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

12357305

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    Already explained if you actually read my posts properly. Less disposable income.

    But prices in off sales are also cheaper by your own arguments, so the less disposable income theory goes out the window.

    It only applies to Vintners who have not reduced their prices by one cent in over 2 decades.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 861 ✭✭✭MeatTwoVeg


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Ahhh so you admit finally that this is an attempt to help unfairly assist the Vintners in getting punters back in their doors?

    What a bizzare non sequitur.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    I'm assuming this would have no effect on the price in bars/clubs?

    I only drink when on a night out so this wouldn't bother me in the slightest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,808 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    VinLieger wrote: »
    What costs do my getting drunk in my own home inflict on the state? list them in order with accurate fact based cost estimates please

    It's funny isn't it? You pay VAT on the alcohol you buy then drive in something you pay tax on to keep on the road to a house you pay property tax on so you can have your VAT paid drink and yet we are costing the state money..


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 861 ✭✭✭MeatTwoVeg


    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I'm assuming this would have no effect on the price in bars/clubs?

    I only drink when on a night out so this wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

    It's the problem drinkers who like lots of cheap alcohol who'll be most effected.

    That's a good thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 861 ✭✭✭MeatTwoVeg


    VinLieger wrote: »
    What costs do my getting drunk in my own home inflict on the state? list them in order with accurate fact based cost estimates please

    Running around providing you with facts and figures would hold very little interest for me, I suggest you conduct your own research into any matters of interest to you.


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


    All of the reports will be estimations, based on some projections and one model or another.

    Don't fixate on the numbers themselves, whether it is 3bn or 2bn, it is clear from any A&E, talk to the Gardai, walk around any town at closing time, that alcohol is a driver of a lot of issues. And behind that, the unseen costs. The broken families, the abuse, the money that could be spent on education, food, heat etc gets taken off to spend on drink. The children would miss out on time with mam & dad because they are too hung over to bring them to footy etc.

    Clearly, unlike cigarettes, alcohol taken into moderation has little to no concerns. But over generations there is a sizable portion of the Irish population that has shown itself incapable of handling alcohol.

    Once you accept that at least a small amount of this happens, the question then turns to what should be done about it. What can we do, as a society, to protect those from the effects.

    I certainly do not agree that MUP is the answer, at least not on its own. Like the problems itself, the answer is multifaceted.

    I mentioned earlier, that if they insist on regulating the MUP, they should also regulate the maximum, and stop the abuse of customers that is currently allowed to happen in pubs after 11 o'clock. Suddenly a pint goes from €6 to €8.

    Pubs should be forced to reduce prices on non alcoholic beverages as a trade off. Splash of coke costing €2! There should be designated driver allowances where if a group of say 3 people spend over a certain amount then they get the money back on all non alcoholic drinks.

    Shandy for example should not be the same price as a pint, but in nearly all pubs it is.

    These are things that can be implemented immediately if the reduction of alcohol was actually the driver factor. And a clear target for the reduction. X% in 3 years for eg. After 18 months the minister responsible needs to report and give details of what is working/not working with the scheme.

    One easy step, although would not have any great emperical impact, would be to get rid of the dail bar. It sends out the wrong signal. TDs say they are concerned about the issue and should be seen to lead from the front.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    It's the problem drinkers who like lots of cheap alcohol who'll be most effected.

    That's a good thing.

    I know right? its worked so well with drug addicts........
    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    Running around providing you with facts and figures would hold very little interest for me, I suggest you conduct your own research into any matters of interest to you.

    Not how it works, make a claim then back it up, asking someone sle to research your own claims means you lose the argument, its quite simple really


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 337 ✭✭Oodoov


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    It's the problem drinkers who like lots of cheap alcohol who'll be most effected.

    That's a good thing.

    And the non problem drinkers like myself and my wife who basically can't afford to go out to the pub and like to sit in once every couple of weeks and have a few drinks or invite some friends over for drinks that's just tough sh it?

    Getting very pissed off with this society and the direction we are going tbh, Sugar tax, minimum pricing on booze, compulsary health insurance is in their sights next, etc.. real wiff of big brother nanny state is getting increasingly evident :mad:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    I'm currently in the lovely city of Kempten in southern Germany. Let's have a look in Lidl.
    wine 1.09 for a liter of rose, 9.5%
    White rum (40%) 5.59
    A sixpack of beer (500 ml each, 5%) 1.69, yes the WHOLE sixpack.
    That is a carton of wine, 800 ml of rum and a sixpack of Perlenbacher for the staggering sum of €8.37!
    And I will get a deposit back when I return the bottles.
    There are no drunk Germans anywhere, so Myth Busted
    As for availability, in can buy alcohol 24/7 at the petrol station, so that's that also dealt with.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Bear1, you seem to be fixated the wrong issue. All of the reports will be estimations, based on some projections and one model or another.

    Don't fixate on the numbers themselves, whether it is 3bn or 2bn, it is clear from any A&E, talk to the Gardai, walk around any town at closing time, that alcohol is a driver of a lot of issues. And behind that, the unseen costs. The broken families, the abuse, the money that could be spent on education, food, heat etc gets taken off to spend on drink. The children would miss out on time with mam & dad because they are too hung over to bring them to footy etc.

    Clearly, unlike cigarettes, alcohol taken into moderation has little to no concerns. But over generations there is a sizable portion of the Irish population that has shown itself incapable of handling alcohol.

    Once you accept that at least a small amount of this happens, the question then turns to what should be done about it. What can we do, as a society, to protect those from the effects.

    I certainly do not agree that MUP is the answer, at least not on its own. Like the problems itself, the answer is multifaceted.

    I mentioned earlier, that if they insist on regulating the MUP, they should also regulate the maximum, and stop the abuse of customers that is currently allowed to happen in pubs after 11 o'clock. Suddenly a pint goes from €6 to €8.

    Pubs should be forced to reduce prices on non alcoholic beverages as a trade off. Splash of coke costing €2! There should be designated driver allowances where if a group of say 3 people spend over a certain amount then they get the money back on all non alcoholic drinks.

    Shandy for example should not be the same price as a pint, but in nearly all pubs it is.

    These are things that can be implemented immediately if the reduction of alcohol was actually the driver factor. And a clear target for the reduction. X% in 3 years for eg. After 18 months the minister responsible needs to report and give details of what is working/not working with the scheme.

    One easy step, although would not have any great emperical impact, would be to get rid of the dail bar. It sends out the wrong signal. TDs say they are concerned about the issue and should be seen to lead from the front.

    Totally agree on the price of minerals, there's no incentive pricewise on a night out to not drink. Pint of diet coke has cost me €5.60!


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,568 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    pilly wrote: »
    Totally agree on the price of minerals, there's no incentive pricewise on a night out to not drink. Pint of diet coke has cost me €5.60!

    There is not one aspect of the bill that will in any way affect how pubs do business, its farcical how obviously the Vintners have been influencing this


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 861 ✭✭✭MeatTwoVeg


    Oodoov wrote: »
    And the non problem drinkers like myself and my wife who basically can't afford to go out to the pub and like to sit in once every couple of weeks and have a few drinks or invite some friends over for drinks that's just tough sh it?

    :

    Doesn't sound like you'll be overly affected by minimum pricing. I wouldn't worry about it really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 221 ✭✭CaptainR


    We moved up to Louth a few years ago and have never really seen the benefit of driving all the way up north to get cheap stuff because when you run the numbers you'd have to buy litres of spirits or a hundred cans to make it worth while.

    I'm telling you now if this does pass we'll all be like Al Capone smuggling drink in from Canada.

    Then brexit will happen and it'll be real smuggling.

    There'll be petrol tankers filled with whiskey sneaking in, in no time.


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


    pilly wrote: »
    Totally agree on the price of minerals, there's no incentive pricewise on a night out to not drink. Pint of diet coke has cost me €5.60!

    And the soft drinks companies, coke in particular regularly run campaigns for designated drivers but pubs simply pocket the money.

    Buy a pint of coke (2 small bottles) but only pay for one, Coke give the cost of the second bottle free to the publican.

    It is why I have no sympathy for publicans. They have shown themselves to be totally against any change, unwilling to bend to help society at large. Yet they want society at large to help them.

    I don't have any issues with the notion of pubs themselves, the social aspect is great and should be maintained, but publicans have done little to react to the new realities.

    Crack down on drink driving, how about set up some local buses to bring people in once a week. Non alcoholic drinks pricing.

    Hell, even the archaic licencing laws. We have seen from the Taxis that severely limited licences does nothing but hurt the consumer. They should liberalise the laws so that unless a clear societal objection can be raised, rather than "this is my turf" that passes as concerns at the moment.

    Why should any person be allowed to maintain a set market just because? Let another pub open and the market will look after it. After all, all the publicans say that the pricing it totally out of their hands so any new pubs will not be able to undercut them.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 861 ✭✭✭MeatTwoVeg


    VinLieger wrote: »

    Not how it works, make a claim then back it up, asking someone sle to research your own claims means you lose the argument, its quite simple really

    I don't really care 'how it works'.

    I don't have any interest in posting up links especially not on a mobile device.
    If you're satisfied you've won an argument, then good for you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,808 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    Doesn't sound like you'll be overly affected by minimum pricing. I wouldn't worry about it really.

    Yes he will, he will have to pay more to get the same thing.
    You said yourself that the ones who drink at home are costing the state but now you seem to say differently.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 861 ✭✭✭MeatTwoVeg


    bear1 wrote: »
    Yes he will, he will have to pay more to get the same thing.
    You said yourself that the ones who drink at home are costing the state but now you seem to say differently.

    Don't really see the big deal if his consumption is as low and infrequent as he claims.
    There's far more important and costly things to get annoyed about.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,808 ✭✭✭✭bear1


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    Don't really see the big deal if his consumption is as low and infrequent as he claims.
    There's far more important and costly things to get annoyed about.

    Indeed there are but the thread is about alcohol.
    The entire country isn't getting ****ed off their heads of bulmers but if a certain amount of people prefer to drink at home then they shouldn't be penalised.
    All this will do is help shops in the north increase their profits while shops down here get shafted.
    Talking obviously more about the border counties here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Ah sure it won't matter to most of us anyways as we'll be on the blind pension after a few months of drinking the auld wood spirit.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 337 ✭✭Oodoov


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    All of the reports will be estimations, based on some projections and one model or another.

    Don't fixate on the numbers themselves, whether it is 3bn or 2bn, it is clear from any A&E, talk to the Gardai, walk around any town at closing time, that alcohol is a driver of a lot of issues. And behind that, the unseen costs. The broken families, the abuse, the money that could be spent on education, food, heat etc gets taken off to spend on drink. The children would miss out on time with mam & dad because they are too hung over to bring them to footy etc.

    Clearly, unlike cigarettes, alcohol taken into moderation has little to no concerns. But over generations there is a sizable portion of the Irish population that has shown itself incapable of handling alcohol.

    Once you accept that at least a small amount of this happens, the question then turns to what should be done about it. What can we do, as a society, to protect those from the effects.

    I certainly do not agree that MUP is the answer, at least not on its own. Like the problems itself, the answer is multifaceted.

    I mentioned earlier, that if they insist on regulating the MUP, they should also regulate the maximum, and stop the abuse of customers that is currently allowed to happen in pubs after 11 o'clock. Suddenly a pint goes from €6 to €8.

    Pubs should be forced to reduce prices on non alcoholic beverages as a trade off. Splash of coke costing €2! There should be designated driver allowances where if a group of say 3 people spend over a certain amount then they get the money back on all non alcoholic drinks.

    Shandy for example should not be the same price as a pint, but in nearly all pubs it is.

    These are things that can be implemented immediately if the reduction of alcohol was actually the driver factor. And a clear target for the reduction. X% in 3 years for eg. After 18 months the minister responsible needs to report and give details of what is working/not working with the scheme.

    One easy step, although would not have any great emperical impact, would be to get rid of the dail bar. It sends out the wrong signal. TDs say they are concerned about the issue and should be seen to lead from the front.

    There should be no minimum pricing. Education is the answer. People don't step out in front of a bus for the reason they know it's dangerous. We don't build big barriers between the road and path because someone may decide to step out in front of the bus we educate them from a young age that's it's dangerous. You can't just keep using pricing as a tool to control peoples actions because a minority are to thick to know that drinking 24 cans of beer is unhealthy.

    Also if any parent spends money on booze instead of food, heat or education etc.. that's a problem for the person not society as a whole. You think someone like that is going to stop drinking of course they won't they will just have to spend more on that booze to the detriment their family.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    So what about prices in pubs? Any chance they will come down??


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 861 ✭✭✭MeatTwoVeg


    bear1 wrote: »
    Indeed there are but the thread is about alcohol.
    The entire country isn't getting ****ed off their heads of bulmers but if a certain amount of people prefer to drink at home then they shouldn't be penalised.
    All this will do is help shops in the north increase their profits while shops down here get shafted.
    Talking obviously more about the border counties here.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 221 ✭✭CaptainR


    Its a bit like if the government hiked up the price of petrol to stop people driving as much in an effort to reduce road deaths.

    A rather simple comparison but its their train of thought on this. Not addressing why exactly people die on the roads or drink excessively, but to just make it too expensive to do as often making the figures drop. Then they can pat themselves on the back and say "look what we accomplished!"

    I haven't read the whole thread so it may have been mentioned already but I remember someone on here a while ago saying they reckon Lidl could bring Ireland to the European Courts for anti-competition behaviour.

    Anyone more familiar with this idea and its viability?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    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.

    Ok so get on to the government & tell them you will be the guinea pig & leave the rest of the country alone
    Problem solved


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    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.
    That's a real Vradkar "Suck it and see" attitude:P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 337 ✭✭Oodoov


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    Doesn't sound like you'll be overly affected by minimum pricing. I wouldn't worry about it really.

    I'm sorry how would not having to pay more for something not affect me? We run the household on a strict budget and that's the thing isnt it the people making these decisions, the high paid civil servants etc.. who don't have to worry about increasing prices are the ones preaching from a height about this.

    Normal people who work and pay for everything just want to be left alone and god forbid they got pissed the odd weekend and enjoyed themselves in the comfort of their own house.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,514 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    MeatTwoVeg wrote: »
    There's far more important and costly things to get annoyed about.
    Usually a sign that an argument is falling apart.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,647 ✭✭✭elefant


    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.

    There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it has any possibility of being a 'success'.

    I don't live in Ireland anymore, so this won't affect me at all for 95% of the year. But for the Ministry of Health to be suggesting this will certainly protect the health of the citizens from the demon of drink is either wilful ignorance or barefaced deception.

    I'm not sure which of those is preferable.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,992 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I'm currently in the lovely city of Kempten in southern Germany. Let's have a look in Lidl.
    wine 1.09 for a liter of rose, 9.5%
    White rum (40%) 5.59
    A sixpack of beer (500 ml each, 5%) 1.69, yes the WHOLE sixpack.
    That is a carton of wine, 800 ml of rum and a sixpack of Perlenbacher for the staggering sum of €8.37!
    And I will get a deposit back when I return the bottles.
    There are no drunk Germans anywhere, so Myth Busted
    As for availability, in can buy alcohol 24/7 at the petrol station, so that's that also dealt with.

    Exactly.

    Price isn't the issue.

    It's Irish people / their psychology that is the problem.


Advertisement