Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

15-01-2021 11:25AM

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The only option will be to vote for someone who wasn't in Gov at the time of this nonsense.

All parties supported this, so you would have to have voted for someone who was not even in the Dail, never mind not in Govt.

truth and logic · 15-01-2021 12:39PM

It's very disappointing and disturbing that people have no choice when it comes to these matters.

I don't want this nanny state but I have no-one to vote for. I don't vote for the established parties because they refuse to act in my interests.

I'm sick and tired of this nonsense and this nanny state and I'm just waiting for an alternative to vote for.

Why isn't cannabis legal in this country?
There's clear majority support for the legalisation of cannabis and yet it doesn't happen.

It's appropriate that politicians should be hated in these circumstances. It's obvious why people vote for Trump and for Brexit. Our politicians are sanctimonious failures.

jos28 · 15-01-2021 01:57PM

My understanding is that the campaign against Minimum priced alcohol was started by this man
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/yourview/arid-40188831.html

I remember hearing him being interviewed several times. While I obviously have huge sympathy with the family on the loss of their son I felt at the time that the availability of cheap booze was not the sole cause of his death.
From what I remember his son had an issue with alcohol and died after bought a bottle of cheap vodka from a supermarket. I'm open to correction but that's what I took from it.
The interview I heard was several years ago and I thought that the man hadn't a hope of getting minimum pricing abolished. Guess I was wrong. While the campaign has been successful I think it raises much bigger questions about mental health and not necessarily outlawing the chance to multi-buy wine and beer by responsible adults.
I don't mean to sound harsh but I don't believe that this is the answer. People who need a bottle will find it regardless.

SuperRabbit · 15-01-2021 02:01PM

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

I can't believe how many people are against this

I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

BraveDonut · 15-01-2021 02:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This is going to backfire so spectacularly (and so obviously) that it's amazing to think it's still being pushed through with the usual with blinkers on, ignoring anyone that disagrees.

How is it going to backfire?

Thelonious Monk · 15-01-2021 02:22PM

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

I'll get banned if I say what I want to say here.

15-01-2021 02:40PM

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

There is a fundamental law of economics called the downward sloping demand curve, which states that as the price of a product rises, the quantity demanded of that product falls.
If something is more expensive then people will buy less of it.

People also have to look at this as a long term strategy.

For someone that currently has a problem with alcohol that will make no difference, they will find a away to buy the drink.

But if it is someone who is not even started drinking yet then if the price are higher they will tend not to buy as much of it/not as many will but it, based on the downward sloping demand curve.
If you extrapolate that out across a whole demographic of young people who are starting to think about dabbling in alcohol then the numbers that do dabble will be less than if the drink was considerably cheaper.

ohnonotgmail · 15-01-2021 02:44PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It is certainly the economic law of supply and demand that higher pricing of a product means that access is reduced to that product.
If something is more expensive then people will buy less of it.

People also have to look at this as a long term strategy.

For someone that currently has a problem with alcohol that will make no difference, they will find a away to buy the drink.

But if it is someone who is not even started drinking yet then if the price are higher they will tend not to buy as much of it/not as many will but it, based on the law of supply and demand.
If you extrapolate that out across a whole demographic of young people who are starting to think about dabbling in alcohol then the numbers that do dabble will be less than if the drink was considerably cheaper.

if the intent is to reduce consumption (and I'm not convinced it is given what we know from the FG manifesto) then there are ways that also give increased revenue to the government. Oddly the government decided not to do that. Which gives credence to it being done for the original reason in the FG manifesto.

Macy0161 · 15-01-2021 02:46PM

A flagon is not going to go up enough to stop teenagers field drinking. But open to correction with evidence where it has been a success, and without any other negative consequences (e.g. other drugs).

ohnonotgmail · 15-01-2021 02:49PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

A flagon is not going to go up enough to stop teenagers field drinking. But open to correction with evidence where it has been a success, and without any other negative consequences (e.g. other drugs).

when I was drinking in fields alcohol was much more expensive than it is now. A can of cheap lager was £1 in an offie. £1 not €1. It didn't dampen my enthusiasm one bit. Alcohol is much cheaper now and people drink less. The correlation is not what those proposing MUP seem to think it is.

cian68 · 15-01-2021 03:32PM

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

How the poll is phrased, that drinking problems are a myth, is silly. But I completely disagree with punishing poor people because addiction exists.

