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

1130131133135136305

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,215 ✭✭✭✭Suckit


    It's the media that needs to change.




  • elperello wrote: »
    You make some interesting points but there's nothing wrong with a few drinks.

    This guy Austin Allsup https://www.bandsintown.com/a/370086-austin-allsup
    was on with Miriam O'Callaghan yesterday publicising his bands gig in the Texas Red Dirt Pub Crawl Tour. He was talking about being a bit hungover and drinking and you could almost sense the dismay in the studio. I'm not giving out about Miriam but the whole scene has changed now. Anything that promotes drink is dangerous territory in the media.

    I've seen bands like this playing in the US and the carry on makes sessions here look like a garden party.

    I'm not uncritically promoting heavy drinking which is obviously bad for you but there are worse things that can befall young people. We have become too po faced and given too much ground to the neo prohibitionists. We are in danger of forgetting how to have the crack.

    Footnote:Austin Allsup's dad Tommy Allsup played guitar with Buddy Holly. He flipped a coin with Ritchie Valens to determine who would travel on the plane. He lost and ended up on the bus and you know the rest.

    I lived in East-Central Europe for a few years(where they can really drink), and was working for a software company. The normal practice was to go out to a restaurant for lunch( the three course lunch menu was about 2 euros) and most people had a pint with lunch. Over arrives HR woman from the US who observed this practice and cue meetings and discussions and then a company wide memo reminding that the company was an alcohol free place and the practice of having a beer with lunch went against company policy etc etc.

    One guy went to the doctor complaining of regular indigestion after lunch. Ever since the company effectively banned him from having a beer with lunch he was getting heartburn and discomfort, so the Czech doctor wrote him a letter insisting he should be allowed have a beer with lunch for medical reasons.

    Over there, they don't so much have a drink culture but they have a beer culture. You can buy beer in the gym, in the cinema, on the bus to Prague, in McDonalds and pubs and licensed premises can(and many do) open 24 hours a day 365 days of the year.

    I have to say the creeping in of this oppressive attitude towards alcohol very uncomfortable. Also to an extent, the sudden change of attitude towards vaping(whole different topic I know, but its a similar trial by media bias)
    He was talking about being a bit hungover and drinking and you could almost sense the dismay in the studio.

    I didn't hear it but I well believe it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 518 ✭✭✭ Valentin Itchy Spaceship


    I lived in East-Central Europe for a few years(where they can really drink), and was working for a software company. The normal practice was to go out to a restaurant for lunch( the three course lunch menu was about 2 euros) and most people had a pint with lunch. Over arrives HR woman from the US who observed this practice and cue meetings and discussions and then a company wide memo reminding that the company was an alcohol free place and the practice of having a beer with lunch went against company policy etc etc.

    One guy went to the doctor complaining of regular indigestion after lunch. Ever since the company effectively banned him from having a beer with lunch he was getting heartburn and discomfort, so the Czech doctor wrote him a letter insisting he should be allowed have a beer with lunch for medical reasons.

    Over there, they don't so much have a drink culture but they have a beer culture. You can buy beer in the gym, in the cinema, on the bus to Prague, in McDonalds and pubs and licensed premises can(and many do) open 24 hours a day 365 days of the year.

    I have to say the creeping in of this oppressive attitude towards alcohol very uncomfortable. Also to an extent, the sudden change of attitude towards vaping(whole different topic I know, but its a similar trial by media bias)



    I didn't hear it but I well believe it.


    that place sounds like heaven, where was that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    that place sounds like heaven, where was that?

    I bet it's Brno and he worked for IBM




  • I bet it's Brno and he worked for IBM

    Right and wrong. Brno but not IBM.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,570 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Right and wrong. Brno but not IBM.

    I nearly took a job there with them once




  • I nearly took a job there with them once

    My ex worked there for 4 years and loved it. I heard a few horror stories though from others.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,211 ✭✭✭LineOfBeauty


    Upping drinking prices never works. All it means is that the regular Irish citizen is every bit as hungover on a Sunday morning but even more poor than they already are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    elperello wrote: »
    This advertising thing has sort of taken me unawares.
    I've been posting on this thread for some years but concentrated on the nonsense that is MUP.
    I must admit I took my eye off the ball with regard to the advertising issues.


    Can anyone point to any empirical evidence to stand up the 200m from schools ban?
    Why 200m? Will kids not a affected by hoardings they pass by 300m from the school?

    It's all about the long term

    Take the everydsy prevalence of alcohol away, ie. advertising, and people become less aware of it and thus less likely to consume it.

    Take smoking for example.
    Would a teenager today from a non-smoking household be able to name as many cigarette brands as a teenager from a non smoking household could in 1983.

    I doubt it.
    Because a teenager today if far less exposed to cigarette branding than they were in 1983.

    Some will claim advertising does not work, if that's the case why do drinks companies spend billions on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious



    It's commercialism not culture.

    Don't get the two confused like people did for Arthur's Day.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    It's all about the long term

    Take the everydsy prevalence of alcohol away, ie. advertising, and people become less aware of it and thus less likely to consume it.

    Take smoking for example.
    Would a teenager today from a non-smoking household be able to name as many cigarette brands as a teenager from a non smoking household could in 1983.

    I doubt it.
    Because a teenager today if far less exposed to cigarette branding than they were in 1983.

    Some will claim advertising does not work, if that's the case why do drinks companies spend billions on it.

    That's proof that advertising influences people to choose certain brands over others, not that it makes them start drinking/smoking in the first place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    That's proof that advertising influences people to choose certain brands over others, not that it makes them start drinking/smoking in the first place.

    That's somewhat true but the presence and prevalence of alcohol advertising, regardless of brand, is going to attract new people to alcohol.

    Anyone who laments the loss of alcohol advertising, especially around places kids gather, is a fcking moron in my eyes.





  • Anyone who laments the loss of alcohol advertising, especially around places kids gather, is a fcking moron in my eyes.

    Charming.

    Well anyone who accepts what the government spouts in the name of protecting our children from the daemon drink is a moron in mine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,086 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    It's all about the long term

    Take the everydsy prevalence of alcohol away, ie. advertising, and people become less aware of it and thus less likely to consume it.

    Take smoking for example.
    Would a teenager today from a non-smoking household be able to name as many cigarette brands as a teenager from a non smoking household could in 1983.

    I doubt it.
    Because a teenager today if far less exposed to cigarette branding than they were in 1983.

    Some will claim advertising does not work, if that's the case why do drinks companies spend billions on it.

    Thanks for the reply but I was really looking for more information about the banning of advertising up to 200m from schools. I find it hard to believe that children can be influenced by a hoarding if it is inside the 200m limit but not by one say 250m away.

    The argument about branding is interesting.
    As I recall my childhood I remember the bold kids who smoked or drank and they didn't care about brands. It was the excitement or devilment of doing something forbidden and the desire to appear tough to the rest of us that drove them.

    Ultimately the most effective method of preventing underage drinking is diligent and pro-active parenting. The second is policing and enforcement of the raft of legislation already in place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    elperello wrote: »
    Thanks for the reply but I was really looking for more information about the banning of advertising up to 200m from schools. I find it hard to believe that children can be influenced by a hoarding if it is inside the 200m limit but not by one say 250m away.

    The argument about branding is interesting.
    As I recall my childhood I remember the bold kids who smoked or drank and they didn't care about brands. It was the excitement or devilment of doing something forbidden and the desire to appear tough to the rest of us that drove them.


    Ultimately the most effective method of preventing underage drinking is diligent and pro-active parenting. The second is policing and enforcement of the raft of legislation already in place.

    Of course the kids don't care about the brand, but they certainly are aware of the brands.

    Take smoking again.
    As a kid I knew exactly what a pack of Major, Carrols, Benson etc looked like because I had seen them in countless newspapers, magazines, billboards and shops.

    So when I tried smoking at the age of about 13 I knew that I could walk into a shop and ask for "10 Major" because I knew that Major was a popular cigarette brand.

    Now I had no idea about the difference between Major and Rothmans and not did I care, but I knew what to ask for when I went into that shop.

    Fast forward to now.
    Do you think kids (from non smoking households) know what the popular cigarette brands out there are?
    Do you think they would be as confident as I was about going into a shop and asking for a pack of cigarettes without any real idea about how to ask for them ?

    Branding is huge.

    Just look at Guinness and the way they appropriate themselves on everything to do with rugby.

    Don't you think that Guinness know full well that there are kids watching rugby that will become familiar with the Guinness brand and know about it when they get around to start drinking themselves ?

