Bad news for drinkers. FG/Labour to introduce minimum prices!

mikom

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I give up :rolleyes:

Enda likes this. *Thumbs up*

DB10

Is it just me or is the price of drink already at sky high levels, especially since Christmas?

We're already playing more because of the VAT rate. It was 14 euro for 6 cans in an offy I was in last week. Scandalous. How high can it go, 25 or 30 euro for a handful of cans?

It's worrying times. Anyone that thinks problem drinkers will be concerned are deluded. Problem drinkers will neglect their family and steal etc, crime rates will go up.

johnnyjb

DB10 wrote: »

Is it just me or is the price of drink already at sky high levels, especially since Christmas?

We're already playing more because of the VAT rate. It was 14 euro for 6 cans in an offy I was in last week. Scandalous. How high can it go, 25 or 30 euro for a handful of cans?

It's worrying times. Anyone that thinks problem drinkers will be concerned are deluded. Problem drinkers will neglect their family and steal etc, crime rates will go up.

I dont know what your drinking but that seems a bit expensive.

I would pay just few cent more for 6 500ml bottles of craft beer.

Switch off license for your pockets sake, shop around.

Cantona's Collars

DB10 wrote: »

Is it just me or is the price of drink already at sky high levels, especially since Christmas?

We're already playing more because of the VAT rate. It was 14 euro for 6 cans in an offy I was in last week. Scandalous. How high can it go, 25 or 30 euro for a handful of cans?

You should visit the bargain alerts forum.If there's deals on drink to be had that's where you'll hear it first.

No VAT increase in Lidl or Aldi,10 cans of lager in Aldi for €7.99.

As you said,the price increases won't put off problem drinkers,they'll just buy stronger stuff and neglect other things to get the cash for booze.

Iwannahurl

zerks wrote: »

You should visit the bargain alerts forum.If there's deals on drink to be had that's where you'll hear it first.

No VAT increase in Lidl or Aldi,10 cans of lager in Aldi for €7.99.

As you said,the price increases won't put off problem drinkers,they'll just buy stronger stuff and neglect other things to get the cash for booze.

Not everybody has an Aldi or Lidl nearby.

What do you do when you're not near one of these cheaper outlets?

Don Booker

I think it should be banned and a sub-board set up from members of the HSE and Addiction specialists. Then, followed by a period of testing, a card could be allotted to people that tells them a safe level of intake. Base it on how much they consume, what effect that has on them. The whole controversial issue surrounding its legality can be dealt with all at once and Ireland could face up do its responsibilities and challenges with a clear head as well as saving the state a fortune on Emergency Rooms, over-time and judicial and law services. Ireland's needs to be bold if she's to get into the top-150 countries of the planet again. This is one way forward. Nanny yes, but somethings are worth nannying over.

mikom

Don Booker wrote: »

I think it should be banned and a sub-board set up from members of the HSE and Addiction specialists. Then, followed by a period of testing, a card could be allotted to people that tells them a safe level of intake. Base it on how much they consume, what effect that has on them. The whole controversial issue surrounding its legality can be dealt with all at once and Ireland could face up do its responsibilities and challenges with a clear head as well as saving the state a fortune on Emergency Rooms, over-time and judicial and law services. Ireland's needs to be bold if she's to get into the top-150 countries of the planet again. This is one way forward. Nanny yes, but somethings are worth nannying over.

So pseudo-prohibition.
Sounds good, seeing as how well alcohol prohibition worked in the United states.

woodoo

DB10 wrote: »

It's worrying times. Anyone that thinks problem drinkers will be concerned are deluded. Problem drinkers will neglect their family and steal etc, crime rates will go up.

The aim may be to make people drink less overall so there may me less problem drinkers in the future. Less people turning up to A & E, less people with chronic health conditions due to drink, less car crashes, less fighting on the street, less domestic violence, less people missing work due to hangovers. More productive at work due to no hangovers.

Today's alcoholics are already lost to drink. The will continue to drink no matter what the price or they will stop for some other reason. I don't believe they are the people the legislation is aimed at. Its about tomorrow.

