Róisín Shortall Resigns As Junior Health Minister

yoyo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So what do you propose should be done?

I don't know, but certainly increasing the price isn't a viable solution. Some things that could be tried though that I think would work:

1. No stupid "standard" kicking out times or off licence closing times. Both cause people to panick and they "need" more booze before hand so may buy more than they need before closing time.
2. Education? Who knows maybe rather than drilling religion into kids at school talk about the dangers of substance abuse?
3. Enforce laws like in the US which makes it illegal for a pub or off licence to serve intoxicated persons and fines could be issued if serious breaches occur (I doubt this one would be popular with our VFI friends )

I think numbers 1 and 2 are the best "solutions". Why is it that both Ireland and the UK, countries with apparent "drink problems" have the most expensive alcohol and yet it doesn't seem to help the problem? You can get bottles of wine for 1/2€ in spain/france, cans of beer for well under a Euro and they don't have serious "issues". They also don't have set strict hours of operation like we do.

Nick

humbert

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So what do you propose we should do about the rampant abuse of alcohol in our society?

If I am unable to give you an answer does that make her plan a good one?

Oh, and permitting cafes to sell alcohol would be helpful in promoting a healthier drinking culture but that was vetoed because it's bad for the vintners.

Bannasidhe

yoyo wrote: »

I don't know, but certainly increasing the price isn't a viable solution. Some things that could be tried though that I think would work:

1. No stupid "standard" kicking out times or off licence closing times. Both cause people to panick and they "need" more booze before hand so may buy more than they need before closing time.
2. Education? Who knows maybe rather than drilling religion into kids at school talk about the dangers of substance abuse?
3. Enforce laws like in the US which makes it illegal for a pub or off licence to serve intoxicated persons and fines could be issued if serious breaches occur (I doubt this one would be popular with our VFI friends )

I think numbers 1 and 2 are the best "solutions". Why is it that both Ireland and the UK, countries with apparent "drink problems" have the most expensive alcohol and yet it doesn't seem to help the problem? You can get bottles of wine for 1/2€ in spain/france, cans of beer for well under a Euro and they don't have serious "issues". They also don't have set strict hours of operation like we do.

Nick

Do you also suggest we follow the US and have 21 as the minimum age?

Only once in many years of spending large amounts of time - including living - in cities across the globe have a witnessed a scene of drunkeness that I can see any Fri/Sat night in Cork's Patrick Street and that was Barcelona on New Years Eve. Why do you think that is?

Pottler

Side Show Bob wrote: »

This too is equally as bad as stroke politics, she's been happy enough with her absorbent wages and super long extended holidays, didn't decide to try out the private sector did she! its look after number once again!

Yeah, I hear she gets One sheet.

Toby Take a Bow

Can't understand why she voted for Reilly in the 'no confidence' thing a little back and then does this. Anyone able to shed some light on this? Doesn't make any sense.

Bannasidhe

humbert wrote: »

If I am unable to give you an answer does that make her plan a good one?

Oh, and permitting cafes to sell alcohol would be helpful in promoting a healthier drinking culture but that was vetoed because it's bad for the vintners.

Well, it's easy to criticism but difficult to come up with an alternative. Personally, I'd put a euro on every unit of alcohol and ring fence the monies earned to help offset the cost to our health services for treatment of alcohol related illnesses/accidents.

yoyo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you also suggest we follow the US and have 21 as the minimum age?

Only once in many years of spending large amounts of time - including living - in cities across the globe have a witnessed a scene of drunkeness that I can see any Fri/Sat night in Cork's Patrick Street and that was Barcelona on New Years Eve. Why do you think that is?

No, I don't think 21 is a sensible age, 18 is far more reasonable. What reasons do you believe that increasing the price of drink will stop the abuse? Would you think a system where a publican could only serve someone 2 or 3 pints (or whatever the "harzerdous" level Shorthall came out with) and have to stop after is reasonable? I think this makes as much sense as minimum pricing. I'm fairly sure tomorrow for Arthurs Day people will be getting scuttered-in pubs!

Nick

Side Show Bob

Pottler wrote: »

Yeah, I hear she gets One sheet.

Eh... What... she's 3 sheets me thinks

Bannasidhe

yoyo wrote: »

No, I don't think 21 is a sensible age, 18 is far more reasonable. What reasons do you believe that increasing the price of drink will stop the abuse? Would you think a system where a publican could only serve someone 2 or 3 pints (or whatever the "harzerdous" level Shorthall came out with) and have to stop after is reasonable? I think this makes as much sense as minimum pricing. I'm fairly sure tomorrow for Arthurs Day people will be getting scuttered-in pubs!

Nick

We already have legislation regarding the sale of alcohol in licensed premises.

Patrons of licenced bars and premises in Ireland are expected to behave at all times with due respect for others. The law on conduct in licenced premises changed in August 2003. It is now an offence under the 2003 Act to supply alcohol to a drunken person and to admit a drunken person to a bar. (A 'drunken person' is someone intoxicated to such a degree that they may endanger themselves or other people). Any licence holder that allows this to occur on their premises is liable on summary conviction to a class B fine for a first offence and a class A fine for any subsequent offence.

It is also an offence to engage in disorderly conduct on a licenced premises in Ireland. This means that you cannot behave in any way that constitutes a risk to the health, safety or welfare of anyone else on the premises. It also means that you cannot behave in a violent, threatening, abusive, insulting or quarrelsome manner. If you are requested to leave a licenced premises by the licence holder or a member of the Gardai, you must do so. Failure to leave when requested can mean you are liable for a class E fine. You may also be arrested by the Gardai.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/alcohol_and_the_law.html

Doesn't seem to have made even the slightest difference.

humbert

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We already have legislation regarding the sale of alcohol in licensed premises.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/alcohol_and_the_law.html

Doesn't seem to have made even the slightest difference.

It's another good example of why more legislation isn't helpful.

Bannasidhe

humbert wrote: »

It's another good example of why more legislation isn't helpful.

or another example of lack of enforcement of existing legislation.

syklops

elviscostello wrote: »

So she should just stay and do what she is told?

.

No. She should stay and fight. Stay until O'Reilly has to fire her. That would do more for her cause than just simply leaving the pitch and going home.

humbert

Bannasidhe wrote: »

or another example of lack of enforcement of existing legislation.

That's my point.

Dangerous Man

I didn't always agree with her but I found her honesty refreshing. I'm disappointed that she's resigned as we need people like her now more than ever, especially given who we currently have as a health minister.

He's worse than Harney.

R0ot

Millicent wrote: »

This is a crying shame. How sickening to see a politician with decency, honesty and integrity pushed out of her position by that odious excuse for a Health Minister abusing his position to soap up constituents. I was hoping she might turn the tide for that sort of parish pump politics but I had a sinking feeling last week that her days were numbered.

Or a very smart person who knows when to get out with a failing party and have a chance of being re-elected because of this "stance" early on rather than cursing it during election time.

dirtyden

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I didn't always agree with her but I found her honesty refreshing. I'm disappointed that she's resigned as we need people like her now more than ever, especially given who we currently have as a health minister.

He's worse than Harney.

I thought both himself and Harney had reasonable intentions. The health service is a can of worms though. It needs someone with a backbone of pure steel to tackle the engrained cultural issues. Both Harney and Reilly are way too weak willed for that.

Shortall is just playing politics in my opinion. More worried about 2 yrs time than her principles. A principled public servant would have given up her teaching job when she got elected.

She was going to ruin the craic with her alcohol pricing nonsense and ban on advertising so I'm not going to get too upset if her resignation means the end of these plans.

Millicent

R0ot wrote: »

Or a very smart person who knows when to get out with a failing party and have a chance of being re-elected because of this "stance" early on rather than cursing it during election time.

Let's be honest. Her card was marked the second she spoke up about James Reilly. I remember saying it last week when I heard calls for a resignation, that it would not be Reilly who would be on the receiving end of that boot. Sorry to be proved right.

Millicent

Cory Short Shrapnel wrote: »

She was going to ruin the craic with her alcohol pricing nonsense and ban on advertising so I'm not going to get too upset if her resignation means the end of these plans.

Oh no, someone might not let us all drink ourselves into an early grave. Thank God that party pooper has been shoved out in favour of someone who was admittedly manipulating the system for the good of his friends.

Pottler

Side Show Bob wrote: »

Eh... What... she's 3 sheets me thinks

Jasus, that's outrageous. One sheet dos plenty, as everyone knows.

marcsignal

Does this mean Off Licences can stay open after 22:00hr now ??

Bullseye1

No fan or either Shorthall or Reilly but it has to be said the Health Department is is poisoned chalice. So many people in there looking after their own interests (understandably) but they have thrown the next generation to the wolves. No solidarity there.

Biggins

Duiske wrote: »

Wasn't it heartening to see her party colleagues, including my local Labour TD, speaking tonight about how great a Minister she was, and what a great job she was doing. What a bunch of backstabbing, power hungry muppets.

Welcome to Irish politics old style.

Dangerous Man

dirtyden wrote: »

I thought both himself and Harney had reasonable intentions. The health service is a can of worms though. It needs someone with a backbone of pure steel to tackle the engrained cultural issues. Both Harney and Reilly are way too weak willed for that.

Shortall is just playing politics in my opinion. More worried about 2 yrs time than her principles. A principled public servant would have given up her teaching job when she got elected.

Yeah - but Reilly was in Stubbe's and this debacle regarding the primary care centres reeks of good old-fashioned strokery.

I hated Harney and what she stood for but at least she stood for it honestly, from what I could tell. I don't trust Reilly one iota.

palmcut

Are any of the other PC centres political choices?

Millicent

palmcut wrote: »

Are any of the other PC centres political choices?

What? Seriously, I have read this four times now and I have no idea what it means.

ETA: Sorry, Palmcut. Explained below.

Jimoslimos

Wow! The hatred on display here because she had the cheek to tackle the problems we have with that Irish sacred cow, alcohol. Fine, disagree with her methods but at least she was attempting to act in the national interest rather than the sneaky underhand parish pump politics of Reilly.

Make no mistake, Reilly has always looked after number 1. The praise he gets from media and public alike surprises me. Maybe you'd need to be from his constituency to see through his bluster.

Jimoslimos

Millicent wrote: »

What? Seriously, I have read this four times now and I have no idea what it means.

PC = primary care

Pherekydes

Millicent wrote: »

What? Seriously, I have read this four times now and I have no idea what it means.

Are any of the other Primary Care Centres choices of politicians?

starbelgrade

yoyo wrote: »

Setting a minimum price for drink won't stop alcoholism, nor will it stop binge drinking. All it means is people that enjoy a drink responsibly have to pay more, because some ejits can't handle it. Considering most alcohol related medical issues are probably as a result of people who drank in pubs/clubs, I don't see the benfit of just attacking the off trade prices.

How do you know that setting a minimum price for drink wouldn't have an effect on people's drinking habits? I don't think you do.

Personally, I don't know either, but when you see that the UK are researching similar methods, you have to at least acknowledge that it might be something worth investigating.

While the logic in stating that a price increase will punish those who don't abuse alcohol is true, I don't see it as a valid argument if it can be proven that an introduction of a minimum price for alcohol actually does reduce problem drinking.

gaffer91

God, it's shocking seeing all the people here supporting Shortall's insufferable nanny state policies. Minimum pricing and a ban on alcohol advertising were foolish from both an economic and civil liberties perspective.

Anyway though, fair play for standing up for her principles and all but Shortall was Minister of State with responsibility for Primary Care since early 2011-what meaningful reforms have taken place in that sector since then? I can't really think of any. I know there was plans to extend free GP care to long term ill, which I agreed with, but AFAIK that has been delayed/shelved.

Millicent

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This is the same lady that claimed pot gives you throat and lung cancer. She was a spoofer, good luck and good riddance.

Have you got any proof that it doesn't? Because from what I can tell, it does, particularly for lung cancer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18283689

http://www.aurorahealthcare.org/yourhealth/healthgate/getcontent.asp?URLhealthgate=11509.html

I'd be really interested in where you got the information that cannabis is non-carcinogenic.

Millicent

starbelgrade wrote: »

How do you know that setting a minimum price for drink wouldn't have an effect on people's drinking habits? I don't think you do.

Personally, I don't know either, but when you see that the UK are researching similar methods, you have to at least acknowledge that it might be something worth investigating.

While the logic in stating that a price increase will punish those who don't abuse alcohol is true, I don't see it as a valid argument if it can be proven that an introduction of a minimum price for alcohol actually does reduce problem drinking.

Just to back up your point, there seems to be some positive effects of minimum pricing from one UK study:

http://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2008/12/report-highlights-efficacy-of-pricing-measures-on-alcohol-consumption-and-harm-.html

Lowers crime, lowers health issues, lowers consumption, saves jobs, etc.

yoyo

starbelgrade wrote: »

How do you know that setting a minimum price for drink wouldn't have an effect on people's drinking habits? I don't think you do.

Personally, I don't know either, but when you see that the UK are researching similar methods, you have to at least acknowledge that it might be something worth investigating.

While the logic in stating that a price increase will punish those who don't abuse alcohol is true, I don't see it as a valid argument if it can be proven that an introduction of a minimum price for alcohol actually does reduce problem drinking.

Because I know of alcoholics who never drank "cheap" booze at home, spent all day in the pub. Cost wasn't an issue for them as they were addicted, same way as an alcoholic won't stop drinking (or should I say can't) if they can't afford it as they could die.
In the UK they wanted to do something that we already have here, stronger lagers and ciders should cost more. Over there you can get cans of 9% lager, essentially barley wine.
These were available for the same price as 4 cans of normal strength beer. In the UK the normal strenth beers in the 4-5% range remained untouched. Over here the nearest equivelent is Bavaria 8.6 (7.9%) which costs a tenner for 4 in my local Spar so looks like we are already "ok" in that sense.
If some pubs can afford to sell pints for 2/3€ given the service they provide I can't see how the price of €1 a can which is average for the cheap beers is too cheap. Put it up 50c, it won't stop the problem drinkers, just the people who sit down to a €10 bottle of wine will be splashing out an extra €5/6 or more needlessly due to nanny state ideologies.

Nick

starbelgrade

gaffer91 wrote: »

Minimum pricing and a ban on alcohol advertising were foolish from both an economic and civil liberties perspective.

Supermarkets use below cost selling of alcohol as a loss leader. The loss they make on the booze, they make up for on spreading this loss out on the price of other products. Your shopping list subsidises other people's drinking, or your own, as the case may be.

Nightclubs sell below cost alcohol to young people to get them through the doors at inflated prices & couldn't give a toss about their duty of care, which is to ensure they don't leave absolutely fucking hammered.

I don't see how outlawing these practices is in any way a breach of civil liberties. If anything, they seem like progressive social moves. And if that has an economic cost, then so be it - the welfare of people is a more important than money.

Millicent

yoyo wrote: »

Put it up 50c, it won't stop the problem drinkers, just the people who sit down to a €10 bottle of wine will be splashing out an extra €5/6 or more needlessly due to nanny state ideologies.

Nick

That's not how the policy was going to work. It was minimum pricing on alcohol, i.e. a base price that alcohol could not be sold under to stop below cost alcohol sales. Where are you getting that €5/6 figure on a €10 bottle of wine from? It's only very cheap drink which is affected.

Red wine would have a floor price of of €4.40 and white wine a floor price of €3.60.

Link.

starbelgrade

yoyo wrote: »

Because I know of alcoholics who never drank "cheap" booze at home, spent all day in the pub.

In fairness, this is hardly a scientific study.

I did a quick Google earlier on the effects the minimum price / increase in prices has on the consumption of alcohol and there are literally hundreds of studies and research papers available.

I didn't read any of them because I don't have the time, but I also think that if you're going to make blanket statements as if they were facts you should really have more to back it up than anecdotal stories.

gaffer91

starbelgrade wrote: »

Supermarkets use below cost selling of alcohol as a loss leader. The loss they make on the booze, they make up for on spreading this loss out on the price of other products. Your shopping list subsidises other people's drinking, or your own, as the case may be.

Nightclubs sell below cost alcohol to young people to get them through the doors at inflated prices & couldn't give a toss about their duty of care, which is to ensure they don't leave absolutely fucking hammered.

How much below cost selling actually occurs in nightclubs/supermarkets? I can't say I really notice any discernible difference in price between off licences (who for obvious reasons can't use it as a loss leader), and supermarkets, and I've certainly never heard of nightclubs doing it. If you give me a link I might have to change my mind though.

In fairness though, even factoring in healthcare and policing costs I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the alcohol industry is anything but an economic good when you take into account the amount of VAT, rent, rates, jobs etc it generates.

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't see how outlawing these practices is in any way a breach of civil liberties. If anything, they seem like progressive social moves. And if that has an economic cost, then so be it - the welfare of people is a more important than money.

I'd have to disagree there I'm afraid. Without trying to go off on a big spiel here, I would say left wing and liberal used to be synonymous. However in recent years left wing parties seem to have swapped their admirable social liberalism for a nauseating kind of nanny statism which I simply abhor. If people want to go out and get smashed, off with them. I don't see it as the government's duty to "protect people from themselves".

Cookie_Monster

So resigning from a position where she actually had to do something but keeping the seat and all it's perks to fade into the backbench TD group. Hardly standing up for principals is it?
If she had any balls she would have resigned as TD as well rather than staying on the gravy train.

Millicent

gaffer91 wrote: »

I'd have to disagree there I'm afraid. Without trying to go off on a big spiel here, I would say left wing and liberal used to be synonymous. However in recent years left wing parties seem to have swapped their admirable social liberalism for a nauseating kind of nanny statism which I simply abhor. If people want to go out and get smashed, off with them. I don't see it as the government's duty to "protect people from themselves".

That's exactly the government's duty when it comes to public health.

Jimoslimos

yoyo wrote: »

Because I know of alcoholics who never drank "cheap" booze at home, spent all day in the pub. Cost wasn't an issue for them as they were addicted, same way as an alcoholic won't stop drinking (or should I say can't) if they can't afford it as they could die.
In the UK they wanted to do something that we already have here, stronger lagers and ciders should cost more. Over there you can get cans of 9% lager, essentially barley wine.
These were available for the same price as 4 cans of normal strength beer. In the UK the normal strenth beers in the 4-5% range remained untouched. Over here the nearest equivelent is Bavaria 8.6 (7.9%) which costs a tenner for 4 in my local Spar so looks like we are already "ok" in that sense.
If some pubs can afford to sell pints for 2/3€ given the service they provide I can't see how the price of €1 a can which is average for the cheap beers is too cheap. Put it up 50c, it won't stop the problem drinkers, just the people who sit down to a €10 bottle of wine will be splashing out an extra €5/6 or more needlessly due to nanny state ideologies.

Putting the price up won't stop alcoholics drinking, but it will force them to drink less. It's not as if the extra cost would have been spent on essential items for themselves or family

Your point on Bavaria reminded me of that Mitchell & Webb sketch with the alcoholic picking the beer with the most alcohol content per ml at the lowest cost price, which is depressingly close to reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frOtKDsVbb4

starbelgrade

gaffer91 wrote: »

How much below cost selling actually occurs in nightclubs/supermarkets? I can't say I really notice any discernible difference in price between off licences (who for obvious reasons can't use it as a loss leader), and supermarkets, and I've certainly never heard of nightclubs doing it. If you give me a link I might have to change my mind though.

In fairness though, even factoring in healthcare and policing costs I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the alcohol industry is anything but an economic good when you take into account the amount of VAT, rent, rates, jobs etc it generates.

As I said earlier, I'm no expert on any of this - my point is mainly that it is an issue worth looking into and I don't think that providing anectodal evidence really adds anything to the debate. It certainly doesn't prove anything.

Bannasidhe

gaffer91 wrote: »

and I've certainly never heard of nightclubs doing it. If you give me a link I might have to change my mind though.

You may have to change your mind

The Office Nightclub in Dundalk, Co Louth, has a “Geordie Shore” night for Leaving Certs. Manager Kevin Carthy said: “All drinks are €2, including soft drinks.”

In Carrickmacross, Co Monaghan, Vanity Nightclub is having a Leaving Cert party with drinks at €3. The club’s Bernadette Walsh said: “We have a good relationship with Britvic so all splits or minerals are buy-one-get-one-free in the nightclub tonight.”

Tamango in Portmarnock, Co Dublin, is holding a Thai Full Moon party with glow paint, Thai whiskey and “sand buckets” of drink. The club’s Ronan Donegan said: “While we have alcoholic drink deals, we cater for non-drinkers as well, so a glass of any soft drink or mineral is €1.”

Sin nightclub in Temple Bar is promising a glass of champagne on arrival, C02 cannons, laser shows, fire breathers and “plenty of drinks promos and partying till 3am”. General manager Ciaran Gray said: “Alongside our drinks promos we also have virgin cocktails for €5 and our minerals are reasonably priced.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0815/1224322197301.html

All aimed directly at young people.

gaffer91

Millicent wrote: »

That's exactly the government's duty when it comes to public health.

I'd say it would be better for government to provide people with an honest education on smoking/drinking etc and let them make up their own mind. This obviously won't work out in all cases- I doubt there is a person in Ireland who doesn't know how bad smoking is for them yet they still do it- but it is infinitely preferable to a government which tries to guide/force people into what they view as more agreeable behaviour. Maybe smoking is a bad example because of 2nd hand smoke and its health effects but you get my drift.

yoyo

starbelgrade wrote: »

In fairness, this is hardly a scientific study.

I did a quick Google earlier on the effects the minimum price / increase in prices has on the consumption of alcohol and there are literally hundreds of studies and research papers available.

I didn't read any of them because I don't have the time, but I also think that if you're going to make blanket statements as if they were facts you should really have more to back it up than anecdotal stories.

Reading that link a can of lager must cost €1.10 minimum. If that's the minimum price all "better" lager prices will probably rise up above that regardless. How is "below cost" selling actually calculated? What is the minimum cost for a can of lager at present? I probably pay around €6/7 for 6 cans in Spar anyways.
My study isn't scientific, but I was just giving an example where someone I know who could afford to drink won't care what price it is, this person drank over 20 pints in a pub daily for many years, having to stop due to health reasons. I doubt a price rise of a pound to his pints would have cut that back.
Its just pointing out that rising the price of drink won't stop alcoholics or binge drinking, and it's hardly right to have a situation where everyone must have higher prices due to people who can't control it. As I pointed out we already have some of the highest prices in europe, and also apparently the higher rates of abuse. So I don't think the price is the issue here.

Nick

gaffer91

starbelgrade wrote: »

As I said earlier, I'm no expert on any of this - my point is mainly that it is an issue worth looking into and I don't think that providing anectodal evidence really adds anything to the debate. It certainly doesn't prove anything.

Fair enough- my point was just really that people continuously go on about below cost selling but I'd be curious as to how much of it really occurs.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You may have to change your mind

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0815/1224322197301.html

All aimed directly at young people.

Where does it say anything about below cost selling? Also these are special occasions and not exactly indicative of standard practice at a club on your average Saturday night.

usernamegoes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You may have to change your mind

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0815/1224322197301.html

All aimed directly at young people.

I don't have an issue with them reducing prices in order to attract young people or any people for that matter, over the age of 18.

I'd agree with others who say taht the state's function here is limited.

Bannasidhe

gaffer91 wrote: »

Fair enough- my point was just really that people continuously go on about below cost selling but I'd be curious as to how much of it really occurs.



Where does it say anything about below cost selling? Also these are special occasions and not exactly indicative of standard practice at a club on your average Saturday night.

This is one example nightclubs selling alcohol cheaply targeting young people found in less then 3 seconds on google.

Do you honestly think nightclubs are not currently running similar offers aimed at 3rd level student? The there is Holloween, Xmas, New Year 'special events.
I have witnessed pub's and nightclub's promo people interrupting lectures in an Irish university handing out flyers for their 'special event' drinks promos - at Xmas time this usually takes the guise of some eejit in an inflatable Santa suit.

But you want proof that clubs are selling below cost - perhaps you think they will publish a press statement to that effect?

Bannasidhe

usernamegoes wrote: »

I don't have an issue with them reducing prices in order to attract young people or any people for that matter, over the age of 18.

I'd agree with others who say taht the state's function here is limited.

Do you have an issue with young people drinking excessive amounts of cheap alcohol?

usernamegoes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is one example nightclubs selling alcohol cheaply targeting young people found in less then 3 seconds on google.

Do you honestly think nightclubs are not currently running similar offers aimed at 3rd level student? The there is Holloween, Xmas, New Year 'special events.
I have witnessed pub's and nightclub's promo people interrupting lectures in an Irish university handing out flyers for their 'special event' drinks promos - at Xmas time this usually takes the guise of some eejit in an inflatable Santa suit.

But you want proof that clubs are selling below cost - perhaps you think they will publish a press statement to that effect?

How are they making money from below cost selling? It's not like a super market where they can use it as a loss leader?