Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh
Options
Comments
-
Out of curiosity.
This has been talked about for years, Roisin Shorthall as a Labor junior minister in the 2011 government set the ball rolling on it.
Why has it taken so long, and when will it be passed ?0 -
I hope it will help improve our relationship with alcohol. Public drunkeness is a scourge and something needs to be done. A&E's and courts are put under serious pressure from alcohol misuse and the behaviour of some people.
I hope minimum pricing helps but i dont think it will. Problem is it is hard to know what would help.
Yeah , the streets are absolutely choc a bloc with people who have had a few cans in their living room on a Saturday night, staggering home to their um, living rooms again.
No wait
Actually, the vast majority of public drunkenness is from people who have been out socialising in the pubs and nightclubs , who , due to closing restrictions, find.themselves being ejected from these licenses premises at much the same time, and congregate en-masse in the streets, where they piss against anything, and fight over anything from who skipped the queues in the chipper to who whistled for the taxi first.
But sure let's punish the folk who enjoy a sociable few in the living room , and try and force them back into the VFI Owned rat run pubs.
Wake up.0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »What being in Berlin shows you, though, is that there is absolueltly, unequivabley and definitiely NO connection between the price of the beer and the amounf of drunken problems it causes. Period. The argument in favour of minimum pricing as a health measure dies right here.
So if price isn't the driving factor, what do you think can explain the ingrained abuse of alcohol in Ireland and what should we be doing to tackle it?
I don't buy into the pricing argument. One only needs to go to an event with a free bar to see the effects of the ultimate of that thinking delivers. Are you suggesting that if they raised it to €10 that people would still consume it?
We saw consumption rise during the height of the economy, and fall back during the recession. That would indicate that price does have an impact.0 -
So if price isn't the driving factor, what do you think can explain the ingrained abuse of alcohol in Ireland and what should we be doing to tackle it?
I don't buy into the pricing argument. One only needs to go to an event with a free bar to see the effects of the ultimate of that thinking delivers. Are you suggesting that if they raised it to €10 that people would still consume it?
We saw consumption rise during the height of the economy, and fall back during the recession. That would indicate that price does have an impact.
Raising it to 10 euro will simply encourage black market operations and people home brewing far more than they do now.
It would be a half arsed prohibition.
People want to drink thats a fact, making it too expensive to afford it doesn't change the basic problem of people wanting to drink, get drunk and in many cases far too drunk, if they want to badly enough they will find a way regardless of price.
Consumption is still down in recent years when people have more money back in their pockets so it may be the recession caused consumption to drop but then whats the reason its still dropping?0 -
So if price isn't the driving factor, what do you think can explain the ingrained abuse of alcohol in Ireland and what should we be doing to tackle it?
I don't buy into the pricing argument. One only needs to go to an event with a free bar to see the effects of the ultimate of that thinking delivers. Are you suggesting that if they raised it to €10 that people would still consume it?
We saw consumption rise during the height of the economy, and fall back during the recession. That would indicate that price does have an impact.
Or it just points to the fact that we're getting older and can't drink as much, while the millenials aren't as bothered about picking up the slack.0 -
Advertisement
-
So if price isn't the driving factor, what do you think can explain the ingrained abuse of alcohol in Ireland and what should we be doing to tackle it?
I don't buy into the pricing argument. One only needs to go to an event with a free bar to see the effects of the ultimate of that thinking delivers. Are you suggesting that if they raised it to €10 that people would still consume it?
We saw consumption rise during the height of the economy, and fall back during the recession. That would indicate that price does have an impact.
Asked and answered.jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
Perhaps people being critical of price changes should suggest better alternatives to tackling alcohol abuse, because it sure will have some effect.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »As to how to tacckle alcohol abuse? Try creating alternative social entertainments to drinking.
As an aside, can you illustrate what you mean by "ingrained abuse of alcohol"?
I can't find the post that deals with price v levels of consumption, but the jist of it was that the argument was a fallacy based on two premises:
1 - there are cheaper alternatives to obtaining large quantities of alcohol (i.e - going up north, and brewing your own)
2 - having access to said large quantites of alcohol does not equate to drinking large quantites of alcohol (those who do the above, don't binge drink)Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
We saw consumption rise during the height of the economy, and fall back during the recession.
In other countries, price has gone down and consumption has gone down (Denmark). Price has gone down and consumption has stayed the same or dropped (UK). There is no clear correlation.
And you have to consider that even if price reduces total or per capita drinking, that is not really what you are after. You want measures that target unhealthy drinking - if a price rise discourages ordinary moderate drinkers and has no effect on ER admissions or public drunkenness, then you are deterring exactly the wrong behaviour.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »In other countries, price has gone down and consumption has gone down (Denmark). Price has gone down and consumption has stayed the same or dropped (UK). There is no clear correlation.
And you have to consider that even if price reduces total or per capita drinking, that is not really what you are after. You want measures that target unhealthy drinking - if a price rise discourages ordinary moderate drinkers and has no effect on ER admissions or public drunkenness, then you are deterring exactly the wrong behaviour.
What we need is legislation targeting Pubs that makes them responsible for the amount of alcohol they serve their customers similar to Australia, but nothing like that will ever happen because its the Vintners running this particular show0 -
I am wide awake, lucid and sober thanks. I see drunks with cans all over Dublin. Not buying them in pubs are they? They leave their dirty cans and bottles every where as well, littering our country.
The only person with their head in the sand is people not admitting their is a problem and something needs to be done about it. So you wake up.
These are the people who dont care about price and yet they are the people this bill is apparently being aimed at helping, you see the guy sitting in the gutter asleep with the open cider in his hand and 3 more beside him? Do you think he cares how much it costs to get his buzz?
I find it funny that you also seems to be more worried about littering than anything else though0 -
I find it funny that you also seems to be more worried about littering than anything else though
I actually agree on this bit. I really don't care if you stagger past my house at the weekend and injure yourself falling down, but it irritates me to have to pick up your cans, and especially your broken bottles.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am wide awake, lucid and sober thanks. I see drunks with cans all over Dublin. Not buying them in pubs are they? They leave their dirty cans and bottles every where as well, littering our country.
The only person with their head in the sand is people not admitting their is a problem and something needs to be done about it. So you wake up.
The thing is, people are creating or exaggerating problems in order to justify the solution. Case in point: you've now moved on to using littering in order to justify bringing in minimum-price alcohol.
Drunks with cans is going to happen. Alcoholism is a real thing. But to imply that it can be resolved instantly with a new law jacking up the price of alcoholic beverages (which you have effectively done in this post) is simplistic and erroneous.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Raising it to 10 euro will simply encourage black market operations and people home brewing far more than they do now.
It would be a half arsed prohibition.
People want to drink thats a fact, making it too expensive to afford it doesn't change the basic problem of people wanting to drink, get drunk and in many cases far too drunk, if they want to badly enough they will find a way regardless of price.
Consumption is still down in recent years when people have more money back in their pockets so it may be the recession caused consumption to drop but then whats the reason its still dropping?
So what? WE simply do nothing. Its an issue without an recourse?machiavellianme wrote: »Or it just points to the fact that we're getting older and can't drink as much, while the millenials aren't as bothered about picking up the slack.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Asked and answered.
As an aside, can you illustrate what you mean by "ingrained abuse of alcohol"?
I can't find the post that deals with price v levels of consumption, but the jist of it was that the argument was a fallacy based on two premises:
1 - there are cheaper alternatives to obtaining large quantities of alcohol (i.e - going up north, and brewing your own)
2 - having access to said large quantites of alcohol does not equate to drinking large quantites of alcohol (those who do the above, don't binge drink)
Ingrained. I mean that within our society alcohol is given an elevated status. Most events have a major alcohol component. Weddings, funerals, concerts, festivals etc. The person not having a 'proper' drink in the pub is looked at with amusement (this is changing but is still pretty prevalent).
In terms of the alternatives, there are normally cheaper alternatives to most things. Lada cars for example did exactly what the other cars did. A football jersey is the same no matter what colour/make it is. We are very brand loyal in Ireland (again this is changing). Time also comes into it. Brewing your own takes time and investment - same as driving up the North. And both only work if the total you are spending on drinking is sufficient to warrant the investment required.