Does anyone really believe that this will deter teenagers from drinking? If this goes ahead I can see drug consumption increase considerably in teenagers and young adults.

woodoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that this will deter teenagers from drinking? If this goes ahead I can see drug consumption increase considerably in teenagers and young adults.

Its a numbers game. if they can get more people to drink less or less often then they will see positive results.

It won't stop teenagers getting drunk on a Friday night. But if it is priced right then they may not go out Thursday and Saturday too. Some still will.

dr.fuzzenstein

Don Booker wrote: »

I think it should be banned and a sub-board set up from members of the HSE and Addiction specialists. Then, followed by a period of testing, a card could be allotted to people that tells them a safe level of intake. Base it on how much they consume, what effect that has on them. The whole controversial issue surrounding its legality can be dealt with all at once and Ireland could face up do its responsibilities and challenges with a clear head as well as saving the state a fortune on Emergency Rooms, over-time and judicial and law services. Ireland's needs to be bold if she's to get into the top-150 countries of the planet again. This is one way forward. Nanny yes, but somethings are worth nannying over.

Since you know with absolute certainty that that is hogwash and will never happen, I can only presume you post this deliberately to annoy people and get a reaction out of them.
I'm not sure if there's a term for that on the internet, gosh, tip of my tongue, forget my wotsit next if it wasn't screwed on...
(wonder what it could be)
(@ everyone, that's enough feeding him)

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that this will deter teenagers from drinking? If this goes ahead I can see drug consumption increase considerably in teenagers and young adults.

Obviously, because all teenagers / young adults are junkies constantly looking for psychoactive drugs who'll immediately turn to probably far more expensive and less accessible drugs if the price of alcohol is raised. Somehow I doubt it.

As for me, I don't see why increasing the cost of alcohol is such a bad thing. People will still drink, it's just that they'll drink less/less often and it may even prompt a few people to quit altogether.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Obviously, because all teenagers / young adults are junkies constantly looking for psychoactive drugs who'll immediately turn to probably far more expensive and less accessible drugs if the price of alcohol is raised. Somehow I doubt it.

I'm not saying that most youths are junkis, but the vast majority of teenagers go out with the specific goal of getting as drunk as possible, they are not responsible drinkers like the rest of us and as such if they find their access to cheap alcohol limited they will look at other means to get as wasted as possible.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As for me, I don't see why increasing the cost of alcohol is such a bad thing. People will still drink, it's just that they'll drink less/less often and it may even prompt a few people to quit altogether.

Let the vast majority of those who drink responsibly be punished in the hope that a small few may drink a little less or give up. The government has repeatedly stated that this will stop young people and those who drink the most to cut down, I really doubt it. Alcoholics are not going to decide to give up but rather will cut back in other areas. How may alcoholic parents are going to let their kids suffer a little more than they are now in order to afford that bottle of vodka.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying that most youths are junkis, but the vast majority of teenagers go out with the specific goal of getting as drunk as possible,

Depends on what subsection of teenagers you're talking about. A lot do go out with the sole intention of getting as drunk as possible but I wouldn't go so far as to say the "vast majority" do.

they are not responsible drinkers like the rest of us and as such if they find their access to cheap alcohol limited they will look at other means to get as wasted as possible.

Are you sure you're not just talking about junkies or alcoholics?

As for young people not being responsible drinkers, many aren't but then again there are a lot of adults who aren't responsible drinkers either.

Let the vast majority of those who drink responsibly be punished in the hope that a small few may drink a little less or give up.

Having to drink one less pint or shot on the weekends isn't really what i'd call punishment. If this thread was about food or water then maybe you'd have a point but drink is a luxury item.

woodoo

I don't drink so it won't affect me. But i think it would be good for society on the long run.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Depends on what subsection of teenagers you're talking about. A lot do go out with the sole intention of getting as drunk as possible but I wouldn't go so far as to say the "vast majority" do.
Are you sure you're not just talking about junkies or alcoholics?

As for young people not being responsible drinkers, many aren't but then again there are a lot of adults who aren't responsible drinkers either.

Having worked on a documentary on under age drinking, the vast majority (80-90%) of teens we interview all admitted to going out at the weekend with the sole intention of getting as wasted as possible.