    I really can't understand any adult who would have an issue with curtailing the level of advertising by drinks companies.
    If you are a drinker you already know where to get it, how much it costs and what you like and don't like.
    Less advertising is no skin off your nose.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,086 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Of course the kids don't care about the brand, but they certainly are aware of the brands.

    Take smoking again.
    As a kid I knew exactly what a pack of Major, Carrols, Benson etc looked like because I had seen them in countless newspapers, magazines, billboards and shops.

    So when I tried smoking at the age of about 13 I knew that I could walk into a shop and ask for "10 Major" because I knew that Major was a popular cigarette brand.

    Now I had no idea about the difference between Major and Rothmans and not did I care, but I knew what to ask for when I went into that shop.

    Fast forward to now.
    Do you think kids (from non smoking households) know what the popular cigarette brands out there are?
    Do you think they would be as confident as I was about going into a shop and asking for a pack of cigarettes without any real idea about how to ask for them ?

    Branding is huge.

    Just look at Guinness and the way they appropriate themselves on everything to do with rugby.

    Don't you think that Guinness know full well that there are kids watching rugby that will become familiar with the Guinness brand and know about it when they get around to start drinking themselves ?

    I really can't understand any adult who would have an issue with curtailing the level of advertising by drinks companies.
    If you are a drinker you already know where to get it, how much it costs and what you like and don't like.
    Less advertising is no skin off your nose.

    Perhaps we could skip the smoking issue because I don't think there is much of an argument between us about it. Smoking is bad for you and there is no case to be made for children smoking.

    I don't doubt that drink companies want to promote awareness of their products but I don't think preventing them from doing so will help. As I said in a previous post I believe both parental responsibility and enforcement of existing laws is the way to go.

    As regards curtailing drink advertising I think you have put your finger on why I took little notice until now of the restrictions in the Bill.

    Foolishly I did indeed think it was "no skin off my nose" but seeing the painting out of the image of a pint in Cork has changed my view. The type of fundamentalist approach being adopted by the Government disturbs me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,308 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    Alcohol is a drug and needs to be regulated, along with the advertising and sales

    There are also estimated to be 1 million teetotallers in Ireland, so not everyone is going out getting sloshed every weekend


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,086 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Alcohol is a drug and needs to be regulated, along with the advertising and sales

    There are also estimated to be 1 million teetotallers in Ireland, so not everyone is going out getting sloshed every weekend

    Indeed, technically you are correct about alcohol and it is indeed regulated.However any legislation which attempts to regulate drink needs to have regard to it's place in our culture and history.

    I have no argument whatsoever with anyone who decides not to drink nor do I hold any brief for those who are "going out getting sloshed every weekend".

    Both options are open to adults but personally I wouldn't recommend either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    elperello wrote: »
    Perhaps we could skip the smoking issue because I don't think there is much of an argument between us about it. Smoking is bad for you and there is no case to be made for children smoking.

    I don't doubt that drink companies want to promote awareness of their products but I don't think preventing them from doing so will help. As I said in a previous post I believe both parental responsibility and enforcement of existing laws is the way to go.

    As regards curtailing drink advertising I think you have put your finger on why I took little notice until now of the restrictions in the Bill.

    Foolishly I did indeed think it was "no skin off my nose" but seeing the painting out of the image of a pint in Cork has changed my view. The type of fundamentalist approach being adopted by the Government disturbs me.

    Seriously ?
    You thought the removal of a admittedly unorthodox piece of advertising to be a fundamentalist approach ?

    What are you on about ?

    It was a commercial entity, not something historic or sacred, there will probably be something in it's place before too long, the building owner has already said he is open to offers.

    This is not ISIS tearing down ancient building in Syria for Christ sake

    Get real.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,086 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Seriously ?
    You thought the removal of a admittedly unorthodox piece of advertising to be a fundamentalist approach ?

    What are you on about ?

    It was a commercial entity, not something historic or sacred, there will probably be something in it's place before too long, the building owner has already said he is open to offers.

    This is not ISIS tearing down ancient building in Syria for Christ sake

    Get real.

    Yes I felt that the removal of what was a piece of public art because it included an image of a pint was quite extreme.

    I didn't say it was historic or sacred and certainly didn't draw any comparison with the ISIS.

    Please try to accept my bona fides without indulging in hyperbole.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    elperello wrote: »
    Yes I felt that the removal of what was a piece of public art because it included an image of a pint was quite extreme.

    I didn't say it was historic or sacred and certainly didn't draw any comparison with the ISIS.

    Please try to accept my bona fides without indulging in hyperbole.

    It was not just a picture of a pint, it was a pint of particular brand of drink , it had "Murphy's" written across the glass.

    It was not public art, it was advertising.

    MacroomMuralBefore121119_large.jpg?width=600&s=bn-963667


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,086 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    It was not just a picture of a pint, it was a pint of particular brand of drink , it had "Murphy's" written across the glass.

    It was not public art, it was advertising.

    MacroomMuralBefore121119_large.jpg?width=600&s=bn-963667

    It's definitely a picture of a pint to me.

    A mural painted by two local artists is public art by any definition.

    Are you suggesting that the mural without the brand would be less damaging to schoolchildren?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,380 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Alcohol is a drug and needs to be regulated, along with the advertising and sales

    There are also estimated to be 1 million teetotallers in Ireland, so not everyone is going out getting sloshed every weekend

    Are the all as obnoxious as some of the anti alcohol posters in here ?
    Painful to listen to and void of any useful facts.

    Continually disregarding the fact that alcohol consumption is down and the youth simply are less and less interested as each year goes by.

    But sure look. Mad as a bag of spanners.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,380 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    The posters. Not the youth :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    listermint wrote: »
    Are the all as obnoxious as some of the anti alcohol posters in here ?
    Painful to listen to and void of any useful facts.

    Continually disregarding the fact that alcohol consumption is down and the youth simply are less and less interested as each year goes by.

    But sure look. Mad as a bag of spanners.

    So the problems being called up by many posters here are clearly not. The country, as you say yourself, is moving away from alcohol and surely it's right that the government try to enable society achieve its desire in this respect.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    elperello wrote: »
    It's definitely a picture of a pint to me.

    A mural painted by two local artists is public art by any definition.

    Are you suggesting that the mural without the brand would be less damaging to schoolchildren?

    The mural is a piece of advertising because the brand owner is actually paying the building owner to have it there

    Regardless of who painted it it's a piece of advertising not a piece of public art.

    I have passed it many times, it's presence or otherwise does not bother me.

    I have not read the legislation so I don't know if it allows unbranded "advertising"(oxymoron I know) or not.

    A unbranded image would of course not have the same subliminal effect on children as a branded one would have but it would still be promoting alcohol so yea it would be equally damaging


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,930 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    listermint wrote: »
    Are the all as obnoxious as some of the anti alcohol posters in here ?
    Painful to listen to and void of any useful facts.

    Continually disregarding the fact that alcohol consumption is down and the youth simply are less and less interested as each year goes by.

    But sure look. Mad as a bag of spanners.

    Which is good, so why not continue that trend by reducing advertising.

    What exactly is peoples problem with reduced advertising ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Which is good, so why not continue that trend by reducing advertising.

    What exactly is peoples problem with reduced advertising ?

    Not all of us agree that social engineering is a good thing. Your posts are predicated on the idea that the government should be trying to push people towards one kind of lifestyle or another instead of leaving people alone to make their own life choices. Not everyone agrees with that and many of us are diametrically opposed to it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Not all of us agree that social engineering is a good thing. Your posts are predicated on the idea that the government should be trying to push people towards one kind of lifestyle or another instead of leaving people alone to make their own life choices. Not everyone agrees with that and many of us are diametrically opposed to it.

    You have got it confused. The government is trying to stop commercial entities from pushing people into choosing their product.

    The government are not stopping anybody (of legal age) from drinking. We are still free to make whatever choices we want, but less influenced by those looking solely to profit.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,148 ✭✭✭✭cj maxx


    Alcohol is a drug and needs to be regulated, along with the advertising and sales

    There are also estimated to be 1 million teetotallers in Ireland, so not everyone is going out getting sloshed every weekend


    True. And any advertising limits such as before, after and during soccer , rugby matches when teens are watching should be welcomed.
    Minimum pricing however is not the way to go. Anyone around the border can testify that Good Friday was the best piss up of the year . And anyone who has gone shopping in late November up to Christmas to the likes of newry can testify seeing all D and W reg vans loading up with booze because of price. Minimum pricing will just make it an all year round trip and encourage smuggling gangs


Advertisement