Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

FileNotFound wrote: »

You are right, the ultimate irony of these kinds of decisions is they mostly hit those people who only buy on occasion as its not worth the effort getting around them.
The same people they are not really intended for.
Still amazed such changes are coming in with so little debate or opposition. Where the studies supporting this? Compared to studies showing negative impacts etc.
Mind you my opposition is more based on point of principle rather than anything else.


One Question though, this price increase - is it basically just giving shops and companies more money - or is there a taxation increase to force this? In other words are the tax payer in a lose lose entirely or at least will there be more money for public expenditure? Surely this would be daft if all the extra cost just goes to drink companies ans shops selling... Punish the sale of alcohol by potentially increasing the profits is a bit daft no?

apart from a tiny increase in the VAT collected the extra cost goes to the distributor/retailer.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Irish Times are championing the measures here, ffs

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/q-a-what-s-the-story-with-plans-for-minimum-pricing-for-alcohol-1.4554957

“It all seems very sensible” to them. Unbelievable.

No mention of the poor being affected, because **** them. Only heavy drinkers and young people who seek ‘cheap’ drink.

Some neck.

FileNotFound wrote: »

That useless baldy headed fella hasn't a clue what he is doing.

He is looking for his MM smoking ban moment - something to claim as his when he gets dumped out forever in another year or so.

I'm too young to remember, what was the reaction to the smoking ban

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

I'm too young to remember, what was the reaction to the smoking ban

Was a contentious one but it was well discussed and the justifications for it were presented for everyone to see.

I supported the move as a smoker at the time. The impact on non smokers in pubs was undeniable so we chose to hit the few to save the many.


This time we hit the many to compensate the few.

VinLieger wrote: »

What happened in Scotland after MUP was introduced? Drug use skyrocketed across the board.

Of course that’ll happen. Drugs definitely the substance of choice amongst the younger generation, and far more damaging and toxic. I’d much rather my kids have a few drinks than take drugs, but anyways. Point of diminishing returns will be hit quickly with alcohol and the drug dealers will be delighted with the boost in sales.

FileNotFound wrote: »

Was a contentious one but it was well discussed and the justifications for it were presented for everyone to see.

I supported the move as a smoker at the time. The impact on non smokers in pubs was undeniable so we chose to hit the few to save the many.


This time we hit the many to compensate the few.

I smoked then too. Sure it was the end of an era and an adjustment, but we all knew it made sense and long before then, smoking was banned from planes, buses, shopping centres, inside work places (bar the staff room) so it was a logical progression. Martin gets way too much credit for it.

But I don’t believe now as drinker, I’ll happily pay more for a can of beer and think ‘jeez, what were we thinking ‘only’ paying €1.30 for a can of Karpackie?’

And Paddy the gambler who also likes a drink will still be getting plastered anyway, he won’t care. Just his kids can forget about getting FIFA 22 for their birthdays. Paddy needs his medicine.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats not a case of the gift set being cheaper, more a case of the regular bottle being more expensive. 31 euros for Tullamore Dew is shocking. Its 25 in SuperValu. About 22 in Tesco.

Yes, I agree.

But it does appear that a "gift set" has no legal requirement to be more (or as) expensive than the alcoholic product alone. Which opens the possibility that an imaginative brand could package a €18 bottle of gin with something like glasses or mixer at the MUP of €22. Thus maintaining a gap between basic and premium brands, and minimising the loss to the consumer.

Whether or not they have any motivation to do so is another question... I won't hold my breath but you never know.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Segment on the news just now saying Cannabis is much more dangerous than previously thought, especially for younger brains.

Everyone ignoring the fact MUP makes weed more attractive.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

RTE where the(ir) truth matters

Deleted User wrote: »

Which will make the local drug dealer look like better value as a result. It's really as though the government haven't considered that aspect of it at all. Madness. :rolleyes:

ecoli3136 wrote: »

No you're right the only choices are cheaper drink or everyone will take illegal drugs instead.

VinLieger wrote: »

What happened in Scotland after MUP was introduced? Drug use skyrocketed across the board.

Where are the facts to back this up? There just seems to be a general assumption that this is the case whereas it appears not to be, and an increase in drug use is minimal.

The levels of "mouth foaming" from the alcohol users in this thread lends more credence to the argument for MUP than any scientific study could.
Follow the science and what the health professionals are saying and what most of you deep down already know.
There is a reason we have a sugar tax, a carbon tax etc..gentle fiscal nudges away from practices which cost us more in the long run.
Hopefully only the first in a series of measures to be deployed in the years ahead to address our nation's dependancy on alcohol.

ReturnOfThe wrote: »

The levels of "mouth foaming" from the alcohol users in this thread lends more credence to the argument for MUP than any scientific study could.
Follow the science and what the health professionals are saying and what most of you deep down already know.
There is a reason we have a sugar tax, a carbon tax etc..gentle fiscal nudges away from practices which cost us more in the long run.
Hopefully only the first in a series of measures to be deployed in the years ahead to address our nation's dependancy on alcohol.

Yeah we have sugar tax because some fatties can't control their eating - not at all comparable to carbon tax (a now ringfenced fund being used to offset emmission based damage to the environment - Also note these are taxes)

Your jump that comments provides more evidence than a scientific study adds no credence to the credibility of your argument. Of course not having open public discourse on the issue has not helped us understand it all.

If you are anti drinking I guess thats a blinkered mindset you have - some of us are adults and can enjoy a drink safely while living healthy lives.

The major issues here is that the fiscal policy employed gives nothing to revenue - provides no positive enforcement or long term improvement - merely makes a few drinks more expensive for everyone.

And has been driven by a few people who's minds are warped by experiences specific to individuals in their lives. If i grew up with an alco in the family I may have a hardline view - but then when has a hardline view worked well?

dubrov wrote: »

Well we already have a long history already of increasing the price of alcohol in Ireland.

Has it been effective at improving our relationship with alcohol?

Maybe it's time to look at other angles (see advertising/sponsorship)

Yup the old under 3 quid Guinness - long gone and no difference to how many i'd drink.

Also budget tax increase at least allows any increase to be used to fund something positive - this is merely a hack to suit a few mental cases.