Minimum Alcohol pricing to be signed into Law

um7y1h83ge06nx

I'll be increasing my homebrewing if they bring this in so I'm covered for beer and various wines.

As for spirits, I'll probably just pick stuff up when on holidays. You could use yeast that has a high alcohol tolerance and then do some freeze distillation (that piece is a bit shady but handier and safer than standard distillation) but not sure if you could make something decent.

I really do think that from a health point of view this may back-fire - home distilled spirits might become popular again.

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

They seem to have pretty much covered everything alas.

Did they cover meal deals? I hate reading those legal docs, always on the lookout for double negatives.

i.e. can tesco still sell wine, steak & ice cream as a deal?

And my other suggestion was the ability to sell cheap beer along with expensive wine or expensive beer, where the combined units and price is above the minimum.

BeerNut

The Royal College of Physicians has set up an e-mail utility so you can contact your TD and Senators to tell them how much you support the Bill. And, oh look, it allows you to replace their suggested wording and put in your own.

Mesrine65

BeerNut wrote: »

The Royal College of Physicians has set up an e-mail utility so you can contact your TD and Senators to tell them how much you support the Bill. And, oh look, it allows you to replace their suggested wording and put in your own.

My e-mail re., minimum pricing of alcohol...

"I wish to register my objection to the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill.

The very principle of minimum pricing goes against individual freedom & responsibility.

Undoubtedly, there are a small percentage of society who suffer from alcohol-related problems including binge drinking & anti-social behaviour.

However, to punish the vast majority of responsible drinkers for the actions of a troublesome few by hiking up alcohol prices across the board is at worst completely unfair & at best, downright perverse.

The people who would be most penalised by minimum pricing are those who are already on tight budgets, such as pensioners, people on fixed incomes or those in low-paid jobs.

I simply cannot understand the logic, at a time of economic austerity, how anyone can justify imposing further artificial price rises, deliberately targeted at the very poorest in society.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies in the UK, produced a report on minimum pricing that found that poorer households, compared with richer households, on average pay less for a unit of off-sale alcohol.

As a result, a minimum price per unit would have a larger impact on poorer households & virtually no impact on richer ones.

In addition, the process of setting a minimum price is predicated on the assumption that raising the price of alcohol will make those who misuse alcohol behave differently, that is an incredibly simplistic belief.

In fact all of the evidence shows that alcohol pricing has little impact on the habits of heavy drinkers.

Those who like to drink to excess are the least likely to be deterred from drinking by price rises.

We know that inflation increases in excise duty for several years, Ireland already has some of the highest priced alcohol in Europe & yet there is no evidence to support the notion that these high prices have deterred alcohol misuse.

High tax/high price countries like Sweden, the UK & Ireland tend to have a problem with alcohol misuse whereas low tax/low price Spain & Italy do not.

All of which suggests that minimum unit pricing wouldn't work to combat the real issues of binge drinking & alcohol misuse which we all agree is the problem, but is very likely to reduce the intake of responsible drinkers.

If wine suddenly jumps from €7 to €14 a bottle, then clearly some people will buy less.

But this doesn't mean that alcohol misuse by an undeterred minority is going to be lowered."

dr.fuzzenstein

Deleted User wrote: »

They seem to have pretty much covered everything alas. Homebrew/border runs are the option if they do somehow get this through. Or Toilet Duck.

You'll be seeing the pink elephants again...

dr.fuzzenstein

Mesrine65 wrote: »

My e-mail re., minimum pricing of alcohol...

"I wish to register my objection to the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill...

(cut)

Here's mine:
I wish to register my objection to the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill.

The very principle of minimum pricing goes against individual freedom & responsibility.

Let's have a look at the argument "Price and availability are to blame for alcohol misuse". Back in Germany I can get a 700ml bottle of 40% vodka and a 6x500ml pack of beer at 5% alcohol for LESS than €15. Do you see hoardes of Germans crawling around on their hands and knees, puking p*ssing and fighting? No!
With that I'm afraid the price argument is out the window. So having proven that price is NOT the driving factor, why on Earth would anyone use price as the primary tool to control alcohol usage? Especially considering the fact Ireland has some of the highest, if not the highest, alcohol prices in Europe. It has proven to achieve nothing.
This measure is absolutely nothing but a very thinly and badly disguised measure to get people back into pubs, run by the very good friends and relatives of the government, the vintner's federation.