Of course limited access will lead to a reduction. Most people won't go to the bother of illegal hooch, home brewing or going to France on the booze cruise. To get to that point you need to admit that you have a pretty high dependency on the product. Almost all drinkers in Ireland are binge drinkers according to the definition. That people simply disregard the definition doesn't change the fact.Zubeneschamali wrote: »In other countries, price has gone down and consumption has gone down (Denmark). Price has gone down and consumption has stayed the same or dropped (UK). There is no clear correlation.
And you have to consider that even if price reduces total or per capita drinking, that is not really what you are after. You want measures that target unhealthy drinking - if a price rise discourages ordinary moderate drinkers and has no effect on ER admissions or public drunkenness, then you are deterring exactly the wrong behaviour.
First off, we have a unique relationship to alcohol in Ireland. Close to the UK but very different than many other countries. Alcohol is much like any other good, in that price rises will lead to less product being bought. Of course in the case of alcoholics this does not stand up, but what % of the population are would fall into that category? Either a small amount and so not massive effect or a large amount in which case we have a bigger issue than we are accepting.
It comes down to most people don't believe that what they are doing is unhealthy drinking. We simply ignore the reports about binge drinking levels as it doesn't suit the way we drink.
So what is a healthy amount?
It a more social effect that you are after. You will always have drug addicts, and people who speed in their cars etc etc, but you want to make them as unacceptable as possible. One of the major wins for the anti-cigarette campaign is that smoking is now seen as socially unacceptable. Smokers are moved away from others.
If 'normal' drinking (ie not abusers etc) is reduced then, over time the acceptance of alcohol as the centre of almost everything we do in Ireland will start to erode. True this legislation alone won't achieve that, but it might put off people from buying the slab of beer and only buying a six pack instead.What we need is legislation targeting Pubs that makes them responsible for the amount of alcohol they serve their customers similar to Australia, but nothing like that will ever happen because its the Vintners running this particular show
Totally agree. But it needn't be an either or.0 -
I am wide awake, lucid and sober thanks. I see drunks with cans all over Dublin. Not buying them in pubs are they? They leave their dirty cans and bottles every where as well, littering our country.
The only person with their head in the sand is people not admitting their is a problem and something needs to be done about it. So you wake up.
Have you any statistics as to what percentage of off-sales are attributed to lads on the streets, against those who enjoy a few drinks in moderation in the comforts of their own homes? My guess is that it's so tiny, that it's negligible.
You appear to be wishing to levy the vast majority of those responsible, for the problems of a tiny minority.
As already stated, the chronic alcoholic will continue to seek his buzz regardless of cost.
If price increases were the answer, sure we might as well canvass for the legislation of skag, and raise the prices to exorbitant levels, let's try pricing the junkies out of the market.0 -
The National Substance Misuse Strategy Group that most recently proposed this in their report, and this proposal is directly being implemented based on their recommendation, was completely biased towards publicans and drinking in pubs, and that is the main reason this proposal is coming in. It's a sop to publicans.
The alcohol lobby were unbelievably strong on this group and seemed to be happy enough to concede publicans at expense of off-sales.0 -
Totally agree. But it needn't be an either or.
But thats what your ignoring right now that it is an either with the vintners pushing their agenda, this legislation is without a doubt only being introduced because FG made a promise to Vintners back in 2011, since then they have realised the optics of that dont look good so they pivoted to health however they absolutely failed to find any valid evidence to back up the claim that this will have any effect on the problem they are claiming it will solve.
If you want to introduce a more responsible alcohol culture make people responsible for their actions, both the publicans serving the booze and the people consuming it, give the gardai more powers in both regards for dealing with people drunk and disorderly in public and legislation that punishes publicans who knowingly serve people far too much booze. That is a tactic we have never tried, we consistently keep going at the pricing aspect and it hasn't worked yet, its a tired phrase and used too much but the defintion of insanity is continually doing the same thing and expecting a different result.0 -
Have you any statistics as to what percentage of off-sales are attributed to lads on the streets, against those who enjoy a few drinks in moderation in the comforts of their own homes? My guess is that it's so tiny, that it's negligible.
You appear to be wishing to levy the vast majority of those responsible, for the problems of a tiny minority.
As already stated, the chronic alcoholic will continue to seek his buzz regardless of cost.
If price increases were the answer, sure we might as well canvass for the legislation of skag, and raise the prices to exorbitant levels, let's try pricing the junkies out of the market.
I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.
I agree that this, and pretty much any other legislation, will do nothing for those that suffer from alcoholism. They need help to overcome that. They need treatment centres. They need therapists. They strategies and professional help. Jacking up the price won't achieve any of those.
But what this type of legislation could do (and I agree that this particular legislation is flawed in design) is to reduce the availability of cheap alcohol. It is primarily going to impact younger people who are not already ingrained in drinking and making it harder for them to get the product (in this case by way of price). So instead of buying a slab of 24 they only be able to get 12. That 50% reduction in their alcoholic intake. Multiply that by a few years and the effects are pretty big.
Will it make much immediate impact? It might give pubs a brief reprieve. It might lead to a short lived increase in home brewing etc. But over time, alcohol will start to reduce in its hold on society.
So in truth, rather than help the pubs this legislation could actually hasten their demise.0 -
But thats what your ignoring right now that it is an either with the vintners pushing their agenda, this legislation is without a doubt only being introduced because FG made a promise to Vintners back in 2011, since then they have realised the optics of that dont look good so they pivoted to health however they absolutely failed to find any valid evidence to back up the claim that this will have any effect on the problem they are claiming it will solve.
If you want to introduce a more responsible alcohol culture make people responsible for their actions, both the publicans serving the booze and the people consuming it, give the gardai more powers in both regards for dealing with people drunk and disorderly in public and legislation that punishes publicans who knowingly serve people far too much booze. That is a tactic we have never tried, we consistently keep going at the pricing aspect and it hasn't worked yet, its a tired phrase and used too much but the defintion of insanity is continually doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
I'm not ignoring it, but what comes across in this thread is that people are against a price rise of any sort. You think people will accept having limits placed on them? We have heard that a price rise will lead to people driving to France and home brewing.
I am against this piece of legislation because it is flawed, but not in concept. If the price rise was a tax, with the tax ringfenced to deal with treatment centres/professionals etc then I'd be all for it.
I totally agree that both the police and the courts need to be much tougher on the anti-social effects of alcohol. It should never be allowed to be used as a mitigation factor. Publicans should also be held responsible for the product they sell, who they sell it too, and the amount. They should also be forced to offer better priced alternatives such as the rip off on soft drinks.0 -
I'm not ignoring it, but what comes across in this thread is that people are against a price rise of any sort. You think people will accept having limits placed on them? We have heard that a price rise will lead to people driving to France and home brewing.
I am against this piece of legislation because it is flawed, but not in concept. If the price rise was a tax, with the tax ringfenced to deal with treatment centres/professionals etc then I'd be all for it.
I totally agree that both the police and the courts need to be much tougher on the anti-social effects of alcohol. It should never be allowed to be used as a mitigation factor. Publicans should also be held responsible for the product they sell, who they sell it too, and the amount. They should also be forced to offer better priced alternatives such as the rip off on soft drinks.
if the price rise was a tax on alcohol then the vintners would not support it and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. this is nothing to do with health or the deleterious effects of alcohol. it is about protecting vintners.0 -
If we want to jack up the price of alcohol to reduce consumption, just add a % excise duty to all alcohol everywhere, champagne in the Shelbourne as well as Galahad in Aldi. The extra tax raised could be targeted on alcohol harm reduction, A&E services, public informaiton campaigns, addiction services or whatever.
But reducing consumption and harm is not what this is about. This is intended to keep cheap imports off the shelves, shore up sales of Irish produced alcohol, bolster pub sales and make sure revenue stays with the industry not the government.0 -
So if price isn't the driving factor, what do you think can explain the ingrained abuse of alcohol in Ireland and what should we be doing to tackle it?
I don't buy into the pricing argument. One only needs to go to an event with a free bar to see the effects of the ultimate of that thinking delivers. Are you suggesting that if they raised it to €10 that people would still consume it?
