Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Options
1…165166168170171…308

Comments

  • Options
    #5012
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,407 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    VinLieger wrote: »
    atives


    Incorrect, home consumption has increased but overall consumption is down.


    But the vintners and the nimbys in college of physicians aren't gonna let the facts get in the way of their agenda driven narrative which is why we end up with garbage journalism like this.

    Not sure why you attached the appellation "incorrect" to my post in order to introduce your own very reasonable contribution.

    There definitely are people who drink too much and need help to address their situation and those of us who don't drink too much should not be penalised on their account.


  • Options
    #5013
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    elperello wrote: »
    Not sure why you attached the appellation "incorrect" to my post in order to introduce your own very reasonable contribution.

    There definitely are people who drink too much and need help to address their situation and those of us who don't drink too much should not be penalised on their account.


    Meant to reply to Wanderers idiotic claims that consumption has increased despite all the facts showing the opposite, I agree with everything you've said there.


  • Options
    #5014
    ShamNNspace
    Registered Users Posts: 4,674 ✭✭✭ShamNNspace


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Meant to reply to Wanderers idiotic claims that consumption has increased despite all the facts showing the opposite, I agree with everything you've said there.

    Were you "tired and emotional"at the time, as they say???


  • Options
    #5015
    ShamNNspace
    Registered Users Posts: 4,674 ✭✭✭ShamNNspace


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Meant to reply to Wanderers idiotic claims that consumption has increased despite all the facts showing the opposite, I agree with everything you've said there.

    With apologies the previous post was meant in a jovial fashion and in no way was it meant to be "needlessly aggressive"


  • Options
    #5016
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,048 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Ohmeha wrote: »
    Here they go again, "concerned" over home drinking (despite the corresponding reduction in alcohol consumption...) and surprise surprise minimum pricing is the only solution :rolleyes:


    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2021/0414/1209959-alcohol-report/
    Well it's not that difficult to see how those that support MUP could propose it as a solution.

    You have a situation were thousands of alcohol retail outlets, i.e pubs, have been closed for a year and the reduction in consumption is only 6.5%.

    Add to that the much used line around here that "consumption is declining anyway" then the closure of the pubs has lead to a less than 6.5% reduction in alcohol consumption.

    That's a small reduction balanced against the number of pubs closed.

    So therefore there must be an increase in off sales, and the idea is that higher prices will reduce off sales.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5017
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,556 ✭✭✭dubrov


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Well it's not that difficult to see how those that support MUP could propose it as a solution.

    You have a situation were thousands of alcohol retail outlets, i.e pubs, have been closed for a year and the reduction in consumption is only 6.5%.

    Add to that the much used line around here that "consumption is declining anyway" then the closure of the pubs has lead to a less than 6.5% reduction in alcohol consumption.

    That's a small reduction balanced against the number of pubs closed.

    So therefore there must be an increase in off sales, and the idea is that higher prices will reduce off sales.

    Or you could say that a 6.5% decline is significant given pretty much everything is closed and drinking at home is one of the few remaining options.

    There is plenty of evidence that higher prices reduce alcohol consumption and in particular reduce consumption for those who struggle with it.

    I've no doubt that high off-licence prices may push more people into pubs though.


  • Options
    #5018
    KrustyUCC
    Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭KrustyUCC


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Well it's not that difficult to see how those that support MUP could propose it as a solution.

    You have a situation were thousands of alcohol retail outlets, i.e pubs, have been closed for a year and the reduction in consumption is only 6.5%.

    Add to that the much used line around here that "consumption is declining anyway" then the closure of the pubs has lead to a less than 6.5% reduction in alcohol consumption.

    That's a small reduction balanced against the number of pubs closed.

    So therefore there must be an increase in off sales, and the idea is that higher prices will reduce off sales.

    Only 6.5% reduction in a pandemic lol

    If road deaths went down 6.5% do you think the media would be using the word only?

    if it increased by 6.5% would they be using the word only?

    Not a chance

    It's belittling a sizeable decrease in consumption

    Of course people were going to drink more at home with the pubs closed

    Out of interest do you deny consumption is decreasing?


  • Options
    #5019
    elperello
    Registered Users Posts: 14,407 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Well it's not that difficult to see how those that support MUP could propose it as a solution.

    You have a situation were thousands of alcohol retail outlets, i.e pubs, have been closed for a year and the reduction in consumption is only 6.5%.

    Add to that the much used line around here that "consumption is declining anyway" then the closure of the pubs has lead to a less than 6.5% reduction in alcohol consumption.

    That's a small reduction balanced against the number of pubs closed.

    So therefore there must be an increase in off sales, and the idea is that higher prices will reduce off sales.

    The pressure for MUP and/or a ban on below cost selling has been growing for about ten years.

    The unholy coalition of health worriers, publicans and politicians have been cooking this up long before Covid 19 was ever dreamt of.


  • Options
    #5020
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,048 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    KrustyUCC wrote: »
    Only 6.5% reduction in a pandemic lol

    If road deaths went down 6.5% do you think the media would be using the word only?

    if it increased by 6.5% would they be using the word only?

    Not a chance

    It's belittling a sizeable decrease in consumption

    Of course people were going to drink more at home with the pubs closed

    Out of interest do you deny consumption is decreasing?
    If road deaths went down 6.5% in a year when 70% less cars were on the road then I think they would be using the word only.

    As for consumption going down year on year, yes I believe that is the case.

    By the way the 70% I am using for the number of pub is based on quick Google searchs which indicates there are ~7,000 pubs and ~3,000 off license in Ireland.


  • Options
    #5021
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,556 ✭✭✭dubrov


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote:
    If road deaths went down 6.5% in a year when 70% less cars were on the road then I think they would be using the word only.

    Fr Tod Umptious wrote:
    As for consumption going down year on year, yes I believe that is the case.

    Fr Tod Umptious wrote:
    By the way the 70% I am using for the number of pub is based on quick Google searchs which indicates there are ~7,000 pubs and ~3,000 off license in Ireland.

    So if I was to take your post at face value, pubs being open encourages people to drink more. Therefore the solution is to increase the price of alcohol in off licences which would make pubs more attractive.

    Do you honestly think publicans are backing this as they are hoping to reduce alcohol consumption?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5022
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Well it's not that difficult to see how those that support MUP could propose it as a solution.

    You have a situation were thousands of alcohol retail outlets, i.e pubs, have been closed for a year and the reduction in consumption is only 6.5%.

    Add to that the much used line around here that "consumption is declining anyway" then the closure of the pubs has lead to a less than 6.5% reduction in alcohol consumption.

    That's a small reduction balanced against the number of pubs closed.

    So therefore there must be an increase in off sales, and the idea is that higher prices will reduce off sales.

    Using that logic why then are we not simply increasing excise? It would go directly into the public coffers and we could then use it to fund alcohol addiction services?

    Ill tell you why because it would also hurt the vintners as they would also have to raise their prices and prior to the pandemic i suspect that the majority of the drop in consumption was being felt by them.

    Also excise increases via the budget are already incredibly unpopular and the vast majority of voters are not really aware of MUP or the abject cronyism behind it.

    This is and always has been simply about helping the vinters, FG literally said it in their 2011 manifesto and then pivoted it to health once they realised what a bad look that was not to mention being completely illegal.

    Thats when the nimby prohibitionists in the college of physicians and AAI jumped on board as they were desperate to seem relevant and get a win no matter how unpopular it was with the overall public as well as literally doing nothing to help with alcohol addiction.


  • Options
    #5023
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,048 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Using that logic why then are we not simply increasing excise? It would go directly into the public coffers and we could then use it to fund alcohol addiction services?

    Ill tell you why because it would also hurt the vintners as they would also have to raise their prices and prior to the pandemic i suspect that the majority of the drop in consumption was being felt by them.

    Also excise increases via the budget are already incredibly unpopular and the vast majority of voters are not really aware of MUP or the abject cronyism behind it.

    This is and always has been simply about helping the vinters, FG literally said it in their 2011 manifesto and then pivoted it to health once they realised what a bad look that was not to mention being completely illegal.

