Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 4:24pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Pricing is a massive factor in youth consumption as they tend to have less disposable income.

People whinging about having to pay €2 for a can?
First world problems.

Please show me your evidence to backup the statement pricing is a massive factor in youth consumption?

pilly · 30-11-2016 4:26pm

STB. wrote: »

People who have died from passive social drinking is a massive problem isn't it.

Pick a better analogy and one that actually holds water.

I've never yet seen proof of anyone actually dying from passive smoking either but that's a whole different argument for a whole different forum.

My point is simply that no-one is forced to buy either cigarettes or drink, they are not essentials so we don't have a constitutional right to them or something.

Really, it's the heavy drinkers who are kicking off at this issue because a real social drinker doesn't buy €1 cans anyway.

Same as heavy smokers kicking off at the price of cigarettes, makes no difference. No valid argument for either.

Ineedaname · 30-11-2016 4:26pm

To the people who think is a good idea.

For an alcoholic when minimum pricing comes in which will take the hit? the booze or the kids?

As someone who grew up around alcoholics I can tell you one thing for fact. It ain't the former.

Anybody who thinks this will do anything to discourage problem drinking is living in a fantasy land.

30-11-2016 4:27pm

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

Leroy42 wrote: »

But this is exactly the point. For those that drink reasonably, they will simply reduce their consumption or pay the higher price. Since they are not a problem area either one makes no difference.

For those who have money and a drinking problem, it will just mean that they have less money after buying the drink. So that savings fund, the money spent on the kids going out will be hit, not the drink.

For those that don't have the money this will result in looking for higher grade drink at the price, or possible alternatives like drugs. Their addiction is not being tacked at all. What little money they did keep for other things like clothes, family etc, will be wiped out.

So, this solves none of the problems people have cited

This presupposes people with a drink problem will not get help for it. For many if not most people with drink problems it is a transitory problem and they eventually cop on and get out of the cycle. A 50% increase in the price of their drug of choice will be the straw that broke the camel's back for very many. Another major reason to add to the health and inter-personal reasons.

Help!!!! · 30-11-2016 4:29pm

pilly wrote: »

I've never yet seen proof of anyone actually dying from passive smoking either but that's a whole different argument for a whole different forum.

My point is simply that no-one is forced to buy either cigarettes or drink, they are not essentials so we don't have a constitutional right to them or something.

Really, it's the heavy drinkers who are kicking off at this issue because a real social drinker doesn't buy €1 cans anyway.

Same as heavy smokers kicking off at the price of cigarettes, makes no difference. No valid argument for either.

That's bull!!! I buy my cans in Aldi for 98c because I like the taste I'm not drinking to get ****faced

pilly · 30-11-2016 4:30pm

STB. wrote: »

Perhaps read the very quote you just quoted from me and you will understand, before you go off on your think of the children nonsense.

S O C I A L

and the context.

Jeez its like the amateur debating society in here.

It's not at all sociable to drink your slab of 24 cans for a euro in your house.

:D

MeatTwoVeg · 30-11-2016 4:31pm

Most moderate drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer or wine won't even notice this measure. They're not going to be buying the slabs of cheap muck anyway or horrible plonk.

It's the people drinking lots of cheap alcohol that'll be hit.

pilly · 30-11-2016 4:31pm

Help!!!! wrote: »

That's bull!!! I buy my cans in Aldi for 98c because I like the taste I'm not drinking to get ****faced

Okay so. :rolleyes:

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 4:35pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Most moderate drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer or wine won't even notice this measure. They're not going to be buying the slabs of cheap muck anyway or horrible plonk.

It's the people drinking lots of cheap alcohol that'll be hit.

Your naivety is hilarious. Do you honestly think the "premium" brands are not gonna increase their prices in line with the amount the cheaper ones are forced to hit so as to maintain their "premium" image?

Cantona's Collars · 30-11-2016 4:40pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Your naivety is hilarious. Do you honestly think the "premium" brands are not gonna increase their prices in line with the amount the cheaper ones are forced to hit so as to maintain their "premium" image?

True,I can't imagine the makers of Heineken,Bud etc. not to mention Craft Beers allowing their 'premium' brand being priced on a par with Dutch Gold or Galahad.They'll lump on a bit to the prices of their drinks to keep them 'premium'.

STB. · 30-11-2016 4:41pm

pilly wrote: »

I've never yet seen proof of anyone actually dying from passive smoking either but that's a whole different argument for a whole different forum.

My point is simply that no-one is forced to buy either cigarettes or drink, they are not essentials so we don't have a constitutional right to them or something.

Really, it's the heavy drinkers who are kicking off at this issue because a real social drinker doesn't buy €1 cans anyway.

Same as heavy smokers kicking off at the price of cigarettes, makes no difference. No valid argument for either.

Well you need to educate yourself more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

It was you who tried to make an analogy comparing both cigarettes and alcohol and minimum pricing. You picked the wrong analogy.

So now its the heavy drinkers that are kicking off now is it ? Oh and social drinkers do not drink cheap alcohol/beer.

Go back to bed. I am not even going to explain how embarrassing your preconceived notions are about social drinkers and what they do and dont drink and your classing of society and what they should be able to afford or not afford.

What the hell has essential goods or non essential goods have to do with constitutional rights? I can only assume I am debating this with someone who is not above the age to drink in the first instance ?

Any moves here with alcohol pricing will be quickly headed off by competition law.

MeatTwoVeg · 30-11-2016 4:43pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Your naivety is hilarious. Do you honestly think the "premium" brands are not gonna increase their prices in line with the amount the cheaper ones are forced to hit so as to maintain their "premium" image?

Their prices are already well above the minimum pricing limits.
This will only effect the stack it high, sell it cheap merchants.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-11-2016 4:46pm

I thought this is against EU competition law?

osarusan · 30-11-2016 4:48pm

pilly wrote: »

because a real social drinker doesn't buy €1 cans anyway.

Completely disagree. Plenty of social drinkers will buy alcohol for that price.

Glenster · 30-11-2016 4:48pm

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

Help!!!! wrote: »

That's bull!!! I buy my cans in Aldi for 98c because I like the taste I'm not drinking to get ****faced

Gross. You are de-invited to Christmas.

Help!!!! · 30-11-2016 4:49pm

Glenster wrote: »

Gross. You are de-invited to Christmas.

Its ok you don't have to kiss me :P

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 4:51pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Their prices are already well above the minimum pricing limits.
This will only effect the stack it high, sell it cheap merchants.

Most 500ml cans of beer will cost 2 euro under MUP.
Heineken is around 1.99 for a single right now, do you honestly imagine they will stay at the same price when Dutch Gold is also priced at 1.99?

A 12 pack is at 18 euro right now, so bit of a discount for a multi pack, this will now be forced up to 24 euro with MUP. Do you again believe this wont increase when Dutch Gold is the same price at 24?

Smirnoff is priced at 28 for a 700ml bottle which is about the minimum price for 700ml vodka proposed under this law. Do you believe it wont increase to avoid being the same price as tesco vodka and other cheaper "non-premium" brands.

The long and the short of it is you have consistently shown time and again you havent a clue what your talking about and make wild statements that can be easily disproved and also refuse to back them up when called on as you have no evidence whatsoever.

osarusan · 30-11-2016 4:51pm

And also:

In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:

Heart disease

For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.

It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

MeatTwoVeg · 30-11-2016 4:54pm

VinLieger wrote: »

The long and the short of it is you have consistently shown time and again you havent a clue what your talking about and make wild statements that can be easily disproved and also refuse to back them up when called on as you have no evidence whatsoever.

Oh the irony.

Please post up the evidence for your claims above.