Furthermore, this measure is a bonanza for criminal gangs already smuggling counterfeit cigarettes by literally the boatload into this country, it will be no problem for them to add a few containers of booze from china with Jameson labels, probably containing industrial alcohol cut with god knows what.
This measure will ensure hard-up families will struggle even more, because a problem drinker will always drink, he/she doesn't care if the children go hungry as long as they get their fix.
Revenue for the government will fall, but not because people drink less, but because they will buy dodgy, fake booze from criminals, brew their own at home or make runs across the border or to France to stock up for the year.

The end result will be a marginal reduction in alcohol purchasing (but not consumption), increased smuggling, gang violence, increased costs of policing and increased cost of healthcare.
I am extremely sceptical that this measure will achieve the desired effect and fear that all signs point towards it being counterproductive.

rubadub

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Revenue for the government will fall.

More points need to be made about the fact that the retailers are getting the bulk of the increase, the government could easily have found a way to get this additional money. And increase in excise would have effected the more expensive drinks and wealthier people.

To be fairer they would be hitting the wealthier just as hard, if they want a 1 euro can to become 2 euro then a 2 euro can should become 4 euro or more.

The retailers should not be getting this money, they might experience a drop in sales but so fcuking what? they are dealers in recreational drugs, the government had zero sympathy for other recreational drug dealers i.e. the head shop owners they screwed over when they banned mushrooms (a knee jerk reaction due to a suicide involving alcohol, where alcohol has extremely strong links to suicide) and then the more recent range of drugs.

syklops

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Here's mine:
I wish to register my objection to the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill.

The very principle of minimum pricing goes against individual freedom & responsibility.

Let's have a look at the argument "Price and availability are to blame for alcohol misuse". Back in Germany I can get a 700ml bottle of 40% vodka and a 6x500ml pack of beer at 5% alcohol for LESS than €15. Do you see hoardes of Germans crawling around on their hands and knees, puking p*ssing and fighting? No!
With that I'm afraid the price argument is out the window. So having proven that price is NOT the driving factor, why on Earth would anyone use price as the primary tool to control alcohol usage? Especially considering the fact Ireland has some of the highest, if not the highest, alcohol prices in Europe. It has proven to achieve nothing.
This measure is absolutely nothing but a very thinly and badly disguised measure to get people back into pubs, run by the very good friends and relatives of the government, the vintner's federation.

Furthermore, this measure is a bonanza for criminal gangs already smuggling counterfeit cigarettes by literally the boatload into this country, it will be no problem for them to add a few containers of booze from china with Jameson labels, probably containing industrial alcohol cut with god knows what.
This measure will ensure hard-up families will struggle even more, because a problem drinker will always drink, he/she doesn't care if the children go hungry as long as they get their fix.
Revenue for the government will fall, but not because people drink less, but because they will buy dodgy, fake booze from criminals, brew their own at home or make runs across the border or to France to stock up for the year.

The end result will be a marginal reduction in alcohol purchasing (but not consumption), increased smuggling, gang violence, increased costs of policing and increased cost of healthcare.
I am extremely sceptical that this measure will achieve the desired effect and fear that all signs point towards it being counterproductive.

Top notch!

Shelflife

rubadub wrote: »

Thats if they bother enforcing it to the exact wording. Look at the smoking ban, many say it was successful but technically the majority of "smoking areas" I see in dublin city centre pubs are illegal. But they are not outright taking the piss so it's tolerated.

I often walk through a rugby pitch near me, reading that bill it would seem I cannot wear a few tshirts & hats I have there if a match is going on as they have small drinks logos on them.

Has anyone spotted any obvious loopholes or work arounds in it?

Rubadub this part of the legislation is already in law but it was agreed that it wouldn't be enforced mainly because we lobbied for its removal and pointed out the absurdity of it. I actually explained it to a high ranking member of the opposition - now a high ranking member of govt who agreed that it was stupid at the time of introduction.

Now he is part of the govt who are going to enforce this stupid piece of legislation, you couldn't make it up !

Dempsey

How many TD's & Councillors have vested interest in pubs??