15-01-2021 03:32PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

A flagon is not going to go up enough to stop teenagers field drinking. But open to correction with evidence where it has been a success, and without any other negative consequences (e.g. other drugs).

The place where it is said to have worked is Scotland. However alcohol there is considerably cheaper than here.

For example, 700ml of Bells in Tesco here is 22 euro. In tesco UK, it is £13.75 which based on today exchange rate is 15.46 euro. A difference of 6.54.

Macy0161 · 15-01-2021 03:37PM

Still too early to tell in Scotland, and as others have stated, there are indications of a switch to other drugs.

15-01-2021 03:43PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

Still too early to tell in Scotland, and as others have stated, there are indications of a switch to other drugs.

Which of course is very difficult to quantify.

ShamNNspace · 15-01-2021 03:55PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The number of young people drinking in this country is declining despite the alleged dangerously cheap prices. So why the need for this intervention?

That's a rhetorical question. The need for this intervention is to do the vintners a favour under the guise of public health.

Most of em get their kicks from other substances these days from what I see around me

Antares35 · 15-01-2021 03:59PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's a rhetorical question. The need for this intervention is to do the vintners a favour under the guise of public health.

Indeed. We won't be supporting pubs again when they re-open and as I mentioned, I'd rather take the car to France and stock up on red and bubbly. Even if I break even or pay slightly more, I don't care. I'd rather do that than give them an extra cent.

We must be one of the few countries in the world where our right and autonomy to make bad decisions on our own behalf are constantly eroded.

15-01-2021 04:00PM

ShamNNspace wrote: »

Most of em get their kicks from other substances these days from what I see around me

The amount of usage of weed among the 30-50s age groups is being completely ignored. It's deemed by many to be the affordable alternative to booze.

Macy0161 · 15-01-2021 04:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which of course is very difficult to quantify.

As will the impact on problem drinking. You can measure sales, but whether that really impacts on problem drinking is entirely different and won't be known for decades if the logic is to stop young people starting/ overconsuming.

Parabellum9 · 15-01-2021 04:07PM

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

It won't save lives, it won't deter anyone from drinking and it won't do a single thing but make alcohol more expensive than it already is. It's a ****ing joke and nothing else.

The alco/wife beaters who want booze will still buy it - if that means their family suffer further financial hardship month to month or can't afford nappies/baby food etc then so be it. You can blame this idiocy when it happens, and it will.

This is nothing but an equalizer for the pubs and cannot be seen as anything else - it's a cheap shot because after years and years of macing their customers with 6 & 7 euro pints, people copped on and said **** that - why would I pay 7e a pint when I can drink 4 cans for that price?

Mimon · 15-01-2021 04:10PM

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The only option will be to vote for someone who wasn't in Gov at the time of this nonsense.

All the parties support this.

ShamNNspace · 15-01-2021 04:22PM

When this is all over it would be good to see a recalibration of the pub scene where the big suppliers like diagio would have their grip loosened.. There's a virtual price cartel in place in most provincial towns who stock their products from what I can see.. I've seen it here where one new guy who set his drink at lower prices was ostracised and the rumour put out that he was selling bad drink, seconds, out of dates etc he lasted 6 months

15-01-2021 04:30PM

Parabellum9 wrote: »

It won't save lives, it won't deter anyone from drinking and it won't do a single thing but make alcohol more expensive than it already is. It's a ****ing joke and nothing else.

The alco/wife beaters who want booze will still buy it - if that means their family suffer further financial hardship month to month or can't afford nappies/baby food etc then so be it. You can blame this idiocy when it happens, and it will.

This is nothing but an equalizer for the pubs and cannot be seen as anything else - it's a cheap shot because after years and years of macing their customers with 6 & 7 euro pints, people copped on and said **** that - why would I pay 7e a pint when I can drink 4 cans for that price?

And I think a lot of people during lockdown have realised they don't need the pub. As a Guinness drinker myself, I do miss a pub pulled pint, think about it like this. I was in a habit of going for 2 pints on a thursday night on my way home from work. 2 pints = 10 euro, thats 40 euros a month, since March Ive saved 400 euros by not going to the pub. Thats just for my weekly habit. That doesn't include nights out, cinema trips etc.

