The Pub trade is dying - Minimum price for Alcohol?

BattleCorp

enricoh wrote: »

Iirc the Nordic countries put up the price of drink in pubs n off licenses to cut the level of drinking and it worked.
If it worked there it'll work here.
I live near the beach n every summer it's full of teenagers getting there 20 bottles of Miller for e15 n thrashing the place. It should help put a curb on that.
Since fags went up no.s smoking with teenagers has really dropped off.

Your thinking punishes everybody though. It punishes the sensible drinkers just as much as the yobbos wrecking the place.

And I'm wondering about your thinking about teenage smoking too. Do you honestly believe that it's all to do with price? The health campaigns had nothing to do with that, did it?

We Irish don't follow the rules like the Nordic countries. I'll bet that one in four fags smoked in Nordic countries aren't smuggled. You'll get drink smuggled here on a large scale.

If someone wants a drink bad enough, the'll get the money for it somewhere.

Cienciano

When the VFI and the LVF talk about our health and wellbeing, just remember that they were strongly against the smoking ban and any lowering of the drink driving limit.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Your thinking punishes everybody though. It punishes the sensible drinkers just as much as the yobbos wrecking the place.

And I'm wondering about your thinking about teenage smoking too. Do you honestly believe that it's all to do with price? The health campaigns had nothing to do with that, did it?

We Irish don't follow the rules like the Nordic countries. I'll bet that one in four fags smoked in Nordic countries aren't smuggled. You'll get drink smuggled here on a large scale.

If someone wants a drink bad enough, the'll get the money for it somewhere.

Do you mean the sensible drinkers who don't drink much, or the sensible drinkers who drink loads but don't cause any trouble, so still want their cheap drink?

BattleCorp

Basil3 wrote: »

Do you mean the sensible drinkers who don't drink much, or the sensible drinkers who drink loads but don't cause any trouble, so still want their cheap drink?

I'd stand up for both groups. If someone doesn't cause any trouble, it's none of my business how much they drink.

the_syco

http://www.newstalk.com/Alcohol-minimum-pricing-David-Norris-social-welfare-binge-drinking-Ireland

I don't spend my tax dollars to buy drinks for people on social welfare

Agreed, but this is not the way to tackle it.

seamus

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

The real skill is in having 10 taps running at the same time and giving back the correct change when the bar is 4 deep and not spilling a drop

Indeed. And the VFI claim that while doing that, the barman will also have a little chat with each patron to asses their level of drunkenness and refuse to serve them if they're too drunk.

Yeah...

BattleCorp

the_syco wrote: »

http://www.newstalk.com/Alcohol-minimum-pricing-David-Norris-social-welfare-binge-drinking-Ireland

Agreed, but this is not the way to tackle it.

David Norris is one to talk. He doesn't want tax money going to social welfare people who buy drink with it.

Well guess what, I don't want my tax money going to someone on disability for a big part of 16 years while they were getting paid to be a full time Senator.

the_syco

enricoh wrote: »

Iirc the Nordic countries put up the price of drink in pubs n off licenses to cut the level of drinking and it worked.

Their offies are often open Monday-Friday 9-5 and 10-1 on Saturdays.

Basically, if you have a job, you can't buy drink.

suicide_circus

Can I have a list of VFI member pubs so I know where not to drink ?

Flex

seamus wrote: »

The CEO of the VFI showed his true colours on Matt Cooper last night.

Apparently we have to stop treating alcohol as "normal" and make it so special that only specific places can sell them. Maybe make "barman" a protected title too, lest people try to pour their own alcohol. (that last bit is my proposal).

He also came out with this gem: "The safest place to drink is in the pub". I guess then all of those people fighting on the streets at 2am have come pouring out of their homes to cause trouble. And 2/3rds of pedestrians killed on the road have been drinking - I guess these are all home-drinkers who decided to go out for a walk?

The VFI quite unashamedly showing that they pushed politicians to introduce this to make more money for themselves, and no other reason.

Padraig Cribben is a shameless dog. I still recall years ago when being asked about the price of soft drinks in pubs he (incredibly rudely, dismissively and arrogantly) said the pub can charge what it wants, if people don't like it then stay out. People took his advice and now after his groups successful lobbying we're getting minimum pricing.

He absolutely refuses to even consider the idea that pubs are struggling to get people in due to charging huge mark ups on drinks, instead insisting pub prices are reasonable and fair and that the price difference is because off-trade outlets are all selling alcohol at a loss. This is the guy who the government is courting at everyone elses expense

Chimichangas

seamus wrote: »

The CEO of the VFI showed his true colours on Matt Cooper last night.

Apparently we have to stop treating alcohol as "normal" and make it so special that only specific places can sell them. Maybe make "barman" a protected title too, lest people try to pour their own alcohol. (that last bit is my proposal).

He also came out with this gem: "The safest place to drink is in the pub". I guess then all of those people fighting on the streets at 2am have come pouring out of their homes to cause trouble. And 2/3rds of pedestrians killed on the road have been drinking - I guess these are all home-drinkers who decided to go out for a walk?

The VFI quite unashamedly showing that they pushed politicians to introduce this to make more money for themselves, and no other reason.

Any chance matt cooper didnt let him away with that bs...? :rolleyes:

Chimichangas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To add my voice to the above, I bought two slabs (48 cans) of Guinness about 6/7 months ago (before my May finals), and I still have one slab (24 cans) unopened. The other one was shared between me and three friends over maybe three or four weeks, usually one or two in the gaff while catching up or watching a match. Why then did I buy in bulk? Because they were special offers and we're all students, so the difference between a can priced at €1 and a can priced at €2.20 actually is a big deal, even if you only need a handful of them.

That's the elephant in the room which Leo is ignoring. This hits people who drink responsibly and just happen to not have pocketfuls of disposable income. Those people are essentially being told that they must sacrifice one of the things they enjoy perfectly responsibly "for the greater good", even though there are a crap ton of better policies which could be introduced to curb genuine problem drinking in Ireland. And as for the pubs? People like I've described simply can't afford them. For someone living on a grant, or on an irregular income from doing freelance stuff like babysitting, teaching guitar etc (before you give out about students not getting more regular part time jobs, do a course in computer science which is 9-5 and factor in the immense amount of study which goes alongside that), €5 for a pint simply cannot be justified, especially for people living on their own who have bills and (skyrocketing) rent to pay. This won't get them into the pub, this will just cause them to quit drinking altogether, because what's the point if you can only afford one can for the whole week anyway?

Now I'm not saying that this is an appalling thing or that drinking is in any way necessary to life, I'm simply saying that this proposal removes a luxury from people whose quality of life has already been severely damaged over the last five years. Welfare cuts for the unemployed, rent hikes for everyone, massive increases in student fees, cuts to grants, rising food prices, etc etc etc. And those among that demographic who drink responsibly simply don't deserve to be targeted in that manner. It won't do much for their health because they're already not problem drinkers, it certainly won't get them back into the pub since the average pub is too expensive, full stop for those people. All it does is remove one thing they enjoy, from their lives. And that's why they're going mental about this - not because, as some are arguing, this law means they can't drink twenty cans on one night anymore.

Unfortunately you now classed as a ´problem drinker´, because you avoid the pub.... :rolleyes:
Hopefully:rolleyes: you will be pushed more to drink responsibly in the pub with all the other heavy drinkers spending money you dont have, coz the prices wont change there!

Chimichangas

Basil3 wrote: »

Sounds a lot like the gun argument in America.

You must have a distorted sense of hearing.

Chimichangas

Chimichangas wrote: »

You must have a distorted sense of hearing.

I would explain it to you, but I suspect you'd choose not to understand.

Cletus van_damme

Basil3 wrote: »

Sounds a lot like the gun argument in America.

I have never heard anyone suggest a minimum price for guns as a way to fix gun violence, apart from Chris Rock.

Cletus van_damme

Cletus van_damme wrote: »

I have never heard anyone suggest a minimum price for guns as a way to fix gun violence, apart from Chris Rock.

I'll assume you're deliberately misconstruing what I said.

The point is, there are plenty of examples in life where the actions of a minority affect everyone else. I don't know why booze should be an exception.

BattleCorp

Basil3 wrote: »

The point is, there are plenty of examples in life where the actions of a minority affect everyone else. I don't know why booze should be an exception.

Is it fair that I should be punished because some people drink too much?

So much for the "Drink Responsibly" message. My answer to that is "Drink Responsibly, and you'll be punished for it because others don't".

Cletus van_damme

Basil3 wrote: »

I'll assume you're deliberately misconstruing what I said.

The point is, there are plenty of examples in life where the actions of a minority affect everyone else. I don't know why booze should be an exception.

Not misconstruing you at all, I can see the point you are making and it's valid, as is my reply, a minimum price for guns would have the same effect on gun violence as a minimum price for alcohol will on problem drinking.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is it fair that I should be punished because some people drink too much?

So much for the "Drink Responsibly" message. My answer to that is "Drink Responsibly, and you'll be punished for it because others don't".

There's no logic to your answer, unfortunately.

If you drink less than the recommended intake per week, your 'punishment' would be negligible. If you don't drink at all, you won't notice the difference.

hatrickpatrick

Chimichangas wrote: »

Unfortunately you now classed as a ´problem drinker´, because you avoid the pub.... :rolleyes:
Hopefully:rolleyes: you will be pushed more to drink responsibly in the pub with all the other heavy drinkers spending money you dont have, coz the prices wont change there!

The real irony is that I actually don't avoid the pub, just the Dublin pub

Never have this issue down the country, or in nightclubs. In fact, seeing as they're banning price-based promotions, does this mean that nightclubs will no longer be able to do their "€3 all drinks, Tuesday only" type deals anymore? So essentially they'll be forced to charge standard pub prices consistently?

If that's the case, then this is an even more obvious attempt at protectionism than I thought.

hatrickpatrick

Basil3 wrote: »

Sounds a lot like the gun argument in America.

Guns have almost no positive value. Booze does have some.

VinLieger

Basil3 wrote: »

There's no logic to your answer, unfortunately.

If you drink less than the recommended intake per week, your 'punishment' would be negligible. If you don't drink at all, you won't notice the difference.

18 quid more for a slab that would be on special offer is not negligible, I don't intend on drinking all 24 cans right away but if I see an offer of a slab of 24 for 20 ill buy it and it will last a while, or what if your having a party etc etc. This is a useless piece of legislation that punishes those of us who actually are responsible and treats us all like children and will ultimately have no effect as everyone is gonna keep drinking the same amount.

Ill still pay for drink but ill be homebrewing way more than I do now and ill be advising everybody I know to do the same. There will be more crime as people don't have the money to feed theirs habits and resort to crime as well as gangs selling black market hooch. There was zero forethought put into this.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Guns have almost no positive value. Booze does have some.

Getting ugly people laid?

Cletus van_damme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The real irony is that I actually don't avoid the pub, just the Dublin pub

Never have this issue down the country, or in nightclubs. In fact, seeing as they're banning price-based promotions, does this mean that nightclubs will no longer be able to do their "€3 all drinks, Tuesday only" type deals anymore? So essentially they'll be forced to charge standard pub prices consistently?

If that's the case, then this is an even more obvious attempt at protectionism than I thought.

Pubs will be exempt as they will still be over the price per unit, off sales promotions will be removed, no 6 for 5 offers obviously but you will probably not be able to use store points or gift tokens to pay for alcohol either.

Seems to be hammering home the message that alcohol consumed in a pub is less harmful.

VinLieger

Cletus van_damme wrote: »

Pubs will be exempt as they will still be over the price per unit, off sales promotions will be removed, no 6 for 5 offers obviously but you will probably not be able to use store points or gift tokens to pay for alcohol either.

Seems to be hammering home the message that alcohol consumed in a pub is less harmful.

Thats cus its being served by trained professionals :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dave_The_Sheep

VinLieger wrote: »

There was zero forethought put into this.

I'd say there was a lot of forethought put into this. There was zero responsible forethought put into this.

It's not to do with actually addressing the drink problem in the country. This is, again, about nothing more than trying to force people back into pubs because there's more money to be made there for the various vested interests (including politicians themselves).

rubadub

enricoh wrote: »

Iirc the Nordic countries put up the price of drink in pubs n off licenses to cut the level of drinking and it worked.

BattleCorp wrote: »

We Irish don't follow the rules like the Nordic countries.

Actually illegal distillation is very popular in nordic countries, lots of equipment & supplies originate from sweden. So I would wonder how they concluded that it "worked", as I am guessing they gauge the amont drank purely on exicse duty collected.

In Finland those stuck for cash make their own prison type hooch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilju
They actually made it illegal to just use cheap ingredients!

Due to its low cost and simple production process, kilju is mostly drunk by low-income people or heavy drinkers, such as students and alcoholics.[citation needed] The simple production process also enables underage persons to make it quite easily

Kilju can be produced by fermenting sugar, yeast, and water, but kilju made exclusively from sugar, yeast, and water is illegal in Finland. Consequently, fruits or berries are used during fermentation to avoid legal problems and to flavor the drink.[citation needed] Oranges as well as lemons are a popular choice for this purpose.

enricoh wrote: »

I live near the beach n every summer it's full of teenagers getting there 20 bottles of Miller for e15 n thrashing the place. It should help put a curb on that.

If stuck for cash I expect they will turn to counterfeit spirits or other cheaper recreational drugs.

Cletus van_damme

VinLieger wrote: »

There was zero forethought put into this.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I disagree with this, I think it was carefully thought out, remember the general trend is that everyone is drinking less, younger people in particular are drinking less or not drinking at all.

Added to that when people are drinking they are changing to spirits or craft beers. This means the big brewery's lose out twice. The new legislation will not prevent problem drinking or divert any of the extra revenue generated into anything of social value.

Minimum pricing guarantees that major brewers can continue to make the same amount of profit while selling less, added to that they already know that they can call it a success in three years when reviewed because they can claim the existing decrease in alcohol consumption is due to minimum pricng. It's a great business strategy.

Herb Powell

the_syco wrote: »

http://www.newstalk.com/Alcohol-minimum-pricing-David-Norris-social-welfare-binge-drinking-Ireland

Agreed, but this is not the way to tackle it.

What a gimp, there's no tax "dollars" here.

I hope people won't be afraid to protest this, a blatant case of corruption.

lee_baby_simms

I can only imagine Norris' liver cancer experience has pushed him towards this sort of draconian nonsense.

It sets such a dangerous precedent. Treating every person on the dole as a lazy alcoholic.

They shouldn't be allowed smoke either. Or have access to premium tv channels like Sky Sports.