I've yet to hear a good argument for minimum pricing. Anyone that argues for it has a vested interest in the pub trade or in the case of Leo Varadkar, a €100m hole in his health budget...

BuilderPlumber

BeerNut wrote: »

The Royal College of Physicians has set up an e-mail utility so you can contact your TD and Senators to tell them how much you support the Bill. And, oh look, it allows you to replace their suggested wording and put in your own.

Twofaced is how I would describe organisations like the RCPI. All these top doctors publically come out and support this rubbish yet they drink copious amounts themselves and live it up in general. With regard to the price and to the damage this will do to sporting, musical and cultural events: they do not care about the price as they are anything but poor and do not make money from the later.

BuilderPlumber

Shelflife wrote: »

Rubadub this part of the legislation is already in law but it was agreed that it wouldn't be enforced mainly because we lobbied for its removal and pointed out the absurdity of it. I actually explained it to a high ranking member of the opposition - now a high ranking member of govt who agreed that it was stupid at the time of introduction.

Now he is part of the govt who are going to enforce this stupid piece of legislation, you couldn't make it up !

Proof that the political parties are all working for certain vested interests. The usual chorus of politicians, doctors, high end alcohol sellers and vintners team up and condemn home drinking and the availability of cheap drink.

The usual stuff comes out: the health professionals come out and say 'binge drinking' suddenly becomes just drinking 3 pints. Everyone suddenly becomes an alcoholic by this definition. The vintners come out and say drinking in their places is responsible and the measures are correct. Politicians back up this. The media then go on and on about what all of these are saying and there is a campaign to brainwash the people. I don't buy this and it is velvet fascism.

BuilderPlumber

Dempsey wrote: »

How many TD's & Councillors have vested interest in pubs??

I've yet to hear a good argument for minimum pricing. Anyone that argues for it has a vested interest in the pub trade or in the case of Leo Varadkar, a €100m hole in his health budget...

I have met just 5 people who are pro this rubbish. It happens to be a coincidence these 5 people also own pubs!

Gaygooner

I don't own a pub and I support it.


People in Ireland drink far too much alcohol.

The price in Norway is about €9 a pint.

rubadub

Gaygooner wrote: »

I don't own a pub and I support it.
.

Do you not see any downsides at all? e.g. the fact these recreational drug dealers will get the bulk of this money, rather than the government?

Would you also like to see excise duty reduced or scrapped?

Gaygooner wrote: »

People in Ireland drink far too much alcohol.

will you be happy to see them turn to spirits which will now be the same price per unit?

Gaygooner

rubadub wrote: »

Do you not see any downsides at all? e.g. the fact these recreational drug dealers will get the bulk of this money, rather than the government?

Would you also like to see excise duty reduced or scrapped?


will you be happy to see them turn to spirits which will now be the same price per unit?

I drink spirits and a mixer. I don't drink to excess.

We had late opening on Thursdays and had to scrap it because absenteeism rose and production collapsed on Fridays.

We as a nation have a poor relationship with alcohol

rubadub

So no reasonable answer to anything I asked, just as I thought...

Seems bizarre the lack of consideration the "pro" people are giving to this, and the possible unintended consequences.

Gaygooner

rubadub wrote: »

So no reasonable answer to anything I asked, just as I thought...

Seems bizarre the lack of consideration the "pro" people are giving to this, and the possible unintended consequences.

What are you talking about??? What responsible answer do you want??? A unit of spirits is just as harmful as a unit of beet

Gaygooner

Excise duty help pay for all the drunks clogging up our A&E's every weekend

expectationlost

title of thread was a bit presumptious and still is

BuilderPlumber

Gaygooner wrote: »

I don't own a pub and I support it.

People in Ireland drink far too much alcohol.

The price in Norway is about €9 a pint.

There are people in Ireland who drink far too much alcohol and who are a threat to others after they do so. But I am not one of these people, either are you from what you said in your later message. I oppose being punished because of a crowd of yobbos who are drinking way too much and shouting and roaring on our streets and getting violent.

Are we the only country where people can shout and roar late at night and the police do not arrest these people? Try doing this in France, Germany, Czech Republic or Austria and you will see what will happen. You will be picked up by the police and dealt with.