    Thats when the nimby prohibitionists in the college of physicians and AAI jumped on board as they were desperate to seem relevant and get a win no matter how unpopular it was with the overall public as well as literally doing nothing to help with alcohol addiction.
    I've always said that MUP was a blunt instrument and raising excise would help make a better case for those that want higher prices to reduce consumption.

    Honest question, it looks like a lot of this MUP is based on Scotland doing it first, why did Scotland go for MUP over excise ?

    But this idea that the government (any government) are in the pocket of the vintners loses credibility ever day the pubs are closed.

    During a pandemic purchasing and consuming alcohol in a regulated environment like a licensed premises that can control access, apply guidelines etc could be considered "safer" than purchasing it in a regulated environment like an off license but consuming it in an unregulated one, like a house party.

    Now don't get me wrong, if there was any attempt to (further) curtail the opening hours etc of office licenses I'd be at the front of the line to protest against it, but the idea that FG are beholden to the vintners lobby based on a decade old election promise does not hold much credibility given what FG have done to the pub trade in the last year.


  • Options
    #5024
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,048 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    dubrov wrote: »
    So if I was to take your post at face value, pubs being open encourages people to drink more. Therefore the solution is to increase the price of alcohol in off licences which would make pubs more attractive.

    Do you honestly think publicans are backing this as they are hoping to reduce alcohol consumption?
    My post at face value is that a 6.5% reduction in consumption of a product could be considered small when 70% of the outlets that sell that product are closed.


  • Options
    #5025
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,290 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    My post at face value is that a 6.5% reduction in consumption of a product could be considered small when 70% of the outlets that sell that product are closed.

    I doubt that 70% of the outlets that sell alcohol are closed.
    Are you including supermarkets, convenience stores, petrol stations, take out restaurants & pubs providing alcohol, online retailers in your list of outlets that are open?
    Are pubs who provided outdoor service during the summer listed as closed or open in your numbers?
    Dick Macks in Dingle for example is nominally 'closed', but was open for outside drinking in summer and sells whiskey miniatures & craft beer online.

    Even if 70% of outlets were closed, it would not reflect the reality of 70% of sales volume, nor does it really mean anything in an era when people can simply order at the click of a button from an alternative supplier, or pick up the product during their weekly shop.
    When restaurants were closed, would we expect a drop in food consumption or in shift in demand?

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #5026
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    My post at face value is that a 6.5% reduction in consumption of a product could be considered small when 70% of the outlets that sell that product are closed.


    That reasoning presumes alcohol is subject to an elastic demand based on economic factors which we all know it is absolutely not.

    For that very reason MUP and excise will never work unless you increase the price so much as to basically be enacting a light version of prohibition similar to many nordic countries.


  • Options
    #5027
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    My post at face value is that a 6.5% reduction in consumption of a product could be considered small when 70% of the outlets that sell that product are closed.

    Pubs are not 70% of the outlets that sell alcohol.


  • Options
    #5028
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,081 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    But this idea that the government (any government) are in the pocket of the vintners loses credibility ever day the pubs are closed.

    Sorry but this is BS.
    The pubs are closed because they're a high risk environment and pretty much everywhere else except supermarkets is closed, and people have to eat. These are not normal times.

    During a pandemic purchasing and consuming alcohol in a regulated environment like a licensed premises that can control access, apply guidelines etc could be considered "safer" than purchasing it in a regulated environment like an off license but consuming it in an unregulated one, like a house party.

    :rolleyes:
    Yeah because publicans did such a good job of serving responsibly. None of them ever had customers come in every day at opening to sit all day and drink their dole/pension away. Nobody ever got incoherently drunk from drinking in a pub because access is controlled and nobody who spent a night drinking in a pub ever got into a fight...
    Would you listen to yourself.

    Don't know why you are bringing up house parties, which are currently illegal and the vast majority of people buying off licence alcohol are not drinking it at house parties.

    but the idea that FG are beholden to the vintners lobby based on a decade old election promise does not hold much credibility given what FG have done to the pub trade in the last year.

    Oh yeah right because they're singling out the pub trade. Jeez...

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #5029
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,048 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Sorry but this is BS.
    The pubs are closed because they're a high risk environment and pretty much everywhere else except supermarkets is closed, and people have to eat. These are not normal times.




    :rolleyes:
    Yeah because publicans did such a good job of serving responsibly. None of them ever had customers come in every day at opening to sit all day and drink their dole/pension away. Nobody ever got incoherently drunk from drinking in a pub because access is controlled and nobody who spent a night drinking in a pub ever got into a fight...
    Would you listen to yourself.

    Don't know why you are bringing up house parties, which are currently illegal and the vast majority of people buying off licence alcohol are not drinking it at house parties.




    Oh yeah right because they're singling out the pub trade. Jeez...

    But you can't make the argument that the politicians are in the the pocket of the vintners based on a decade old election promise (which I have yet to see in actual print) and ignore the fact that pubs have remained closed while off licenses have not had a single new restriction placed on them over the period of the pandemic.

    If the vintners lobby was really as big as people make it out to be don't you think that some sort of restriction would have been placed on off licenses at this stage ?

    Surely politicians could have come up with some sort of idea that could appease their friends the vintners.


  • Options
    #5030
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,204 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    But you can't make the argument that the politicians are in the the pocket of the vintners based on a decade old election promise (which I have yet to see in actual print) and ignore the fact that pubs have remained closed while off licenses have not had a single new restriction placed on them over the period of the pandemic.

    If the vintners lobby was really as big as people make it out to be don't you think that some sort of restriction would have been placed on off licenses at this stage ?

    Surely politicians could have come up with some sort of idea that could appease their friends the vintners.

    the relevant section of the FG manifesto has been posted several times already.


  • Options
    #5031
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,048 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the relevant section of the FG manifesto has been posted several times already.

    Thanks
    I found it, page 27 on this link.

    https://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/14719/1/Fine_Gael_Manifesto.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5032
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,790 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Did anyone hear the Muppet of a doctor on NewsTalk with Mark Cagney on The Hard Shoulder Yesterday?

    He was allowed to completely make stuff up without being challenged and no alternative view was offered.
    He claimed that back in the 80s the mainstream beers were "around 3.5%", whereas now they are 5% and over. While it's difficult to find historic ABV in beer, I have no doubt that the above is completely false.
    Mainstream beers in the 80s were afaik, 4.3(perhaps stout was 3.8%) and mainstream beer is still 4.3%. He then went on to claim that wine in the 80's was 7 or 8 %!
    Completely made up stuff, and completely unchallenged.

    I'm tempted to complain to the BAI but I most likely can't be arsed.


  • Options
    #5033
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,790 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Fr. Tod, are you a publican or a furloughed barman?


  • Options
    #5034
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,048 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    Fr. Tod, are you a publican or a furloughed barman?
    Neither.

    Just someone who finds all this drama with people getting up in arms about the price of off license booze amusing.

    I certainly think we need to redefine our relationship with alcohol, especially with regard to young people who have the potential to become the problem drinkers of the future, but as I've said here more than once I don't think MUP is a great option to do that.


  • Options
    #5035
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 738 ✭✭✭tjhook


    Now that pubs are closed, the average price of a unit of alcohol purchased in the state is lower. But alcohol sales are down - even though with the pubs closed, there are still plenty of locations to obtain alcohol.

    It's not clear to me that increasing the price will also lead to a reduction in consumption. Especially among the relatively small group of people who have a serious problem.

    What's the desired end result of this law? That those with an alcohol addiction will drink just as much as ever, but pay more for it, and those without a problem drink less? That's the most that can be hoped for with this legislation. At least if health is the motivation.

    If health is really a concern, there'd be enforcement of:

    4.—(1) A licensee shall not, on the licensed premises—
    (a) supply, or permit any person to supply, intoxicating liquor—
    (i) to a drunken person, or
    (ii) to any person for consumption by a drunken person;
    (b) permit a drunken person to consume intoxicating liquor;
    (c) permit drunkenness to take place in the bar; or
    (d) admit any drunken person to the bar.

    For some reason, the publican lobbies (and their political backers) aren't pushing for enforcement of that health measure already in legislation. Maybe those groups so concerned for our health just aren't aware of it...


  • Options
    #5036
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,204 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    Did anyone hear the Muppet of a doctor on NewsTalk with Mark Cagney on The Hard Shoulder Yesterday?

    He was allowed to completely make stuff up without being challenged and no alternative view was offered.
    He claimed that back in the 80s the mainstream beers were "around 3.5%", whereas now they are 5% and over. While it's difficult to find historic ABV in beer, I have no doubt that the above is completely false.
    Mainstream beers in the 80s were afaik, 4.3(perhaps stout was 3.8%) and mainstream beer is still 4.3%. He then went on to claim that wine in the 80's was 7 or 8 %!
    Completely made up stuff, and completely unchallenged.

    I'm tempted to complain to the BAI but I most likely can't be arsed.

    i dont remember stout ever being 3.8%. it was always 4.2 as long as I remember. The only beer i remember being 3.8 was smithwicks. draught lagers were 4.3-4.4 and still are.


  • Options
    #5037
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,790 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Neither.

    Just someone who finds all this drama with people getting up in arms about the price of off license booze amusing.

    I certainly think we need to redefine our relationship with alcohol, especially with regard to young people who have the potential to become the problem drinkers of the future, but as I've said here more than once I don't think MUP is a great option to do that.

    I can agree that Ireland had a troubled relationship with alcohol.

    I just wish we could have a grown up conversation about it and not be fed lies and opinions as fact. And this pub alcohol good/ home alcohol bad is such a crock of shlt.

    I also can't help noticing that the regions with higher pricing and more restrictions (Ireland, UK, Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland) seem to have more unhealthy relationships with alcohol than regions with cheaper prices and more availability (Spain, France, Portugal, Germany), which appear to have less problems. Why is this never properly discussed?


  • Options
    #5038
    the beer revolu
    Registered Users Posts: 16,790 ✭✭✭✭the beer revolu


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i dont remember stout ever being 3.8%. it was always 4.2 as long as I remember. The only beer i remember being 3.8 was smithwicks. draught lagers were 4.3-4.4 and still are.

    I think there was a time when mainstream stouts were weaker than mainstream lagers. But either way, that doctor was talking through his hoop, unchallenged.


  • Options
    #5039
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,290 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I think there was a time when mainstream stouts were weaker than mainstream lagers. But either way, that doctor was talking through his hoop, unchallenged.

    I don't think you would have gotten a red wine at 7-8% in the 80s. I think it was more 11-13% range where now 12-15% range is typical.
    You might have gotten some German 'hock' type white wines coming in at 8-10% but not totally sure.

    Nobody challenged the pro_MUP side on the 11 euro bottle of Irish whiskey in Dunnes which is no such thing (Drombeg liqueur).

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #5040
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,048 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    the beer revolu wrote: »
    I can agree that Ireland had a troubled relationship with alcohol.

    I just wish we could have a grown up conversation about it and not be fed lies and opinions as fact. And this pub alcohol good/ home alcohol bad is such a crock of shlt.

    I also can't help noticing that the regions with higher pricing and more restrictions (Ireland, UK, Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland) seem to have more unhealthy relationships with alcohol than regions with cheaper prices and more availability (Spain, France, Portugal, Germany), which appear to have less problems. Why is this never properly discussed?

    The idea that that the southern European countries have less problems can be disputed by a report I posted here or somewhere else a long time ago, and I'm not going looking for it now.

    Essentially more alcohol related deaths in those countries tend to be as a result of liver cancers etc, brought on by the longer term effects of alcohol use over a longer period of time.

    Where as more alcohol related deaths in Ireland tend to be a result of injury that are related to alcohol use, road accidents, assault, misadventure etc.

    So while the southern European relationship with alcohol is different than ours it's not necessarily a better relationship health wise.

    Edit : Here is the post actually
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104552791&postcount=902

    Germany worse off than Ireland for liver cirrhosis and cancer but less so for injury.
    Portugal the same for injury but more for cancer and cirrhosis.
    Spain less for injury, the same for the other two.
    No data for France or Italy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5041
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    Why is Sunday time crap?


Advertisement