And no, making up a narrative to suit your argument doesn't count.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-11-2016 4:54pm

osarusan wrote: »

And also:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

I hate reading reports like that. It makes me think of the high levels of vehicle fumes I breathe in everyday on my walk to and from work.

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 4:59pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Oh the irony.

Please post up the evidence for your claims above.

And no, making up a narrative to suit your argument doesn't count.

Heineken prices in tesco https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Search/?notepad=Heineken

Smirnoff prices in tesco https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/product/search/default.aspx?searchBox=smirnoff

Price estimates of what things will cost under MUP http://www.thejournal.ie/alcohol-pricing-advertising-announced-2491642-Dec2015/

MeatTwoVeg · 30-11-2016 5:02pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Heineken prices in tesco https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Search/?notepad=Heineken

Smirnoff prices in tesco https://www.tesco.ie/groceries/product/search/default.aspx?searchBox=smirnoff

Price estimates of what things will cost under MUP http://www.thejournal.ie/alcohol-pricing-advertising-announced-2491642-Dec2015/

I think you've actually outdone your last non sequitur.

The Journal.

Arf

Might as well quote an AH poll.

machiavellianme · 30-11-2016 5:04pm

TallGlass wrote: »

So... If I am reading this right. It's now going to be cheaper to get drunk or pissed drinking spirits rather than beer. If this is about alcoholism, my word, that is throwing petrol on the fire. What utter plonkers. Anyone who has witnessed proper alcoholism knows spirits are quite literally the most addictive and devistating ones out of the alcohol range.

I really wish this government would just keep out of this area, they haven't got a ****ing breeze about any of it.

Yeah and it looks like tesco branded vodka or similar will command the same price in the off licence as Absolut or Smirnoff (unless of course those scurrilous rogues increase to more than themminimum price point).

midnight city · 30-11-2016 5:06pm

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

I don't drink so id be happy enough if min pricing meant more tax take for the state coffers

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 5:07pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I think you've actually outdone your last non sequitur.

The Journal.

Arf

Okay so your problem is their calculations of what things will cost are wrong?

I dont rate their journalism either but maths are maths and hard to put a weighted opinion on.

If you don't think their estimates are correct please provide another source with differring ones and ill gladly adjust my opinion if im incorrect

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 5:12pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I think you've actually outdone your last non sequitur.

The Journal.

Arf

Might as well quote an AH poll.

2 More sources quoting virtually the same numbers if you prefer?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/price-hikes-for-wine-spirits-beer-are-calling-time-on-binge-drinking-370685.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/bottle-of-wine-to-cost-minimum-of-863-under-new-alcohol-law-34273680.html

I look forward to your problems with both of these

MeatTwoVeg · 30-11-2016 5:24pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont rate their journalism either but maths are maths

Assumptions are assumptions.

dr.fuzzenstein · 30-11-2016 5:26pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I think you've actually outdone your last non sequitur.

The Journal.

Arf

Might as well quote an AH poll.

Well, according to a very recent one, yours is very much a minority view.

30-11-2016 5:27pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Most moderate drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer or wine won't even notice this measure. They're not going to be buying the slabs of cheap muck anyway or horrible plonk.

It's the people drinking lots of cheap alcohol that'll be hit.

My favourite beer (aside from Guinness which I only drink in pubs) is often around 1 euro a can, its a big bonus that its cheaper than the premium brands but I don't drink it because its cheaper I drink it because I like it.

Why should I have to pay more for it, why? It will make absolutely no difference to consumption, the government will make minimal gains if any as most of the benefit will go to the off-licence and drinks company and it will force more people to shop up north thus reducing sales here and possibly leading to job losses etc.

If I want to drink 15 cans of a Saturday that's my business and I should not have to pay twice as much for the pleasure of doing so as I do now.

MeatTwoVeg · 30-11-2016 5:28pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, according to a very recent one, yours is very much a minority view.

I'm very comfortable with that.

The Government appears to agree with my position though, which seems more useful to me.

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 5:32pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Assumptions are assumptions.

Deflections are deflections.

Especially when all 3 articles are taking their figures from a department of health analysis, which you'd know if you read any of them.......

MeatTwoVeg · 30-11-2016 5:32pm

Philip Clean Ruler wrote: »

My favourite beer (aside from Guinness which I only drink in pubs) is often around 1 euro a can, its a big bonus that its cheaper than the premium brands but I don't drink it because its cheaper I drink it because I like it.

Why should I have to pay more for it, why? I

Difficult as it may be to accept, the laws are not going to be arranged to revolve around your particular drinking habits.
They'll be put in place to benifit society as a whole.

STB. · 30-11-2016 5:34pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I look forward to your problems with both of these

His problem quite clearly is with people who drink alcohol, regardless of whether its socially or not. Either that or he is a publican.

He likes being led by the nose and has no problem with the nanny state politicians who would rather meddle with small issues rather than fix the big ones.

Time for prohibition I say.

Help!!!! · 30-11-2016 5:34pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Difficult as it may be to accept, the laws are not going to be arranged to revolve around your particular drinking habits.
They'll be put in place to benifit society as a whole.

Hows it benefitting society as a whole if the minority are causing the problems?

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 5:35pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Difficult as it may be to accept, the laws are not going to be arranged to revolve around your particular drinking habits.
They'll be put in place to benifit society as a whole.

Even though there's no evidence they will benefit society at all?

MeatTwoVeg · 30-11-2016 5:39pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Even though there's no evidence they will benefit society at all?

When Journal clickbait articles are produced as evidence, I would have thought the whole concept loses it's appeal, no?

pilly · 30-11-2016 5:40pm

STB. wrote: »

Well you need to educate yourself more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

It was you who tried to make an analogy comparing both cigarettes and alcohol and minimum pricing. You picked the wrong analogy.

So now its the heavy drinkers that are kicking off now is it ? Oh and social drinkers do not drink cheap alcohol/beer.

Go back to bed. I am not even going to explain how embarrassing your preconceived notions are about social drinkers and what they do and dont drink and your classing of society and what they should be able to afford or not afford.

What the hell has essential goods or non essential goods have to do with constitutional rights? I can only assume I am debating this with someone who is not above the age to drink in the first instance ?

Any moves here with alcohol pricing will be quickly headed off by competition law.

So why are you so het up that you have to call names and throw insults? I've already said I don't have a view either way. Couldn't care less to tell the truth.

VinLieger · 30-11-2016 5:41pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

When Journal clickbait articles are produced as evidence, I would have thought the whole concept loses it's appeal, no?

Awww keep up your deflection and evidenceless rhetoric im sure it will get you somwhere one day.

Did you notice the information and prices in any of the articles was provided by the department of health?

I await your next deflection with gusto

dr.fuzzenstein · 30-11-2016 5:42pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Deflections are deflections.

Especially when all 3 articles are taking their figures from a department of health analysis, which you'd know if you read any of them.......

Mr Knob and Garnish has a view and the facts dont bother him much.
A lot of people will love this measure, because it is exactly the kind of banging the table politics that the easily dazzled are taken in by, like dogs and colorful balls and cats and laserbeams. They simply don't have the mental capacity to think further than "yeah, its dem shops selling de chape booze what's dun it!"
As I said before, its lazy politics, because the thinking in Ireland is "if I roll out a big, comprehensive program it will be a lot of hard work and if it goes wrong I look bad, so let's just tax it, that way it's the people who are to blame because they're not doing as their told".
Irish Ferries, beer cruise.

STB. · 30-11-2016 5:45pm

pilly wrote: »

So why are you so het up that you have to call names and throw insults? I've already said I don't have a view either way. Couldn't care less to tell the truth.

Het up ?

You don't have a view ? So all of those crazy analogies and ignorant preconceived notions were just a dream then.

Get off the stage.

Leroy42 · 30-11-2016 5:49pm

I think EU law will have something to say about this. It is essentially price fixing.

If they said that all goods would be hit with a tax then thats a different story. But I can't see how the EU will allow the government to force anybody to sell a product at a price irregardless of the cost.

The reason that cigs cost so much is that a massive amount of it is tax and duty. Now if that is the way they want to go then I can see a case for that (societal cost etc) but how can you stop competition?

It would have to impact all competitors equally (based on the same same product group) but this option clearly adversely effects the lower priced products with little or no effect on the premium brands

Is there another example of a good with a minimum price set by the government?

pilly · 30-11-2016 5:57pm

STB. wrote: »

Het up ?

You don't have a view ? So all of those crazy analogies and ignorant preconceived notions were just a dream then.

Get off the stage.

Yep, het up.

het up
hɛtˈʌp/
adjectiveinformal

adjective: het up

angry and agitated.

GLaDOS · 30-11-2016 5:59pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think EU law will have something to say about this. It is essentially price fixing.

If they said that all goods would be hit with a tax then thats a different story. But I can't see how the EU will allow the government to force anybody to sell a product at a price irregardless of the cost.

The reason that cigs cost so much is that a massive amount of it is tax and duty. Now if that is the way they want to go then I can see a case for that (societal cost etc) but how can you stop competition?

It would have to impact all competitors equally (based on the same same product group) but this option clearly adversely effects the lower priced products with little or no effect on the premium brands

Is there another example of a good with a minimum price set by the government?

I'm pretty sure the EU are letting Scotland go ahead with it

STB. · 30-11-2016 6:00pm

pilly wrote: »

Yep, het up.

het up
hɛtˈʌp/
adjectiveinformal

adjective: het up
angry and agitated.

ignorant
ˈɪɡn(ə)r(ə)nt/
adjective

1.lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated

You don't have a view, but you spent a good deal of this thread spouting your ignorance on the topic.

Geuze · 30-11-2016 6:03pm

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

Most moderate drinkers who enjoy the taste of beer or wine won't even notice this measure. They're not going to be buying the slabs of cheap muck anyway or horrible plonk.

It's the people drinking lots of cheap alcohol that'll be hit.

I disagree.

Lots of moderate drinkers buy cases of beer, e.g. at Xmas, priced at maybe 24-30 for 24 cans 500ml.

These responsible consumers will now have to pay more.

Geuze · 30-11-2016 6:07pm

jiltloop wrote: »

Tax and VAT are charged at a % of the retail price so if they are increased then of course it will increase revenue for the government also.

Excise is fixed. It is not a % of the cost.

Yes, VAT at 23% will rise due to MUP.

nice_guy80 · 30-11-2016 6:09pm

We should nationalise all off licences like in Sweden and more strictly control the sale of alcohol.

Or something

Geuze · 30-11-2016 6:09pm

zerks wrote: »

Only a blind fool can't see that minimum pricing is just a revenue raising exercise as politicians know we'll moan a bit and end up paying higher prices they set and it's win win for them as they can claim a victory against rampant alcoholism and get even more revenue in taxes and duty as a nice little bonus.

Excise duty revenue will likely fall, not rise, due to less purchases in RoI.

VAT revenue might rise, or fall, depending on how quantity responds to the price rise.

entropi · 30-11-2016 6:11pm

9or10 wrote: »

The last part is probably true, so how does that benefit vintners?

Because people who are dependent on alcohol, both functioning and non-functioning alcoholics, will still somehow find the cash to buy this already overpriced alcohol, thus a win for the brewer and seller. Profits win here, not health.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 30-11-2016 6:13pm

nice_guy80 wrote: »

We should nationalise all off licences like in Sweden and more strictly control the sale of alcohol.

Or something

The State have no business getting into the liquor trade.

Less state involvement is what we want, not more.

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Comments