multiple studies, the millions of Euros spent each year, and simply look at the value of brands. Part of advertising is to normalise a product. Make vaping cool is the most recent example. It terms of products like alcohol, it attempts to make it cool, and fun and get make sure that peoples opinions are backup up. And it clearly works.

And why did you start drinking? Instead of doing something else. Sure your peers, parents, friends etc had a major role (society in general) but being surrounded by the names, the brands, keeps it at the forefront of peoples thinking.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Increasing the price would have more of an effect, but thats just going to drive people to a)illegal sources, as has happened with cigarettes or b)brewing their own.

Yeah, I agree. Pricing on its own won't solve anything in part for the reasons you have shown. Thats why it needs a combined effort, and that is where adjustments to the advertising regime come in.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

As others have said, young people are drinking less and less anyway. Do we really need government intervention here? If we do, I think education is surely a better option than lazy options like increasing price or banning advertising. I know I've cut down my drinking since reading up on it, I'm sure plenty others would do the same.

Education is ongoing and should be increased. Garda dealing with drunks, fines for publicans serving underage of intoxicated patrons. More severe penalties for drunk driving, less acceptance of alcohol as a diminishing in crimes. All these can help reduce the acceptance of alcohol within society.

But all of these can work in conjunction with advertising restrictions, it is not a case of either or. We have seen the dramatic reduction in cigarette smoking and part of that is undoubtedly down to a reduction in the visibility of the product.

And again, you lose nothing. You can still buy the product, consume it. All the advertising restrictions are taking about is setting standards on alcohol companies on who they should be targeting.

cadaliac · 15-11-2019 09:59AM

cjmc wrote: »

Can anyone post a photo of this art/ad. I gather it someone with a pint of stout ?

Previous page - on one of the posts.

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments