Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

facehugger99 wrote: »

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.

It's every bit as normal as the artificially inflated prices charged in pubs.

As has been pointed out several times already, underage drinking is illegal and an entirely separate problem.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's every bit as normal as the artificially inflated prices charged in pubs.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

As has been pointed out several times already, underage drinking is illegal and an entirely separate problem.

This measure will have a positive effect on it. It doesn't rule out other strategies being applied in conjunction with minimum pricing.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's every bit as normal as the artificially inflated prices charged in pubs.



This measure will have a positive effect on it. It doesn't rule out other strategies being applied in conjunction with minimum pricing.

what are you basing that on?

facehugger99 wrote: »

This measure will have a positive effect on it. It doesn't rule out other strategies being applied in conjunction with minimum pricing.

Banning alcohol altogether would have a positive effect on it too, that doesn't mean doing so would in any way be feasible or a good idea.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The benefit is not really to alcoholics, it is to the future non-alcoholics.
The people who like a drink or two choosing, whether old enough to drink today or those who have yet to start, who will have a drink and not two. Or none at all.
That is when everyone becomes a winner.

They think it don't be like it is, but it do.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

It will have a very positive influence - once it's introduced it can be increased to really curb consumption levels.

demand for alcohol is price inelastic.  Do you understand what that means?

It is only price inelastic because it is so cheap in supermarkets. 
The prices associated with drinking in pubs including taxi etc is very high that is why pubs are closing down all over the place. If price of alcohol was as inelastic as you suggest this would not be happening people would still pay the extra costs.
Obviously alcoholics will get their drink no matter what other sacrifices, but if you are moderate drinking, (even heavy drinking by official standards a binge something ridiculous like 4 pints) this will not have a massive impact. Currently a box of pringles on a fri night will cost the same as getting me partially tipsy, for the price of a pizza I could be hammered.

joe40 wrote: »

It is only price inelastic because it is so cheap in supermarkets. 
The prices associated with drinking in pubs including taxi etc is very high that is why pubs are closing down all over the place. If price of alcohol was as inelastic as you suggest this would not be happening people would still pay the extra costs.
Obviously alcoholics will get their drink no matter what other sacrifices, but if you are moderate drinking, (even heavy drinking by official standards a binge something ridiculous like 4 pints) this will not have a massive impact. Currently a box of pringles on a fri night will cost the same as getting me partially tipsy, for the price of a pizza I could be hammered.

It's not cheap in supermarkets, look at the prices in other Western European countries in supermarkets AND pubs. What's different in Ireland is that pubs are a rip off.

Pubs are closing down cos of drink driving laws too. Maybe it's the price of socialising that's elastic?

And if you are moderate drinking, what's the problem and why are the state interfering?

People still get drunk in pubs and make a show of themselves, and cause social issues!

odyssey06 wrote: »

If they're already broke yet finding money for drink it suggests the price of alcohol is inelastic.

There's no evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol leads to social or health issues.

So you're talking about people drinking to excess of which alcoholics must be considered.

It's not an extreme case - the laws are being brought in for the minority which abuses alcohol rather than just to annoy the responsible majority.

If someone is going out getting totally drunk then clamp down on that behaviour which already breaks multiple laws that we already have on the books and to which people have no objections.

This is the action of a weak pathetic state who is incapable of dealing with actual law breakers and instead punishes the law abiding.

The definition of an alcoholic depends on who you talk to - just like binge drinking.

Go onto google there and find stats - more than half of 18-75 year old drinkers were classified as harmful drinkers - that’s over a million people.

The thing is you’ll say your not a harmful drinking based on your definition but the health experts say different

Trying to reduce underage drinking with price increases is like trying to reduce drink driving with price increases instead of putting Gardai out there to enforce the law.

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.

You can be, if you're oppposed to social engineering. I don't believe that "reduced consumption" is "a good thing" unless people reduce their consumption purely, completely and only by choice. No amount of coercion whatsoever is acceptable to me, as a basic principle of social liberalism. The government should not be attempting to mould how people choose to live their lives by restricting their freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

joe40 wrote: »

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)

That's where you're wrong. 8 cans of decent beer, say Perlenbacher, will on occasion cost as little as €7.30 in Lidl. 12 cans of bog-standard beer (Galahad) will cost the same, again in Lidl. So for those already on a tight budget who avail of these discounted prices, this will be a huge difference.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Why pick the extreme case?
Alcoholics wont but students who can’t afford drink wil be affected - if I see a bottle of wine is 8€ I might buy it if same bottle is 18€ I probably won’t.

Given how so many people on threads complaint about being broke cause of high rents - they won’t have money to buy drink which in turn will mean less alcoholic issues whether these are social or health wise.

And students are consenting adults, so they should be allowed in principle to get as sh!tfaced as they choose in the privacy of their own homes.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

They will buy less of it.
You might. They overall consumer market will not - they will buy less.
Education and price increases have reduced the prevalence of smokers. People are vaping because they wished they could give up tobacco and not vape, but cannot. And chose vaping as the lesser evil. Like alcoholics, those unable to give up smoking and so bringing them back from holidays are not really the consideration - they are already lost, and, literally dying off. The price increases are deterring people from taking it up. Improving their lives.

Smoking has a definite effect on anyone else who happens to be nearby inhaling it. Alcohol has a possible effect on others, if the drinker gets aggro or clumsily damages something. Huge difference. A possible effect is not a good enough reason to restrict individual liberty. And if smoking only caused disease in the smoker and not in passive smokers, I for one would be wholly and 100% opposed to attempting to control peoples' smoking behaviour by hitting their wallets.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

You can be, if you're oppposed to social engineering. I don't believe that "reduced consumption" is "a good thing" unless people reduce their consumption purely, completely and only by choice. No amount of coercion whatsoever is acceptable to me, as a basic principle of social liberalism. The government should not be attempting to mould how people choose to live their lives by restricting their freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

Interesting point, but for me the first time a group of early primates lived together as a group and co-operated according to some hierarchy that was social engineering. The idea of complete freedom in any sort of society is a myth. Governments do have a role in health promotion since dealing with ill health affects society.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, look at the plastic bag tax. There were cried from retailers, what were the pensioners going to do, what if I just popped into a shop.

That this was effectively another tax and no point since China polluted way more

People didn't need to use these bags, they just took them because they were convenient and 'free'. Shops were happy to have people carrying bags with their logo on them, cheap advertising (Now I often come out of Dunnes with shopping in a Lidl reusable bag, or out of a Lidl with a Dunnes bag!)

The reason to reduce their use was litter, not air pollution.

joe40 wrote: »

The prices associated with drinking in pubs including taxi etc is very high that is why pubs are closing down all over the place.

That's only one reason among many. Drink-driving enforcement and a change in lifestyles being others. Pubs used to be pretty much the only social outlet for many people apart from Sunday mass. This has changed. If you wanted to see a film you used to have to go to a cinema, maybe a drink in the pub beforehand and a couple after. Now you can sit and relax and watch on the big screen at home.

Also pubs are not "closing down all over the place". The odd badly run pub or one with landlord issues will shut down in Dublin. It either reopens later, or the licence moves somewhere else and a new pub opens. With licences transferring out of rural areas, the numbers of pubs in the cities is going up. The reason rural pubs are closing down is because the young people aren't there, the 30/40somethings with kids can't afford it, and the 70something oulfellas who would sit in a pub all day drinking are dying off.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're very misguided if you think this is anything other than an effort to prop up the pubs.

Why would the pubs need propping up if the price is not effecting consumption levels?