Zaph · 15-01-2021 04:30PM

SuperRabbit wrote: »

I can't believe how many people are against this I hope the poll doesn't reflect what the public actually think

This has been tried in other countries and has worked, I first heard of it on a course about alcoholism and addictions, it will save lives

The poll is poorly worded, but what the majority of people actually think is that we're already paying some of the highest prices in Europe for alcohol, so a) why do those in favour of MUP think that it will deter those with drink problems from buying it anyway?; and b) why must the vast majority who drink responsibly and don't have an issue with alcohol be effectively punished by a bunch of do-gooders telling us what's good for us?

Suckit · 15-01-2021 04:32PM

These are a few years after it was introduced, and you can go back further, they are just more recent. Of course, nobody can say for sure that they are related.
(Scotland)
Minimum alcohol pricing could spark rise in drug abuse January 17 2018
Warning that minimum alcohol pricing is driving drinkers to drugs May 5 2019
Drug-related deaths in Scotland reach highest level since current records began July 16 2019
Scotland records huge rise in drug-related deaths July 16 2019
Drug deaths in Scotland hit worst level on record - rising by 6% in a year December 15 2020
Scotland's drug deaths rise to new record December 15 2020

15-01-2021 04:41PM

Macy0161 wrote: »

As will the impact on problem drinking. You can measure sales, but whether that really impacts on problem drinking is entirely different and won't be known for decades if the logic is to stop young people starting/ overconsuming.

I've often wondered why a half bottle of whiskey is significantly expensive compared to a 700ml bottle. In tesco today 700ml of Jameson is 27, a half bottle, 350ml is 15. So 2 half bottles is 10% more expensive than the standard bottle. If they were genuinly interested in reducing problem drinking, should they not encourage the buying of the half bottle?

odyssey06 · 15-01-2021 04:43PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I've often wondered why a half bottle of whiskey is significantly expensive compared to a 700ml bottle. In tesco today 700ml of Jameson is 27, a half bottle, 350ml is 15. So 2 half bottles is 10% more expensive than the standard bottle. If they were genuinly interested in reducing problem drinking, should they not encourage the buying of the half bottle?

You used to be able to get two miniature bottles of wine in Tesco for €5, or 2 half bottles for €10.
That deal is gone now.
You may as well buy a full size discounted bottle.

15-01-2021 04:46PM

odyssey06 wrote: »

You used to be able to get two miniature bottles of wine in Tesco for €5, or 2 half bottles for €10.
That deal is gone now.
You may as well buy a full size discounted bottle.

Oh I will be.

15-01-2021 05:14PM

BraveDonut wrote: »

How is it going to backfire?

I'll refer you to Suckit's very good post:

Suckit wrote: »

These are a few years after it was introduced, and you can go back further, they are just more recent. Of course, nobody can say for sure that they are related.
(Scotland)
Minimum alcohol pricing could spark rise in drug abuse January 17 2018
Warning that minimum alcohol pricing is driving drinkers to drugs May 5 2019
Drug-related deaths in Scotland reach highest level since current records began July 16 2019
Scotland records huge rise in drug-related deaths July 16 2019
Drug deaths in Scotland hit worst level on record - rising by 6% in a year December 15 2020
Scotland's drug deaths rise to new record December 15 2020

Besides, have we not already had deaths in Ireland from people drinking their own homemade stuff? Pretty sure I recall hearing such.

Aongus Von Bismarck · 15-01-2021 05:33PM

It's a welcome idea tbh. When I go back to Ireland I'm always struck by how cheap alcohol has remained when benchmarked against other goods. 6 cans/bottles of beer in a supermarket is the same price as it was when I started university 20 years ago. A bottle of wine for €7, a bottle of cheap vodka for €12. Almost the exact same price as Germany to be honest.

Amirani · 15-01-2021 05:34PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

There is a fundamental law of economics called the downward sloping demand curve, which states that as the price of a product rises, the quantity demanded of that product falls.
If something is more expensive then people will buy less of it.

Alcohol (like many addictive goods) for many people has a very inelastic demand curve. For dependents it's arguably perfectly inelastic, so it doesn't follow necessarily that price rise will cause reduced consumption, it may just lead to a greater percentage of income spent on it.

People without an alcohol issue likely will have a less inelastic and more "normal" demand curve, and will probably buy less. This begs the question though; are we aiming this measure at problem drinkers or non-problem drinkers?

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments