Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The tacit acceptance of public drunkenness, resultant violence and messing and all that is the reason alcohol consumption looks bad in this country. No one cares.

Other countries probably have the same level of alcohol intake, but messing and fighting is just not tolerated. That is the difference between other countries and here IMV.

The publicans should not serve anyone who is obviously pi$$ed but they do in general.

The Gardai are never around to stop drink related trouble, reactive rather than proactive.

Hospital A+Es do not admonish messy drunks who roar and shout and demand attention. Drunk tanks +€100 extra for treating you if you have a high blood/alcohol level. Separate areas for drunks. Nah.... never happen.

Sanctions for public drunkenness? None AFAIS. Just turn around and do it all again.

I sound a bit Peed off and I am.

Because of this lack of sanction or public/societal "frowning" upon drunkenness, the ordinary drinker is punished.

But sure it's grand, just go to the pub, get hammered there, fall out the door, have a fight, attack someone, rape a woman, fall into the road, get injured. That's fine.

Safer at home!

ZZzzzz

Consumption is down as is violent crime.


But sure lets Daily Star everything, it makes your point more pointy...

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I'm afraid our laws don't revolve around your personal circumstances.

Even if it were true (which it's not), that your drinking had no cost to the State, it's irrelevant.

The cost of excessive alcohol consumption on our society is undeniable. We need to increase the price on this dangerous product to curb consumption levels.

But herein lies the issue. There appears to be little real evidence to back this up.

And its not as if they are putting an additional tax on the product, so no net benefit to the state, they are simply going to increase the price of those products sold at less than the MUP, thus helping the more expensive brands.

And even if you accept that MUP would be effective, in reality they need to bring it across all sectors not just off site sales to maintain the current pricing difference, otherwise it is simply a benefit to the more expensive brands on the pub trade

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

The cost of excessive alcohol consumption on our society is undeniable. We need to increase the price on this dangerous product to curb consumption levels.

Nice ignoring of the fact consumption levels are already decreasing of their own accord without MUP.

Why cant we impose regulations on pubs to stop serving of dangerous levels of alcohol and also increase penalties on public drunkenness and disorder?

Ohh I know why cus the Vintners basically got to design every aspect of this bill cus it really has nothing to do with public health

This seems to have been the process.

We continue to have a drinking problem. OK, lets do something about it.
Anyone know the root cause for the problem?
Not really, but I saw knackers drinking flagons on the boardwalk, terrible they were, waste of a live. We need to stamp out this problem.
Right, so that deals with the most visible aspect of it, but what about the large amount of alcohol abuse across society as a whole. You know, wine sales have massively increased the last twenty years, seems everyone is having 'just the one glass' in the evening.
Well yeah, and I suppose we need to think of all those feckers fighting after spending all evening in the pub and then heading on mass to the chipper fueled by alcohol & testosterone.
Jeez, when you put it like that it seems like a pretty big problem. Maybe we should get input from across society. You know, the drink manufacturers, the homeless charities, medical, womens aid and SVP, sports clubs etc. Get as much input as we can so that whatever measure we take can be based on the best outcome for society.
OR, or, how about this. Those feckers in Lidl etc selling that Polish beer for 80c, surely thats bound to be the cause. I mean, we never had any problem with drink until those feckers turned up.
Any stats?
No, but I talked to the vintners Fed last week and they said they are the only ones who know how to responsibly sell alcohol. Years of experience means they can spot the problems before they get out of hand.
Wow, so you mean if they spot a group of lads getting out of hand and and old fart who sinks all his money into the bar day after day they can alert the right centres to get them the help they need.
Well, I suppose, but I think mainly they just keep selling them until the money runs out or they start a fight and then they throw them out the door.
Out the door into the hands of the social services I suspect. Wow, fair play to them, lets get that on the posters.
Well, not exactly. I mean if someone from social services happens to be passing by, or I suppose if they are drunk enough they are bound to get into an accident and end up in A&E and sure there is bound to be someone from social services there, but I wouldn't go pushing that angle too much. Maybe stick to the vague, "responsible purveyor".
So, based on no real research and nothing more than 'drinking at home is a massive problem' idea lets go with this. We price all the cheaper brands out of the market and help the publicans get back the customers they lost the last few years.
And we sell it as dealing with the alcohol problem even though we know that we haven't touched on any of the myriad other ways that it affects society.
Exactly.
You know, I think we deserve a drink after all that thinking. Hey wait a minute, won't this idea end up costing me and my mates money, I hadn't though of that. I mean, I'm all for society etc, you know that, but costing me money! I mean come on.
Ah no, no, you misunderstand. We set the minimum price at just below what our drinks are priced at so it actually will no no effect at all.
Amazing, and we thought of all that? Well, on seconds thoughts that deserves at least two.

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

I'm happy enough to introduce it and study its effects after a few years. If there's no positive benefit, then fine, drop it.

And here we have it. Here is exactly how the government debates these idiotic ideas.
Introduce it ta fcuk and then let's see in 10 years.
In the meantime normal drinkers have to get roggered blind with the costs.

Its not the price increase that is the problem, we already have some of the highest price drink in EU.

It is the total lack of any coherent policy or plan and the fact that it clearly helps one sector (vintners) over the other (off licence).

If they want to price alcohol out of reach they simply going after the lowest part of it isn't enough.

Why not keep the price but limit access? Only sell in 6 packs, only 1 per customer. Why not limit to only 3 pints in any one pub. Like cigarette machines you could get a token. You need to take a breathaliser to get another token. The technology exists to make this really straightforward, if the idea was really to reduce consumption

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The upset here at the increase in the price of alcohol is entertaining. You must all be drinking much more than you're letting on to here if it's going to financially impact upon you so much. Would you all be as upset about a similar increase in the price of, say, fruit or vegetables?

I look forward to the endless AH threads with hilarious rhetoric about a nebulous "nanny state" (and whatever other rhetoric the British tabloids use) when the price of fruit increases - not!

Tax the plebs and their crap diets. Extend it to fatty/sugary foods quickly. Look at it as pre-payment for treating their weakness and lack of self-discipline in the future in our already overstretched health system.

More idiotic nonsense.
What has fruit and veg got to do with this thread?
And again talking about Brexit. Are you a fanatic?
Tell me, why is this actually a good idea? Bars and clubs will be exempt so the risk of being a burden on the health system is still there along with the hundreds of thousands killed each year on the roads.
People that drink at home, are they just as bad? Is it justified that they should pay the bill of those of need their stomachs pumped?

MeatTwoVeg wrote: »

People comparing the price of alcohol here with Spain or Germany are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Irish people cannot be trusted with cheap drink. It's an undeniable fact.
Attend any Christmas party with a free bar and have a look around at the end of the night. Most people will be pissed out of their heads.

Yes, Germans drink 11.8 L of alcohol per person annum and the Spanish 11.2 L, while the crazy Irish get through 11.9. I take it you've never shared schnapps at a German party, or seen how much wine Spanish people get through.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Why not make the people who cause trouble pay for the damage/medical etc? Just take it straight out the wages/dole
No need to punish the many who enjoy a drink & do no wrong

Yes, perhaps we could have a system whereby people found to be "drunk and disorderly" could pay fines, while those found to be driving drunk or fighting while drunk would be fined or imprisoend.

Deleted User wrote: »

I cite a medical study, and you cite... The Journal.

I am impressed.

Yes a critical view of said medical study, which links to other things that point out the large flaws in the statistical modeling that was used when analysing the results of the study

The medical study proves nothing and is again 1 study which the results of were nowhere near conclusive and whos entire statistics model has been quite roundly criticised as being over simplistic and assuming far too much of peoples reactions to MUP

The authors of the report present a number of limitations in section 4.2. In the
section on consumption they fail to mention sampling variation, variability of
individual consumption over time and response issues related to the surveys used.
They do not mention the assumptions required in constructing the relationship
between the price distribution and the consumption values of the respondents to
the surveys.
In the section on elasticities they acknowledge that there is no detailed longitudinal
study of purchase and consumption of alcohol, and that the methodology may be
inadequate (p. 99).
In section 4.2.2 they acknowledge considerable uncertainty regarding the
relationship between alcohol and crime, but do not mention the difficulties associated
with quantifying risk functions for the Scottish population for other consequences.
The above is not an exhaustive list of the difficulties associated with the SAPM, but
demonstrate that the results of the model reflect speculation (or assumptions) made
regarding the model components. No degree of statistical confidence can be placed
in the values produced. The models relating health consequences to consumption
cannot be considered reliable as they are based almost entirely on assumptions
with no direct individual level data relating consumption and consequences. They
are not fit for the purpose of estimating rates of consequences, far less changes in
these following policy changes.

The way these poll options are worded, the poll is basically two Strawmen kicking the shit out of each other. It needs a "No, because I find such a thing abhorrent and it won't help in any way with whatever drink-related problems we have!" option, at least. :pac:

jester77 wrote: »

So you've never been to a German wedding or Christmas party. I can assure you everyone will be well on it. The difference is that they are not racing against the clock and not throwing it back in a short period of time. Makes a huge difference, plus you won't have everyone falling out onto the streets and fighting over taxis and fast food at the same time. People just finish up when they feel like it and it makes things a lot more civilised.

I am for a minimum price for alcohol, but I do agree with you that set opening hours for pubs needs to be abolished.