Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Watching the debate now on Dail TV, looks like they're trying to ban functions with free bars and the like now as well. or any function supplying alcohol free of charge. Never thought I'd side with the Healy-Raes, but they're the ones talking about how insane that is.

Looks like it's being filibustered fairly well though, I doubt it's going to pass today with the number of amendments which have been proposed. There are 25 proposed amendments, and they're only on numbers four and five now an hour into the debate, and they've three other bills to discuss before 10PM so it seems highly unlikely that they'll get it through today.

What the actual, this thing is just bonkers know, they are literally trying to ban parties now?

Is there a list of the amendments and who proposed them anywhere?

VinLieger wrote: »

What the actual, this thing is just bonkers know, they are literally trying to ban parties now?

Is there a list of the amendments and who proposed them anywhere?

It won't apply to private functions but probably to any public advertisement of an open or free bar. The kind of things you get sometimes with the openings of new nightclubs or restaurants, the occasional "everyone gets a free pint whenever Ireland scores" promotion, that kind of thing.

Amendments are here: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2015/120/dail/4/amendment/numberedList/eng/b120c15s-drnl.pdf

It does show who proposed each one, but annoyingly it only refers to lines and pages of the full bill, so open this alongside it to see what each amendment will actually do:

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2015/120/eng/ver_c/b120c15s.pdf

Not going to lie, this latest development seriously pisses me off, one of my favourite christmas events every year involves a club hosting a free bar for about five hours

EDIT: Here's the relevant section:

23. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister may make regulations—
(a) prohibiting or restricting a person from selling or supplying, or causing to be sold
or supplied, an alcohol product at a reduced price or free of charge to any person
on the purchase by that person, or by any other person, of—
(i) one or more other alcohol products (whether of the same or a different kind),
or
(ii) any other product or service,
(b) prohibiting or restricting a person from selling or supplying, or causing to be sold
or supplied, an alcohol product during a limited period at a price less than that
being charged for the alcohol product on the day before the commencement of the
limited period,
(c) prohibiting or restricting a person from doing or permitting, including for the
purposes of promoting that person’s business or any event or activity taking place
in a place other than a place used as an occupied private residence, anything that
is intended or likely to encourage persons in that place to consume alcohol
products in a harmful way,
(d) prohibiting or restricting a person from selling or supplying, or causing to be sold
or supplied, an alcohol product at a reduced price or free of charge in a manner
likely to encourage the consumption of alcohol products in a harmful way,
(e) prohibiting or restricting a person from advertising or promoting, or causing to be
advertised or promoted, the sale, supply or consumption of alcohol products in a
manner specified in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).

This has to be my favourite bit of the legislation

Children's Clothing
shall be an offence for a person to— 5
(a) manufacture, for sale in the State, (b) import, for sale in the State, or
(c) sell to a person who is in the State,
an article of clothing intended to be worn by a child, where the article promotes alcohol consumption or bears the name of an alcohol product or the trade mark, 10 emblem, marketing image or logo, by reference to which an alcohol product is marketed or sold.
(2) This section shall not apply to clothing offered for retail sale or supply prior to 12 months after this section comes into operation.
(3) In a prosecution of an offence under this section, the onus of proving that the clothing 15 concerned was offered for retail sale or supply prior to 12 months after this section comes into operation.

No booze sponsored replica shirts but Databet, Boylesports, Mansion casinos, VIctir bet etc is perfectly acceptable.
What a bunch of gomies.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is definitive that alcohol can cause cancer. That point is beyond dispute.
So putting it as a warning on all bottle, cans, pub doors, etc is fully justified.
Some of the ignorance of its carcinogenic effect being displayed here shows how important it is to improve public understanding of its effect.

It's well known that eating deep fried takeaway food causes cholesterol issues and contributes to obesity, should a large proportion of every bag of chips from the local chipper have to have labels as well?

Pretty much everything people consume as a treat causes health issues of some kind or other - how can we justify discriminating on which ones have to have in-one's-face health warnings and which do not?

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It is definitive that alcohol can cause cancer. That point is beyond dispute.
So putting it as a warning on all bottle, cans, pub doors, etc is fully justified.
Some of the ignorance of its carcinogenic effect being displayed here shows how important it is to improve public understanding of its effect.

The only ignorance on display here is your stance on alcohol which is that no one should be allowed to drink because any amount is bad for you.


Ridiculously ignorant

elperello wrote: »

They have adjourned the twilight zone without passing the Bill.

Did they say how many amendments they had left to discuss, or when they might try to pass it again?

EDIT: Also, the bill has to go back to the Seanad, I believe it gets re-introduced at committee stage if significant amendments were made in the Dáil but I could stand corrected on this? Copying the UK system as we often do, the Seanad only has two years to debate the bill if it gets passed by the Dáil. If either the Seanad doesn't get it through report stage and back to the Dáil, or the Dáil doesn't accept the Seanad's amendments or even debate them, once it's been passed by the Dáil the government can declare it to be passed once two years have elapsed.

I'm in Italy at the moment. You can get a bottle of wine for less than €2. They have a similar standard of living as ourselves. The streets aren't full of drunks and people are big into hiking, cycling etc. Fit and healthy.
The problem is not the price of a bottle of wine in Aldi. Most of the p**sheads I'm aware of spend their time in pubs and bookies.

Just stopped off in the Centra near work this morning, they had "wow €1.50" stickers on bottles of Heineken and Brahma. Clearly there's no justification for MUP.

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

It is very easy to know what is right. this bill was introduced to support publicans. It was in the FG manifesto saying exactly that. anybody who tells you differently is lying.

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

Doubtful

It's amazing that this bloody bill has got as far as it has

I really hope other EU countries get this billed stopped

To remind people where this so called 'health bill' has come from

"5.3 Keeping Communities Vibrant

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as
a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice
of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol
consumption and the viability of pubs. "

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

Politicians and supporters of the bill are peddling lies about cheap alcohol in this country

We already have some of the most expensive alcohol in Europe

Take a can of Perlenbacher in Lidl

On sale in Spain for €0.35. On sale here €1.05

Already 200% dearer than in Spain

Under this bill it will increase to €1.89 which is 440% dearer for the exact same can

No doctor could claim that the same can is over 5 times more damaging to the health of an Irish person than a spanish person yet every single Irish person who purchases a can will be hit with the increases

This bill has never been about health. It's all about trying to get people back to the pubs

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is why the minimum pricing is a great thing. Whether it doesnt affect pubs or not, whether the discounters lose sales, or whether more profit is channelled to the producers. The bottom line is average higher price. Producing reduced consumption. An unalloyed good thing. Nobody can seriously be against this initiative.

I think you'll find that there is a significant amount of people against this initiative.

It is based on no clear data.
It takes no account of social drinkers (ie only a few drinks a week/month).
There is no clear defined outcomes.
The money is going to the producers rather than to fund services.
It doesn't deal with the problems associated with drinkers in the pub.
It places an unfair advantage to established brands as pricing is no longer a tool.
It places no obligations on producers/sellors.
Who is going to fund the policing of this? Are we, as a state, really going to prosecute people for buying/selling bargains?

joe40 wrote: »

I like drinking but the excessive stuff is damaging to our society. Junior cert students getting hammered on cheap drink is a disgrace

It's not cheap and it's already illegal for junior cert students to be drinking.
If the concern is about underage drinking blitz this, don't punish responsible adults too.
It's perfectly possible to not drink to excess at supermarket prices.

joe40 wrote: »

If you're not drinking to excess the extra price will be minimal.
Maybe I'm wrong but for arguments sake 8 x 500ml cans of beer would be a good nights drinking for me. By official standards well into excess territory but even to keep things in the real world, 8 pints (a gallon of beer) would be a good drink but common enough.
How would the minimum pricing affect this price. Currently 8 cans of lager will cost about 13 euro, how much will this go up by. (genuine question by the way, I don't know)

and what actual difference will the proposed change make to the problems you highlighted? I'm not expecting an answer to that btw because there is absolutely no data to suggest it makes a difference. This change is purely to help publicans, nothing more.

I think it will have an effect on the levels of excess drinking but obviously only time will tell.
For me personally as someone who (a) likes drinking and (b) hates spending more than I need to, I still think this is something as a society is worth doing, and I'm willing to pay the extra in the supermarket.
I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption. I do understand peoples objection but for me on balance I think it is something worth doing.

joe40 wrote: »

I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption.

Why? Alcoholics won't drink less, some people drink methylated spirits ffs.

We already have some of the highest prices around for alcohol. If your theory was correct no further action would be needed.

joe40 wrote: »

I think it will have an effect on the levels of excess drinking but obviously only time will tell.
For me personally as someone who (a) likes drinking and (b) hates spending more than I need to, I still think this is something as a society is worth doing, and I'm willing to pay the extra in the supermarket.
I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption. I do understand peoples objection but for me on balance I think it is something worth doing.

But surely you should have done some study on the effects of a change before implementing it?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I think it will have an effect on the levels of excess drinking but obviously only time will tell.
For me personally as someone who (a) likes drinking and (b) hates spending more than I need to, I still think this is something as a society is worth doing, and I'm willing to pay the extra in the supermarket.
I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption. I do understand peoples objection but for me on balance I think it is something worth doing.

But surely you should have done some study on the effects of a change before implementing it?

Well I didn't implement the policy, but the economic rules regarding pricing and consumption are fairly well established.
Some goods are resistant to price increases but not many.

joe40 wrote: »

Well I didn't implement the policy, but the economic rules regarding pricing and consumption are fairly well established.
Some goods are resistant to price increases but not many.

Given that alcohol already attracts a premium rate of levies, duties and taxation, this surely screams from the hilltops that it is inelastic and is resistant. Otherwise governments wouldn't rely on it as a cash cow.

listermint wrote: »

Its not though, thats the flashy Terry Prone style dressing. Its solely to benefit the Vintners Association and its members.
Quite literally no other reason.

You're right of course, I'm talking about the "declared" reason not the real reason and they are using this PR stunt to attract support from the hate-anyone-having-a-good-time-brigade and the will-someone-please-think-of-the-children-brigade.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why penalise 'normal# drinkers at all? Why should I have not now pay €44 for a slab of beer, that I can drink over a number of weeks or use at a party when currently I can get it for €20.

It makes no sense why I am being asked to pay double the price I am currently paying.

Your problem is you've been lead to believe that €20 for a slab of beer is 'normal'.

It's not.

It's an artificially cheap price designed to get people into the supermarkets and buying their other products. It has a damaging effect on society and opens up alcohol availability to the young - very easy for a couple of 14 year old lads to scrape together €10 each.