The way to solve this problem is not upping the price of supermarket drink but using police resources to arrest and punish drunk and disorderly individuals and gangs who pose a threat. Ironically, the majority of these types despite all the cheaper alcohol in Tesco, etc. are causing trouble at pub and club closing times. They ARE buying the more expensive stuff from vintner run establishments!

Gaygooner wrote: »

I drink spirits and a mixer. I don't drink to excess.

We had late opening on Thursdays and had to scrap it because absenteeism rose and production collapsed on Fridays.

We as a nation have a poor relationship with alcohol

Pubs still open til 12 on a Thursday (11.30 last orders, 12 finishing up). I'm sure many relax that closing time by a bit. In all our cities, there are late bars and clubs every night. Those who come into work drunk or hungover do not deserve their job and are a liability not an asset. I would never drink on a night before work. Pubs on weeknights are quiet or else full of drunk and disorderly 'students'.

Many in Ireland have a poor relationship with alcohol. But we also have a poor record of legislation. While prices go up, the shouting, roaring potentially violent yobbos on our city streets at around 12 weeknights and around 1 weekends for pubs and around 2 or 3 in the morning for clubs will remain. Many city dwellers have to endure this every night of the week and still a blind eye is turned to it. Yes, we DO need legislation to end alcohol abuse and alcohol related antisocial behavior. But upping the price is not the way: that's like a teacher giving detention to the whole class rather than the 2 individuals who were responsible for an act.

I was in Norway, in a regional city not Oslo, and the price of what I was drinking in a pub was not €9. It equated more to what I would pay for it here in a pub. I'm sure in Dublin you'd pay €9 in many places and even in small town, craft beer is often this price. This is totally ripping people off but it shows what the vintners would do if they could.

Gaygooner

If we drink less the increase will have much less of an impact. I can't understand the mentality of people who go out each weekend and pišs so much of their money up against a wall. 1l Jameson was €25 in Barca, bought one. Does me a long time.

Gaygooner

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

There are people in Ireland who drink far too much alcohol and who are a threat to others after they do so. But I am not one of these people, either are you from what you said in your later message. I oppose being punished because of a crowd of yobbos who are drinking way too much and shouting and roaring on our streets and getting violent.

Are we the only country where people can shout and roar late at night and the police do not arrest these people? Try doing this in France, Germany, Czech Republic or Austria and you will see what will happen. You will be picked up by the police and dealt with.

The way to solve this problem is not upping the price of supermarket drink but using police resources to arrest and punish drunk and disorderly individuals and gangs who pose a threat. Ironically, the majority of these types despite all the cheaper alcohol in Tesco, etc. are causing trouble at pub and club closing times. They ARE buying the more expensive stuff from vintner run establishments!



Pubs still open til 12 on a Thursday (11.30 last orders, 12 finishing up). I'm sure many relax that closing time by a bit. In all our cities, there are late bars and clubs every night. Those who come into work drunk or hungover do not deserve their job and are a liability not an asset. I would never drink on a night before work. Pubs on weeknights are quiet or else full of drunk and disorderly 'students'.

Many in Ireland have a poor relationship with alcohol. But we also have a poor record of legislation. While prices go up, the shouting, roaring potentially violent yobbos on our city streets at around 12 weeknights and around 1 weekends for pubs and around 2 or 3 in the morning for clubs will remain. Many city dwellers have to endure this every night of the week and still a blind eye is turned to it. Yes, we DO need legislation to end alcohol abuse and alcohol related antisocial behavior. But upping the price is not the way: that's like a teacher giving detention to the whole class rather than the 2 individuals who were responsible for an act.

I was in Norway, in a regional city not Oslo, and the price of what I was drinking in a pub was not €9. It equated more to what I would pay for it here in a pub. I'm sure in Dublin you'd pay €9 in many places and even in small town, craft beer is often this price. This is totally ripping people off but it shows what the vintners would do if they could.

What were you drinking? When I ordered a Jameson and 7uo it was 210Nk in the city and 169Kr in the Irish bat on the outskirts

Didn't see many drunks floating around Olso

BuilderPlumber

Gaygooner wrote: »

What were you drinking? When I ordered a Jameson and 7uo it was 210Nk in the city and 169Kr in the Irish bat on the outskirts

Didn't see many drunks floating around Olso

Local Norwegian beer in Bergen and a spirit called Aquavit (or something) in Stavanger. You do not see drunk and disorderly types in any European city. The police would have them taken off immediately.

Ireland is the only country I have seen gangs shouting and roaring at the top of their voices no doubt tanked up on a combination of alcohol and cocaine. They are menacing and potentially violent. Yet, a blind eye is turned.

I would propose and support legislation like the following. Leave prices as is (in fact, they should be lower prices in Ireland not just for alcohol products but for ALL products and services: there is too much of a rip off). BUT:

1. Anyone caught shouting, urinating, vomiting, etc. and thinking it funny should be arrested and fined and then warned doing it again would be a criminal offence.
2. Anyone who ends up in the A&E due to alcohol abuse should pay more for it and should not be covered by medical cards or health insurance.
3. Anyone violent or a threat should be jailed.
4. Employers can state coming into work hungover or drunk is a breach of contract. Anyone who shows up to work like this has no respect for their job and do not deserve it.

That way, we target the culprits at this while we do not punish the people who are innocent and can drink responsibly. The increase in price will not stop these anti-social drinkers. What baffles me about them is they seem to be loaded with money and do not work. I can join the dots about what they do for a living and it explains their violent and couldn't care less attitude. Just watch the parties in the earlier series of Love/Hate to give you an indication of what I mean.

I would be the first to approve of legislation that would target those yobbos and get them into prison and get them to pay up for what they do. Get them to clean up their own excrement and get them to pay for any damage caused and send the violent ones to do prison time would be a start.

Mesrine65

Gaygooner wrote: »

A unit of spirits is just as harmful as a unit of beet

Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole, terrible hangover of it & you wake up looking like ye've been sucking lollipops all night :eek:

Gaygooner

Gaygooner wrote: »

We had late opening on Thursdays and had to scrap it because absenteeism rose and production collapsed on Fridays.

Link to dates and pre- and post-absenteeism rates before and after said dates. Please.

Gaygooner

Deleted User wrote: »

Link to dates and pre- and post-absenteeism rates before and after said dates. Please.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/FinalReport.pdf/Files/FinalReport.pdf

odyssey06

Gaygooner wrote: »

Excise duty help pay for all the drunks clogging up our A&E's every weekend

(1) This legislation has nothing to do with excise duty and the extra price will not go to helping any A&E.
(2) What about the smokers buying counterfeit tobacco or the druggies buying highly illegal drugs? Push the price of alcohol up high enough and drinkers will go down the same route - either obtaining booze illegally, or up north, and then there will be even less excise duty.
(3) If you want to stop alcohol abuse, directly target that, don't indirectly affect the entire adult population most of whom don't abuse alcohol.

hots

As much as I'm completely against the minimum pricing, I could at least understand the concept more if it was being done through excise duty and at least the rise would contribute back to the country...

rubadub

Gaygooner wrote: »

What are you talking about??? What responsible answer do you want???

eh, my entire post was questions! WTF are YOU talking about.

Gaygooner wrote: »

Excise duty help pay for all the drunks clogging up our A&E's every weekend

So I take it you would not like to see it reduced? if not then do you not think it's crazy not to be getting even more tax, rather than lining the pocket of the retailers? They are in effect bringing in a "sin tax" but not bothering to actually take the tax! pure madness, and I still feel many people are not aware of this, I have heard people say stuff along the lines of "of course they are getting it, sure whats the point otherwise, why wouldn't they get it, who gets it?"

Gaygooner wrote: »

A unit of spirits is just as harmful as a unit of beet

Most doctors would say otherwise, as spirits are far more likely to be drank at higher concentrations, and can be drank faster. You will hear of alcoholics like Shane Magowan saying doctors telling him to lay off the spirits and stick to strong wine or beer. You see it in pubs all the time, "last order culture", people turning to strong spirits at the end of the night, as they are incapable of drinking beer as they are so full. 700ml bottles are traditionally far cheaper per ml than smaller bottles so people will be getting these. Once drunk people can lash down spirits far too easily. This is already evidently acknowledged by the law, as exicse duty per unit is currently about twice that on spirits as is it is on beer -to disuade spirit drinking and have a higher "sin tax" attached to it.