As for the adults who drink too much, well if the Government was really worried about curbing it they would increase the prices in pubs also. Most long term alcoholics don't sit at home and drink on their own, they're the ones in the pub at 3pm on a Wednesday on their 4th pint of the day. But with many of our elected officials being publicans I seriously doubt that we will ever see any law that could cut the profits of publicans.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Having to drink one less pint or shot on the weekends isn't really what i'd call punishment. If this thread was about food or water then maybe you'd have a point but drink is a luxury item.

Bottled water is a luxury item, as are many of the food stuffs that we purchase on a regular basis. Should the government increase the cost of a packet of biscuits and crisps as both when consumed in excessive quantities can cause long term health issues.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

Having worked on a documentary on under age drinking, the vast majority (80-90%) of teens we interview all admitted to going out at the weekend with the sole intention of getting as wasted as possible.

Was this a randomised sample or one chosen with the intention of getting as high a value as possible? It all depends on which group of teenagers you ask.

As for the adults who drink too much, well if the Government was really worried about curbing it they would increase the prices in pubs also. Most long term alcoholics don't sit at home and drink on their own, they're the ones in the pub at 3pm on a Wednesday on their 4th pint of the day. But with many of our elected officials being publicans I seriously doubt that we will ever see any law that could cut the profits of publicans.

The price of drink in bars is already high enough as it is. There's no real need for a minimum price.

Bottled water is a luxury item, as are many of the food stuffs that we purchase on a regular basis. Should the government increase the cost of a packet of biscuits and crisps as both when consumed in excessive quantities can cause long term health issues.

Alcohol is a recreational drug. Bottled water, crisps and biscuits are not. There's a difference between the two.

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Was this a randomised sample or one chosen with the intention of getting as high a value as possible? It all depends on which group of teenagers you ask.

It was random, went out each Friday and Saturday night over three months in different towns and cities across the country. The vast majority of the thousands interviewed all admitted to drinking simply to get drunk.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The price of drink in bars is already high enough as it is. There's no real need for a minimum price.

Well if it stopped those who drink to excess from drinking as much as the new legislation hopes to then surely increasing the price of a pint to 7 or 8 euro would be a good thing, would it not?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Alcohol is a recreational drug. Bottled water, crisps and biscuits are not. There's a difference between the two.

There is a massive difference but someone someone who eats fatty foods to excess is as much an issue as someone who drinks to excess. Surely with rising obesity and the issues associated with it the government should look into legislation regarding a minimum price for a pack of crisps.

This alcohol legislation is as I've said earlier nothing more than the government attempting to give the impression of doing something. Once they start down the road to limiting peoples access to an item then the only question that can be asked i,s what's next? What's to stop the government bringing in legislation for a minimum price in take aways for a bag of chips. Or maybe they'll take a leaf out of South Korea's book and limit those under 18 to no more than 3 hours of video games a day.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

It was random, went out each Friday and Saturday night over three months in different towns and cities across the country. The vast majority of the thousands interviewed all admitted to drinking simply to get drunk.

Well you should have made that clearer earlier on. I assumed that you interviewed people in a "neutral" setting like on the street or in a college/school. There's nothing at all surprising about people saying they drink to get drunk. I mean, that is the point after all, isn't it? People hardly spend the amount of money they do on alcohol just for the taste.

Well if it stopped those who drink to excess from drinking as much as the new legislation hopes to then surely increasing the price of a pint to 7 or 8 euro would be a good thing, would it not?

Not really. It doesn't really matter where the alcohol is being sold. A sufficiently high minimum price should be set for both.

There is a massive difference but someone someone who eats fatty foods to excess is as much an issue as someone who drinks to excess. Surely with rising obesity and the issues associated with it the government should look into legislation regarding a minimum price for a pack of crisps.

Not really. Both excessive drinking and fatty foods cause the person in question health problems (With excessive drinking obviously being a bit more damaging). The difference lies in that people who eat fatty foods are only causing themselves harm whereas alcoholics cause themselves and everyone surrounding them harm. I'm talking about crimes committed under the influence like drink driving or public order offences and/or issues such as neglecting your children.

This alcohol legislation is as I've said earlier nothing more than the government attempting to give the impression of doing something. Once they start down the road to limiting peoples access to an item then the only question that can be asked i,s what's next?

No one knows. Nothing is probably the most likely answer. They're unlikely to put a minimum price on an essential commodity or service.

What's to stop the government bringing in legislation for a minimum price in take aways for a bag of chips.

Chips are not recreational drugs.

Or maybe they'll take a leaf out of South Korea's book and limit those under 18 to no more than 3 hours of video games a day.

Or maybe they won't and they'll just stick to the pressing issues of Irish society?

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well you should have made that clearer earlier on. I assumed that you interviewed people in a "neutral" setting like on the street or in a college/school. There's nothing at all surprising about people saying they drink to get drunk. I mean, that is the point after all, isn't it? People hardly spend the amount of money they do on alcohol just for the taste.

People were interviewed in a neutral setting, on the streets of the town or city they live. The focus was on underage drinkers and as such they were the people we focused up and tried to capture them while they were drinking. Most people who drink don't drink with the goal of getting as drunk as possible, younger people do. When I go out drinking, I do to have a few pints and a chat with friends. I don't set myself the goal of getting as drunk as humanly possible. A lot of people do enjoy the taste of alcohol, I love a nice ale or scotch.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not really. It doesn't really matter where the alcohol is being sold. A sufficiently high minimum price should be set for both.

So you wouldn't be against the government setting a minimum price of 6 or 7 euro per pint in pubs?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Not really. Both excessive drinking and fatty foods cause the person in question health problems (With excessive drinking obviously being a bit more damaging). The difference lies in that people who eat fatty foods are only causing themselves harm whereas alcoholics cause themselves and everyone surrounding them harm. I'm talking about crimes committed under the influence like drink driving or public order offences and/or issues such as neglecting your children.

You don't think that crime will increase with the price of alcohol or that alcohol parents won't continue to neglect their kids. If anything the kids will be neglected further as their parents spend more on alcohol.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No one knows. Nothing is probably the most likely answer. They're hardly going to put a minimum price on an essential commodity or service.

It sets a dangerous precedent and the government has all ready shown that it will consider increasing the price of many items, the proposed sugar proves this.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Chips are not recreational drugs.

They may not be but they are certainly a health risk. As I said before, the minimum price for alcohol legislation sets a dangerous precedent.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Or maybe they won't and they'll just stick to the pressing issues of Irish society?

Is alcohol really that pressing an issue? Surely the major issue affecting Ireland is due to the economic crisis and the ever decreasing employment levels. It's a shame that the government won't half as much time and effort into job creation problems as they have into this alcohol legislations.

partyatmygaff

Deleted User wrote: »

People were interviewed in a neutral setting, on the streets of the town or city they live. The focus was on underage drinkers and as such they were the people we focused up and tried to capture them while they were drinking. Most people who drink don't drink with the goal of getting as drunk as possible, younger people do. When I go out drinking, I do to have a few pints and a chat with friends. I don't set myself the goal of getting as drunk as humanly possible. A lot of people do enjoy the taste of alcohol, I love a nice ale or scotch.

Is that so? So if there was a non-alcoholic ale or scotch that tasted precisely the same as the alcoholic version would you drink it?

So you wouldn't be against the government setting a minimum price of 6 or 7 euro per pint in pubs?

I'm against setting the price differently in pubs to shops. I'd only support a minimum price if it was applied to everyone selling alcohol. 6/7 Euro per pint is a bit excessive though. Something that's high enough to make excessive drinking prohibitively expensive but not too expensive that the average person can't afford to drink at all.

You don't think that crime will increase with the price of alcohol or that alcohol parents won't continue to neglect their kids. If anything the kids will be neglected further as their parents spend more on alcohol.

Yes but that's another problem. Avoiding setting a minimum price on alcohol is not going to prevent alcoholic parents neglecting their children.

It sets a dangerous precedent and the government has all ready shown that it will consider increasing the price of many items, the proposed sugar proves this.

Not necessarily. There is a valid reason for setting a minimum price on a potentially harmful recreational drug and as such the idea has some support. There is no valid reason to set minimum prices on commodities or essentials and as such a move like that won't have much support.

Is alcohol really that pressing an issue? Surely the major issue affecting Ireland is due to the economic crisis and the ever decreasing employment levels. It's a shame that the government won't half as much time and effort into job creation problems as they have into this alcohol legislations.

The economy and unemployment are one thing and public health and order is another. Just because the economy isn't doing too well doesn't mean we should forget about everything else.

cbyrd

Of course. . . if the higher price doesn't deter people (which it won't) its extra revenue for the coffers . . :rolleyes:
putting up the price of cigarettes didn't stop more people taking up the habit nor did the smoking ban..as more people have taken up the habit since 2004
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/More-smokers-in-Ireland-since-2004-smoking-ban-112121644.html
why do they think if i have to pay an extra €2 for a bottle of wine that it'll stop me drinking. Irish people will drink more just to thumb their nose at the dogooders :pac:

SafeSurfer

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As for me, I don't see why increasing the cost of alcohol is such a bad thing. People will still drink, it's just that they'll drink less/less often and it may even prompt a few people to quit altogether.

I'd say the parties at your gaff kick ass.

partyatmygaff

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I'd say the parties at your gaff kick ass.

*slow clap*

Thank you for repeating the joke. I've heard it about twenty times so far and it's never once been funny.

If anyone wants to know why I think attempts to lower alcohol consumption in Ireland are a good thing just look at the post I quoted. People over here simply can't imagine people enjoying themselves without drink being involved.

Fozzydog3

this new bill is going to help two people:

1 : The CEO of sainsburys
2:My drug dealer

Iwannahurl

partyatmygaff wrote: »

*slow clap*

Thank you for repeating the joke. I've heard it about twenty times so far and it's never once been funny.

If anyone wants to know why I think attempts to lower alcohol consumption in Ireland are a good thing just look at the post I quoted. People over here simply can't imagine people enjoying themselves without drink being involved.

1. Snap!

2. Alcohol, drinking, getting drunk and soaking (or pre-soaking) every social occasion in alcohol are so normal in this country that any attempt at curbing consumption is seen as the nanny state gone mad.

Herb Powell

Deleted User wrote: »

Well if it stopped those who drink to excess from drinking as much as the new legislation hopes to then surely increasing the price of a pint to 7 or 8 euro would be a good thing, would it not?

:eek::eek::eek:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Well you should have made that clearer earlier on. I assumed that you interviewed people in a "neutral" setting like on the street or in a college/school. There's nothing at all surprising about people saying they drink to get drunk. I mean, that is the point after all, isn't it? People hardly spend the amount of money they do on alcohol just for the taste.

Do you drink at all? If you don't, you really can't have this opinion. There are many, many tasty beers out there, and when I drink, it actually usually is for the taste that I enjoy.

partyatmygaff

Do you drink e all? If you don't, you really can't have this opinion. There are many, many tasty beers out there, and when I drink, it actually usually is for the taste that I enjoy.

So if there was an identical tasting non alcoholic version of your favourite drink would you drink it? Somehow I doubt it.

Iwannahurl

Herb Powell wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:


Do you drink at all? If you don't, you really can't have this opinion. There are many, many tasty beers out there, and when I drink, it actually usually is for the taste that I enjoy.

Perhaps. A key point in all of this is that, TTBOMK, no social harm has every resulted from people having too much to taste.

SafeSurfer

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Snap!

2. Alcohol, drinking, getting drunk and soaking (or pre-soaking) every social occasion in alcohol are so normal in this country that any attempt at curbing consumption is seen as the nanny state gone mad.

Alcohol consumption in Ireland is falling and has been falling for some years.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ei-ireland/foo-food

The nanny state didn't have a problem with higher consumption levels when it was mainly consumed in pubs, at higher prices with a larger slice for the exchequer.

Increasing the price will not reduce consumption among those with alcohol problems.

Will the increased revenue from alcohol be ring-fenced for education and treatment?

Didn't think so.

Are the two Dail bars being closed down to set an example to the plebs?

Didn't think so either.