The Pub trade is dying - Minimum price for Alcohol?

Geuze

Basil3 wrote: »

Yeah, the cheap stuff. It is minimum 10c per mL of alcohol.

700mL vodka at 40% = minimum €28. This includes the dodgy Tesco brands etc.

According to:

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/proposed-minimum-pricing-of-alcohol.html

the proposal is 10c min price per gram of alcohol.

An Irish unit of alcohol is 10g. A UK unit of alcohol is 8g.

One UK unit = 10ml of alcohol or 8 grams of alcohol.

This is where people may get confused.

So the proposal is for a min price of 1 euro per IRISH unit of alcohol.

A 700ml bottle of 40% spirits has 280ml of alcohol.

That's 28 UK units, or approx 22.4 Irish units.


So min price = 22.40 approx.

Geuze

Basil3 wrote: »

Standard price of Gordon's is something like €24. The price increase would push it to just over €26. Not a massive increase, unless you only shop for bargains in booze.

Again, note the confusion here between UK and RoI units of alcohol.

The min price for 40% spirits 700ml would be 22-23 approx.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

According to:

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/proposed-minimum-pricing-of-alcohol.html

the proposal is 10c min price per gram of alcohol.

An Irish unit of alcohol is 10g. A UK unit of alcohol is 8g.

One UK unit = 10ml of alcohol or 8 grams of alcohol.

This is where people may get confused.

So the proposal is for a min price of 1 euro per IRISH unit of alcohol.

A 700ml bottle of 40% spirits has 280ml of alcohol.

That's 28 UK units, or approx 22.4 Irish units.


So min price = 22.40 approx.

Yeah, I corrected my calculations here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98068182&postcount=2933

Geuze

Basil3 wrote: »

I'm talking about people who would only get a cheap deal. Heineken is a prime example. Sure, it's €1.99/can, but who goes in and buys one can?

You can get 12 cans for €18 right now (€1.50/can), or you can even get any 24 cans for €26 (€1.08/can). That's what people will be buying.

If the price of cans like Heineken are essentially always at 'full price', then I suspect people will start looking at other slightly more expensive options, like craft beers, as they can fall into a similar price bracket. I definitely think it will be enough people for them to notice.

Yes, this proposal really hits the special offers, e.g. 12 cans for 18 euro, or 24 cans for 26/28 euro.

As a precautionary measure, I may stock up this week.

senordingdong

senordingdong wrote: »

Variety is the spice of life bill.

There was no business in counterfeit cigarettes until the nanny state took hold.

When was that? There were smuggled fags around in the early 90s.

Basil3 wrote: »

In a lot of places where drinking out is cheaper, you can also buy in an off-licence much cheaper (€2 bottles of wine, etc). Students/young adults are still going to load up on the cheaper option before going out.

Where are these €2 bottles of wine?

rubadub

Geuze wrote: »

The min price for 40% spirits 700ml would be 22-23 approx.

There are probably more 37.5% bottles of spirits sold, these will be €20.71 (40% will be €22.09)

These figures are 500ml cans, % and price to the right, so 4.3% heineken will be €1.70 min

3.8 1.50
3.9 1.54
4 1.58
4.1 1.62
4.2 1.66
4.3 1.70
4.4 1.74
4.5 1.78
4.6 1.81
4.7 1.85
4.8 1.89
4.9 1.93
5 1.97
5.1 2.01
5.2 2.05
5.3 2.09
5.4 2.13
5.5 2.17
5.6 2.21
5.7 2.25
5.8 2.29
5.9 2.33
6 2.37
6.1 2.41
6.2 2.45
6.3 2.49
6.4 2.52
6.5 2.56

These would be 330ml longneck prices

3.8 0.99
3.9 1.02
4 1.04
4.1 1.07
4.2 1.09
4.3 1.12
4.4 1.15
4.5 1.17
4.6 1.20
4.7 1.22
4.8 1.25
4.9 1.28
5 1.30
5.1 1.33
5.2 1.35
5.3 1.38
5.4 1.41
5.5 1.43
5.6 1.46
5.7 1.48
5.8 1.51
5.9 1.54
6 1.56
6.1 1.59
6.2 1.61
6.3 1.64
6.4 1.67
6.5 1.69

Madd Finn

NIMAN wrote: »

Well there was a liver specialist on DriveTime tonight who thought it was a good idea, I'm with him.

Anything which has the potential to cut down on the amount of alcohol we drink can't be a bad move.

What on EARTH would a liver specialist know about it?

Your logic would seem to be that somebody who has a detailed knowledge of the workings of human physiology in general, and the liver in particular, and therefore can accurately describe the effects of alcohol on your body must therefore have also a detailed knowledge of how to influence the behaviour of the general public.

That is flawed logic. Indeed it's the sort of non sequitur that Monty Python would have built a sketch around in their heyday. ("If she weighs the same as a duck she must be made of wood and therefore she's a witch!! Burn her!!!!")

He knows that alcohol, especially consumed in large volumes, is bad for you. Eureka!!

He would like to do something to discourage it. Conceded.

He thinks that jacking up the price, disproportionately affecting the less well off will encourage people to see things his way. Which of course is the right way. Who could argue with a doctor?

The fact that people will almost certainly be willing to cut off part of their noses to spite their faces for the simple pleasure of telling him where he can stick his "I will tell you what's good for you. You will obey me!!!" diktats seems to have eluded him completely.

Never forget this: A doctor's job is essentially to examine our blood and our piss for evidence of treatable ailments and to recommend appropriate remedies"

That's it. End of.

The notion that they know more than the lay person about influencing public behaviour is a nonsense.

Madd Finn

Madd Finn wrote: »

What on EARTH would a liver specialist know about it?

Your logic would seem to be that somebody who has a detailed knowledge of the workings of human physiology in general, and the liver in particular, and therefore can accurately describe the effects of alcohol on your body must therefore have also a detailed knowledge of how to influence the behaviour of the general public.

That is flawed logic. Indeed it's the sort of non sequitur that Monty Python would have built a sketch around in their heyday. ("If she weighs the same as a duck she must be made of wood and therefore she's a witch!! Burn her!!!!")

He knows that alcohol, especially consumed in large volumes, is bad for you. Eureka!!

He would like to do something to discourage it. Conceded.

He thinks that jacking up the price, disproportionately affecting the less well off will encourage people to see things his way. Which of course is the right way. Who could argue with a doctor?

The fact that people will almost certainly be willing to cut off part of their noses to spite their faces for the simple pleasure of telling him where he can stick his "I will tell you what's good for you. You will obey me!!!" diktats seems to have eluded him completely.

Never forget this: A doctor's job is essentially to examine our blood and our piss for evidence of treatable ailments and to recommend appropriate remedies"

That's it. End of.

The notion that they know more than the lay person about influencing public behaviour is a nonsense.

But doctor's are generally well-educated, have above average IQ's, and probably know more than your average pi55head.

Seriously, though, the doctor probably got asked to come on a show about the topic. They know how bad excessive drinking is, and as there is evidence that increasing the price will probably decrease consumption, they agreed that it is probably a good idea.

I don't see anything crazy about this.

suicide_circus

Save the Irish from themselves, the colonial hangover lives on.

rubadub

Basil3 wrote: »

But doctor's are generally well-educated, have above average IQ's, and probably know more than your average pi55head.

What were the liver specialists thoughts about the retailers getting the bulk of the money rather than the government? I would guess they neglected to even mention what is probably the most imporant "con" if discussing pros & cons about this idea -if it was more publicised I would expect far more people to be opposed to it.

I was comparing this to the mandatory cycling issue before, where you will get knee jerk reaction doctors saying the helmet would have saved an injury and so they (or the interviewer) conclude that it's a good idea to make them mandatory. You have to be careful exact what is being asked, and not jump to conclusions. Most fully informed doctors would be against mandatory helmets. I would hope any intelligent doctor would question the massive potential loss in revenue, which could in part be paying for the lack of healthcare facilities that they all seem to complain about.

listermint

Its any wonder if the idea was to culturally shift ideas in relation to alcohol and consumption removing scenes like closing time 3 round purchases, why would we not extend opening hours and give licenses to more continental style cafes.




... oh wait didnt Michael Mc Dowell try that and the publicans / lobbyist lose the rag.



Yes this is all about consumption and you know impacting a cultural change....




Go on Leo.

hatrickpatrick

People should stop acting like the government is being in any way sneaky about this being protectionism rather than about public health - it was in FG's manifesto that they would do it to save the poor, misunderstood, victimised publicans. Leo's being two faced about it now, but that was in the manifesto and there's no hiding from it. This law is about protectionism in everything but name.

suicide_circus

http://leovaradkar.ie/contact-2/

Let Leo know how you feel!

listermint

I think if FG want their publican buddies returned to boom level pub takings and customer counts then they need to accelerate the construction sector so Tommy and John can stroll into the bar any night of the week with Rolls of 50s in an elastic band.

Cletus van_damme

Basil3 wrote: »

But doctor's are generally well-educated, have above average IQ's, and probably know more than your average pi55head.

Seriously, though, the doctor probably got asked to come on a show about the topic. They know how bad excessive drinking is, and as there is evidence that increasing the price will probably decrease consumption, they agreed that it is probably a good idea.

I don't see anything crazy about this.

Drinking is already decreasing and will probably continue to do so even without the new legislation, minimum pricing will probably cause a further decrease, but not to the intended people.

This legislation is supposedly to target problem drinkers, the obvious problem is that increasing the price of a drug does not make it less addictive. It might make the occasional drinker not bother getting a four pack of beer but it won't do anything to a person with a problem from drinking and odds are they are the ones who he doctor ends up treating.

We have a problem in this county with a minority of bad drivers, why not introduce a minimum price for cars or petrol? We have a problem with obesity, why not increase the cost of all foods over a set calorie limit to prevent problem eating?

Cletus van_damme

Cletus van_damme wrote: »

Drinking is already decreasing and will probably continue to do so even without the new legislation, minimum pricing will probably cause a further decrease, but not to the intended people.

This legislation is supposedly to target problem drinkers, the obvious problem is that increasing the price of a drug does not make it less addictive. It might make the occasional drinker not bother getting a four pack of beer but it won't do anything to a person with a problem from drinking and odds are they are the ones who he doctor ends up treating.

We have a problem in this county with a minority of bad drivers, why not introduce a minimum price for cars or petrol? We have a problem with obesity, why not increase the cost of all foods over a set calorie limit to prevent problem eating?

On one hand, I can see what you're saying. On the other hand, if the casual drinker won't pick up a 4 pack of beer due to an increase of a Euro or so for the 4 pack, they probably didn't really want it.

Cletus van_damme

Basil3 wrote: »

On one hand, I can see what you're saying. On the other hand, if the casual drinker won't pick up a 4 pack of beer due to an increase of a Euro or so for the 4 pack, they probably didn't really want it.

Yeah, the price increase won't effect the target of problem drinkers, the same way that doubling the price of petrol would not make a dangerous driver become a safe one.

This legislation is supposedly designed to change our attitudes towards alcohol and make us understand how dangerous it is while also giving a massive financial boost to the main suppliers of alcohol. It's nonsense.

listermint

Cletus van_damme wrote: »

Yeah, the price increase won't effect the target of problem drinkers, the same way that doubling the price of petrol would not make a dangerous driver become a safe one.

This legislation is supposedly designed to change our attitudes towards alcohol and make us understand how dangerous it is while also giving a massive financial boost to the main suppliers of alcohol. It's nonsense.

This legislation is solely designed to get people back into pubs, its an attempt to level out the perceived playing field that vinters wanted.

What they failed to realise is that in the bulk of rural ireland people dont have the jobs they used to have. They are either earning less (meaning the pub is out) or they are gone to the cities meaning thats the pubs they are in.

The rural pub will not be saved by this its fools errand.

the_syco

NIMAN wrote: »

Well there was a liver specialist on DriveTime tonight who thought it was a good idea, I'm with him.

I'd say people going for the cheaper harder stuff will screw up their livers more?

Sh1tbag OToole

listermint wrote: »

I think if FG want their publican buddies returned to boom level pub takings and customer counts then they need to accelerate the construction sector so Tommy and John can stroll into the bar any night of the week with Rolls of 50s in an elastic band.

After parking their brand new Nissan Navara crew cab outside the door, soon followed by the suit-wearing bricklayer-turned-property developer on the phone boasting about how many units he is slapping up this week and how many of them he has sold already while the field is still covered with grass (or water)

Madd Finn

Basil3 wrote: »

But doctor's are generally well-educated, have above average IQ's, and probably know more than your average pi55head.

Seriously, though, the doctor probably got asked to come on a show about the topic. They know how bad excessive drinking is, and as there is evidence that increasing the price will probably decrease consumption, they agreed that it is probably a good idea.

I don't see anything crazy about this.

This whole bloody country is well educated. Some might say over educated. We have a high number of people who have been to some sort of third level education. We are noted for it.

Now I am not suggesting that this means anybody with an arts degree in Classical Philosophy or a diploma in Event Management is qualified to be a doctor; far from it. But they are certainly smart enough to be able to absorb somebody's point of view and arguments and be able to tell whether or not they smell of bull****. That's what's at stake here.

Now, to your point about being invited on a show: this is a failing not so much of the medical profession but the media. In an attempt to achieve "balance" in their reporting they tend to go for the same old adversaries and in so doing distort the picture. The classic False Dichotomy.

On the one hand you have the "drinks industry"; on the other you have the medical profession, dressed up as "public health" officials. Each one goes hammer and tongs at the other while pushing their own agenda. Let's face it, this solution favours both of them: the doctors get to impress their point of view on everyone and convince themselves they can manipulate the public to their way of thinking; the drinks retailers get higher margins.

Who's complaining? That's a win-win right there.

The thing is, neither the medical profession nor the drinks industry will decide the success or failure of this project. We the great drinking (or non-drinking) public will decide that. Have WE been consulted?


Just because you think "Something must be done" doesn't mean the something you will do will be a good idea. George Bush thought that invading Iraq was a good response to 9/11. How did that work out for us?

rubadub

the_syco wrote: »

I'd say people going for the cheaper harder stuff will screw up their livers more?

exactly. I was making this point that heavy drinkers may turn to spirits.

Currently the exise duty is rougly twice the amount for spirits than on beer. I was always lead to believe this was to discourage drinking spirits.

With minimum pricing at the cheaper end of the market excise is no longer relevant, they both have the same price per unit alcohol. A heavy drinker will know fine well that 15 units of spirits will get him more smashed than 15 units of beer, as it can be drank far faster and at higher concentration. Anyone concerned about price will also not be buying naggins or half bottles, it will be full 700ml because for some reason the smaller ones are very much more expensive per ml.

So even though it has a stronger effect per unit I can picture heavy drinkers polishing off more units as once the bottle is 2/3rds gone they are pretty drunk and keep going. A bottle of smirnoff red has about 12.2 cans of heineken in it. The 700ml bottles of 37.5% can still be sold at €20.71 which is around what they are now, so it will appear like they are better value as they have not really increased at all.

worded

How many Politicans have family who are Publicans?

Its plain to see that vested interests are pushing this through

suicide_circus

I predict some kind of dangerous yet economical alcohol craze if this goes through....like kids giving eachother enimas with cooking sherry.

Capt'n Midnight

rubadub wrote: »

exactly. I was making this point that heavy drinkers may turn to spirits.

Currently the exise duty is rougly twice the amount for spirits than on beer. I was always lead to believe this was to discourage drinking spirits.

The duty on lower alcohols below 2.8% beers is only half that on normal ones presumably for similar reasons.

when was the last time you saw a publican selling this stuff on tap and did it cost appreciable less than a normal pint ?

Add in the old chestnut about the obscene cost of soft drinks

Publicans promoting responsible drinking mar dhea.



Of course this isn't at all related to the thing where sober people don't rush to the bar for last orders ?

Capt'n Midnight

listermint wrote: »

I think if FG want their publican buddies returned to boom level pub takings and customer counts then they need to accelerate the construction sector so Tommy and John can stroll into the bar any night of the week with Rolls of 50s in an elastic band.

worded wrote: »

How many Politicans have family who are Publicans?

IIRC at one stage half of FF Backbenchers were Publicans so it's not just FG.

Figures have change a bit since, but not so long ago
http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/tddrinklobbyscandal.htm

Spanish Eyes

The young wans who tank up before going out and get hammered with a few shots on top of their home consumption, will just turn to hard/soft or a combo of street drugs. Sure it would be a cheaper high than a six pack from the offie.

Vlad should impale himself on the reality here.

The more mature, ahem responsible person will just continue to buy the stuff for having a few at home anyway. Same old, same old.

My question is this.... what happens when the pubs stay the same and more people do NOT attend in lieu of home imbibing or taking other substances instead. Pubs are not very inviting places most of the time really. Telly everywhere, loud music at nighttime, ugh.

Well that's me off for a few substances now!

Cletus van_damme

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

My question is this.... what happens when the pubs stay the same and more people do NOT attend in lieu of home imbibing or taking other substances instead. Pubs are not very inviting places most of the time really. Telly everywhere, loud music at nighttime, ugh.

Well that's me off for a few substances now!

They can just keep putting the price up until it works, at least Leo's predecessor was honest when he said he wanted to get off sales and pubs to be the same price

Geuze

Bill published:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2015/12015/b12015d.pdf

kleefarr

Max Power1 wrote: »

Hello. Minimum price? What happened to free trade?

Yeah, where is the competition in having a minimum price.
May be soon they be able to turn the pubs into coffee shops ala Amsterdam. :rolleyes: