Shops to hide alcohol from view

gctest50

psinno wrote: »

Sweets probably kill more people.

Costs more, even though all you'll hear some people droning on about is A&E has the drunk peoples omg

You don't hear much of how it takes a few nurses and a small crane to move an ever growing number of the other ones

Treating alcohol-related injuries and diseases cost the healthcare system an estimated €1.2 billion

28 November, 2012. Findings from new safefood funded research¹ into the cost of overweight and obesity on the island of Ireland has estimated the annual cost to be €1.64 billion euros

CaptainR

The more I think about this the more it pisses me off, whatever happened to personal responsibility? The government are pushing this idea that people are idiots with no self control, that if not for the government, there would be alcohol fueled orgies on every street corner.

Its just so condescending it's ridiculous, the government aren't your parents and you're not their children.

snubbleste

Minister expects backlash to 'booze curtains' plan - but says it 'must happen'

Marcella Corcoran Kennedy expects a backlash to her plans on "booze curtains", including from the Independent Alliance, but is prepared to go to war on the issue.
"You'd expect that because we're talking about alcohol. I think it's probably because we have a culturally unusual relationship with alcohol"
Proposals have already met huge opposition from the drinks industry, shopkeepers, Fine Gael backbenchers and members of Government.

nice_guy80

VinLieger wrote: »

The reasoning "restrict visibility so that children and young people will not be attracted to alcohol"

Shes a fvcking retard thinking a mystery curtain will remove children curiosity about alcohol

They'll need to install curtains in every house to stop children seeing the parents get trolleyed at home

pawrick

Strikes me as a quick fix PR solution to a complex problem and so will have little to no affect on the people who need help the most.

Stealthfins

It'll be all nuts soon,all well be able to eat is nuts and pulses.

Society is going nuts,there will be no more acidic foods allowed,all alkaline from here on out......

E cigarettes are the start of it,soon we'll have synthetic alcohol....

goose2005

foggy_lad wrote: »

30+ years ago we used to bring half bottles of vodka to the school discos to mix with the little bottles of cola on sale inside.
.

This was written in the 1910s:

If the priests knew all the drink that bees drunk
at concerts in aid of Temperance Halls you wouldn't see
a building of that kind in the country.

"Now down with me last night to the concert with
me two lovely half-pints of malt. Well, to make a long
story short, I finished one of them before I went in. I
wasn't long inside, and I think it was while Harry Hoi-
ton was singing, when who should give me a nudge only
Hubert Manning: 'Are ye coming out, Shamesy?' says
he. He had two bottles of stout and a naggin, and
we had them finished before Harry Holton had done his
first song. I was striving for to crush back into me
place when who should I knock against only Farrell
McGuinness? He had a lot of bottles in his pocket.
He seemed to have about four dozen of stout on his
person, according to the noise he made : ' For the honor
of Jases/ says he, 'will you not spill me porter?' But
then when he saw it was me he had in it : ' Come to hell
oura this/ says he, 'into the night air/ I was so glad
to see that he hadn't broken his bottles, I introduced
th 'other half pint. Sure he nearly swallowed it, bottle
and all. Then we fell to at the porter, and such a
bloody piece of drinking never was seen. And it wasn't
that we had plenty of drink of our own, but strange
people were coming running through the wood putting
half-pints and naggins into our mouths just as if we
were little sucking childer. I fell a corpse under a tree
about eleven. I don't know how long I was insensible,
but when I came to I had a quare feeling that I was in
Hell or some place. I wasn't able to move an inch, I
was that stiff and sick. . . . Somewhere near me I could
hear two whispering and hugging in the darkness.
They were as close as ever they could be. I couldn't
stir to get a better look for fear they'd hear me. But
there was quare goings on I can tell you, things I
wouldn't like to mention or describe.

Estrellita

James Bond Junior wrote: »

This is why people like trump and possibly Le Pen are elected and why we had Brexit. Leave us the funk alone to live our lives. Most people don't get an urge to buy 6 bottles of wine and a case of vodka when they nip to the shop for a packet or rolos. Nanny state nonsense!!!!!

By the same token, if you really want a drink you don't have to see the advertisements or the drink in the window.

I was going to say I don't care either way, but if pushed to have an opinion then I don't see any harm in it being banned from windows, and even go as far as putting pictures of riddled livers on the back of bottles, just like they did with cigarettes. Alcohol is addictive too, why not?

Richard Hillman

It is amazing the things that TDs are ready to "go to war" over.

Anti-Social behaviour? No
Violent Crime? No
Corporate Ticket Touting? No
Islamic Extremists? No
Fake news? No
Car Insurance? No
Putting curtains around alcohol? Most definitely.

Ferrari3600

I'm ok with the proposals tbh. I also think that petrol stations should be banned from selling alcohol full stop. The fact they were ever allowed to was lunacy in my view.

oppenheimer1

CaptainR wrote: »

The more I think about this the more it pisses me off, whatever happened to personal responsibility? The government are pushing this idea that people are idiots with no self control, that if not for the government, there would be alcohol fueled orgies on every street corner.

Its just so condescending it's ridiculous, the government aren't your parents and you're not their children.

Personal responsibility or lack there of is fine when your actions only effect yourself.

The government has a role in limiting alcohol abuse since it is society that carries much of the cost of dealing with the problem.

Hidden sections of supermarkets for the display of alcohol and tobacco products is a measure used in other countries. I can see how it could reduce impulse buying, and while wine isn't stacked high in front of the tills like sweets, alcohol is usually within line of sight of the tills.

VinLieger

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Personal responsibility or lack there of is fine when your actions only effect yourself.

The government has a role in limiting alcohol abuse since it is society that carries much of the cost of dealing with the problem.

Hidden sections of supermarkets for the display of alcohol and tobacco products is a measure used in other countries. I can see how it could reduce impulse buying, and while wine isn't stacked high in front of the tills like sweets, alcohol is usually within line of sight of the tills.

But its not being done under the idea of reducing impulse buying, also who actually impulse buys alcohol?

The reasoning being put forward is to hide it from view of children which shows a complete lack of real understanding about how children think, hiding something from view behind a mystery curtain will discourage no children I have ever met it will simply make it more mysterious and add to the mystique and specialty of alcohol which we already have to deal with when people turn 18 and binge on the magical thing they've been told is sooooooo amazing their entire lives but they arbitrarily cant touch or view till they are 18

elperello

Estrellita wrote: »

By the same token, if you really want a drink you don't have to see the advertisements or the drink in the window.

I was going to say I don't care either way, but if pushed to have an opinion then I don't see any harm in it being banned from windows, and even go as far as putting pictures of riddled livers on the back of bottles, just like they did with cigarettes. Alcohol is addictive too, why not?

Why not?

Because having a glass or two of wine with your dinner or a bottle of cold beer on a Summers day or a hot toddy by the fire in Winter are normal harmless activities.

Absolutely no need to inflict "pictures of riddled livers" on people who drink moderately just because some others can't.

nice_guy80

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

I'm ok with the proposals tbh. I also think that petrol stations should be banned from selling alcohol full stop. The fact they were ever allowed to was lunacy in my view.

Shops selling booze should be off licence only, like in Australia and Canada
Supermarkets should have a separate section for alcohol

GritBiscuit

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Personal responsibility or lack there of is fine when your actions only effect yourself.

The government has a role in limiting alcohol abuse since it is society that carries much of the cost of dealing with the problem.

This.

While I'm no fan of moves towards a nanny state, there is no doubt the government should be making decisions for the greater good. If society benefits as a whole from a step back from the rather unhealthy relationship it currently has with alcohol then a few people being miffed is a fair price to pay. Whether this particular proposal does actually achieve anything other than a "won't someone think of the children" PR stunt wrapped in a misguided illusion of societal benefit is a fair question tho...

Estrellita

elperello wrote: »

Why not?

Because having a glass or two of wine with your dinner or a bottle of cold beer on a Summers day or a hot toddy by the fire in Winter are normal harmless activities.

Absolutely no need to inflict "pictures of riddled livers" on people who drink moderately just because some others can't.

"Inflict" my hole. I enjoy a glass of wine like the next person, am I going to be offended by it? No. But not everyone drinks at a moderate rate, you are being deliberately obtuse.

The drama round here is fcuking tiresome at times.

Stonedpilot

Silly idea, people who want to drink are gonna drink. Hardly a deterrant now is it?.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!.

Richard Hillman

The country promotes The Irish Pub for Tourism but are still trying to brainwash people into think we have a bad relationship with alcohol.

Our relationship with alcohol is perfectly fine. A bunch of health Nazi's in the 90s looking for TV air-time started rambling on about this so called "Bad relationship" and it caught wind with the nanny staters. It is incredibly sad to see people actually believing this nonsense and going with it.

Drinking is part of our culture. If some people had their way, Irish culture would be completely eradicated.

Winterlong

Sick to the hind teeth of this crap. God help the next Fine Gaeler who knocks on my door looking for a vote.

nice_guy80

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The country promotes The Irish Pub for Tourism but are still trying to brainwash people into think we have a bad relationship with alcohol.

Our relationship with alcohol is perfectly fine. A bunch of health Nazi's in the 90s looking for TV air-time started rambling on about this so called "Bad relationship" and it caught wind with the nanny staters. It is incredibly sad to see people actually believing this nonsense and going with it.

Drinking is part of our culture. If some people had their way, Irish culture would be completely eradicated.

your relationship with alcohol might be fine

but the evidence points to large scale abuse of alcohol by a large number of people across the country

and I like to have a drink myself.
I've seen the damage it does to addicted friends and family members

Kitsunegari

nice_guy80 wrote: »

your relationship with alcohol might be fine

but the evidence points to large scale abuse of alcohol by a large number of people across the country

and I like to have a drink myself.
I've seen the damage it does to addicted friends and family members

Do you think that putting curtains over alcohol in the supermarket will stop a single one of those people from drinking?

It's another waste of time from the pc brigade trying to hide the world away behind a pair of curtains. Some of these politicans are so out of touch with reality. It's blatantly obvious why people are turning to the likes of Trump, Le Pen and their ilk.

Carlos Orange

Kitsunegari wrote: »

It's another waste of time from the pc brigade trying to hide the world away behind a pair of curtains.

This is nanny state not PC.
There are lots of different types of idiots out there.

Dempsey

The Government and Vintners are in collusion to protect the pubs position in Irish Tourism

Everything the government are doing everything to help the industry over the last number of years and the rhetoric of the Vintners is nanny state control of alcohol with the pub trade's profits benefiting over people's personal choice.

How about the government does more to fund and promote education on alcohol/health, amenities, sports etc that take away from the pub culture instead of a prohibition style approach which will only fuel the problem.

Look at Good Friday, everybody stocks up on alcohol for the simple fact that there is a blanket ban on sale of it. People are giving outdated laws in this country the two fingers and the government cant get their head around it.

nice_guy80

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Do you think that putting curtains over alcohol in the supermarket will stop a single one of those people from drinking?

It's another waste of time from the pc brigade trying to hide the world away behind a pair of curtains. Some of these politicans are so out of touch with reality. It's blatantly obvious why people are turning to the likes of Trump, Le Pen and their ilk.

I agree

we should just nationalise all off-licences and put more control on the sale of alcohol
all profits would then go back into running public services
seems to work well in Sweden

dr.fuzzenstein

GritBiscuit wrote: »

This.

While I'm no fan of moves towards a nanny state, there is no doubt the government should be making decisions for the greater good. If society benefits as a whole from a step back from the rather unhealthy relationship it currently has with alcohol then a few people being miffed is a fair price to pay. Whether this particular proposal does actually achieve anything other than a "won't someone think of the children" PR stunt wrapped in a misguided illusion of societal benefit is a fair question tho...

Translated:
"I don't like what's happening! Won't someone think of the children! Please someone do (waves arms about) something!"
Let's look at some of the "genius" ideas that came from this and previous governments, especially not being able to purchase alcohol at every till, it is quite clear that most ideas and strategies were worked out on the back of a napkin in the pub. E-voting, Irish Water, the Poolbeg incinerator and for those of you who were paying attention, the Leap card. It may work now, but it cost easily three times as much as it would have cost and taken three times as long than if someone competent and focused were to be put in charge of it, say a braindead monkey for example. The Port Tunnel being too low is another great one, well, basically everything any Irish administration touches.
I have seldom seen any evidence that Irish government ministers expend any time, energy or (perish the thought!) mental energy on any issue. Unless the issue has to do with collecting money, like motor tax. Suddenly the Irish administration develops an efficiency that will make any German, Swiss and Swedish person marvel and look on in silent awe and astonishment. Anything that looks like it won't make any money, garner votes and is likely to cause someone negative exposure if it goes wrong, will be swept under the rug, have some half-arsed legislation thrown at it and other than that elicit nothing more than a stifled yawn from any government minister or public administrator.
Most countries work through education, initiatives, information and only then through taxation or banning something. Sometimes there is even coordination and cooperation between different departments! :eek::eek::eek:
Here the government simply taxes what it can't ban and maybe bleats some empty phrases at people (Speed Kills! springs to mind, funny, I traveled at 240 km/h and I'm still alive) and otherwise looks at their watch at 11 AM and says "Lunch?"

darkpagandeath

nice_guy80 wrote: »

your relationship with alcohol might be fine

but the evidence points to large scale abuse of alcohol by a large number of people across the country

and I like to have a drink myself.
I've seen the damage it does to addicted friends and family members

Would that be the so called evidence that removed non drinkers to make the per capita look bigger and destroying the idea of per capita ? And including those under age that cannot purchase it legally.

Irish Guitarist

Just smear the bottles with faeces. That will stop people buying them.

The Raptor

OK, serious question. If this happens, what's the story with online shopping and buying drink. Would they have to hide alcohol from their website?

Dempsey

The Raptor wrote: »

OK, serious question. If this happens, what's the story with online shopping and buying drink. Would they have to hide alcohol from their website?

The morons that thought up of this havent thought that far ahead.

They are looking to hit supermarkets and off licences first because they are making too much money at the expense of pubs

machiavellianme

But I don't want to go to a pub? Extra costs to get there and back safely, babysitter expenses and having to endure an uncomfortable atmosphere surrounded by shouty drunk people I don't know and blaring loud music that I've no interest in. No thanks vintners, I'll turn to home brew or Newry brew or literally any other brew that doesn't see a cent go to you.

Pinch Flat

What next, beef curtains?

Outlaw Pete

I do see their logic tbf.

When I see women wearing burqas I just nod hello and barely give them a second thought, but whenever I see scantly clad women.. I simply have to have them.

lertsnim

Hiding alcohol works. I have cans in the fridge that I can't see and I am not drinking them right now.

machiavellianme

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What next, beef curtains?

They use them to hide the butter mountains

steddyeddy

What about hiding food with high sugar content? Diabetes is a bigger problem. Or they could actually educate people instead of something as stupid as using curtains to hide the problem.

Curtains FFS.

Estrellita

The Raptor wrote: »

OK, serious question. If this happens, what's the story with online shopping and buying drink. Would they have to hide alcohol from their website?

Honestly, I think people saying no to this are deliberately creating problems. You have to wonder why the defensiveness. If you don't need drink advertised to decide you would like to have a drink, then what actually is the problem here?

Again, if you want to go to a website that sells alcohol, you are there to buy it because you choose to.

As I said, I take a drink myself. If the advertisements disappeared I wouldn't give a s.hit. I can make an informed decision to drink or not to. But I fully accept that not everyone is in control of how much they consume. If you are in full control of what you consume, what is the problem. The outrage about this is baffling to me.

riclad

This is ridiculous children cant buy alcohol ,maybe the government could build more schools playgrounds and playing sports centres to provide places for people to practise sports rather than bringing in stupid laws .
do children not watch programs like eastenders and coronation st ,
which feature long scenes set in pubs .
Are we supposed to pretend that no one drinks beer or wine.

jelutong

The Taliban are in town.

Carlos Orange

Estrellita wrote: »

Honestly, I think people saying no to this are deliberately creating problems.

Quick rule of thumb, you can't create a problem by not changing something.

nice_guy80

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I agree

we should just nationalise all off-licences and put more control on the sale of alcohol
all profits would then go back into running public services
seems to work well in Sweden

they shouldn't be sold in the supermarkets as theyre hitting the off licences too

beggars_bush

this will cause a flood of people going north

I really think our politicians are clueless
they are too eager to listen to every bit of advice and 'consultation' that they are fed
a real politician would stand up and say no, we'll just enforce the legislation we already have to stop children buying alcohol and close off the areas of supermarkets when sales are no allowed

Richard Hillman

If we don't nip this carry on in the bud now, there will be a day where we end up with plain packaging beer/wine and no alcohol advertisements at all. It will go exactly the way of Tobacco and we cannot allow that.

Now, to remove all the crap food from prominent positions and put it in the corner at the back and push the fruit and healthy foods up where the Tayto and chocolate currently is. That's what happens in shops across the continent. Basic common sense - which is why the junk food industry want to keep ramming their products into our view - "eye line is buy line" - even if we're just dropping in to the shop to pay for diesel.

hatrickpatrick

Estrellita wrote: »

Honestly, I think people saying no to this are deliberately creating problems. You have to wonder why the defensiveness. If you don't need drink advertised to decide you would like to have a drink, then what actually is the problem here?

Again, if you want to go to a website that sells alcohol, you are there to buy it because you choose to.

As I said, I take a drink myself. If the advertisements disappeared I wouldn't give a s.hit. I can make an informed decision to drink or not to. But I fully accept that not everyone is in control of how much they consume. If you are in full control of what you consume, what is the problem. The outrage about this is baffling to me.

It's because its an example of the nanny state - the government trying to influence people's choices and behaviours - which rubs some of us the wrong way no matter what the cause is. I don't like the idea of the government trying to control how I think or behave, and neither do a lot of people.

Wanderer78

hatrickpatrick wrote:

It's because its an example of the nanny state - the government trying to influence people's choices and behaviours - which rubs some of us the wrong way no matter what the cause is. I don't like the idea of the government trying to control how I think or behave, and neither do a lot of people.

Been going on since the creation of the state, marketing industries have also been at it since their creation as well

mansize

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If we don't nip this carry on in the bud now, there will be a day where we end up with plain packaging beer/wine and no alcohol advertisements at all. It will go exactly the way of Tobacco and we cannot allow that.

Why is advertising and packaging so necessary???

machiavellianme

Keeps the cost of the TV licence down. Otherwise talented Tubs might up and leave if we don't pay mega bucks.

hatrickpatrick

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Been going on since the creation of the state, marketing industries have also been at it since their creation as well

I realise that it's been going on since the creation of the state, I just don't approve of it in any way. And I regard social conditioning as different to commercial conditioning - the latter is simply done for the sake of profit, the former is done from a supremacist, arrogant standpoint of "my way of living is better than yours, ergo I'm going to try and coerce you into adopting mine". I regard the latter ideology as insidious. It flies in the face of the concept of living in a free society.

Estrellita

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't like the idea of the government trying to control how I think or behave, and neither do a lot of people.

This country has a big problem if a lot of people feel not displaying alcohol is some kind of mind control. It's absurd really.

osarusan

Is this not just a solo run on her part, with everybody else opposing it?

With all the waffle about pc brigades and Trump and Brexit, it's like some people want this stuff to happen so they can lament how f**ked everything is.