We saw consumption rise during the height of the economy, and fall back during the recession. That would indicate that price does have an impact.
It will impact casual drinkers, who may have had more disposable cash to spend during the boom and perhaps went out more. It 100% will not effect problem drinkers and alcoholics, who would beg, steal or borrow to get alcohol if it was E10 a pint.0 -
Advertisement
-
weldoninhio wrote: »It will impact casual drinkers, who may have had more disposable cash to spend during the boom and perhaps went out more. It 100% will not effect problem drinkers and alcoholics, who would beg, steal or borrow to get alcohol if it was E10 a pint.
But you make it sound like impacting casual drinkers is a bad thing? Surely reduction in alcoholic intake is a good thing? There are plenty of non alcoholic alternatives out there, and maybe a measure like this will lead to breweries paying more attention to the non-alcoholic products that they produce.
If this legislation comes in, we could potentially seen a can of Heinekin for €2, with the can of Heineken Alcohol-Free at €1. If the producers do it right the taste could be almost the same. Why would you choose the most expensive option?
EDIT: Just looking back over my recent posts and I am deflection the discussion onto a separate issue, so I'll leave it there.0 -
But you make it sound like impacting casual drinkers is a bad thing? Surely reduction in alcoholic intake is a good thing? There are plenty of non alcoholic alternatives out there, and maybe a measure like this will lead to breweries paying more attention to the non-alcoholic products that they produce.
If this legislation comes in, we could potentially seen a can of Heinekin for €2, with the can of Heineken Alcohol-Free at €1. If the producers do it right the taste could be almost the same. Why would you choose the most expensive option?
Cus I want a beer with alcohol in it? Not 8 in one night just 1-2 that I can buy in bulk for a nice discount and spend a few weeks getting through.0 -
I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective.
I agree that this, and pretty much any other legislation, will do nothing for those that suffer from alcoholism. They need help to overcome that. They need treatment centres. They need therapists. They strategies and professional help. Jacking up the price won't achieve any of those.
But what this type of legislation could do (and I agree that this particular legislation is flawed in design) is to reduce the availability of cheap alcohol. It is primarily going to impact younger people who are not already ingrained in drinking and making it harder for them to get the product (in this case by way of price). So instead of buying a slab of 24 they only be able to get 12. That 50% reduction in their alcoholic intake. Multiply that by a few years and the effects are pretty big.
Will it make much immediate impact? It might give pubs a brief reprieve. It might lead to a short lived increase in home brewing etc. But over time, alcohol will start to reduce in its hold on society.
So in truth, rather than help the pubs this legislation could actually hasten their demise.
What is your definition of cheap alcohol?
We already have the 4th highest alcohol prices in Europe
This legislation will not target just young people. It targets all who ever buys the product
MUP is not the be all and end all that some believe
http://www.thejournal.ie/minimum-unit-pricing-alcohol-ireland-facts-2932210-Aug2016/0 -
But you make it sound like impacting casual drinkers is a bad thing? Surely reduction in alcoholic intake is a good thing? There are plenty of non alcoholic alternatives out there, and maybe a measure like this will lead to breweries paying more attention to the non-alcoholic products that they produce.
If this legislation comes in, we could potentially seen a can of Heinekin for €2, with the can of Heineken Alcohol-Free at €1. If the producers do it right the taste could be almost the same. Why would you choose the most expensive option?
it is a bad thing. why should people who drink occasionally be negatively affected because some people cant handle themselves when they drink? i'm not even going to mention the last question. that is something only a pioneer would ask.0 -
But you make it sound like impacting casual drinkers is a bad thing? Surely reduction in alcoholic intake is a good thing? There are plenty of non alcoholic alternatives out there, and maybe a measure like this will lead to breweries paying more attention to the non-alcoholic products that they produce.
If this legislation comes in, we could potentially seen a can of Heinekin for €2, with the can of Heineken Alcohol-Free at €1. If the producers do it right the taste could be almost the same. Why would you choose the most expensive option?
Some people like having a few beers after a weeks work. Alcohol alters your state (non-alcoholic beer doesn't) and it helps them blow off some steam. Why would you be against this, if it is not at a dangerous level. You have a very puritanical viewpoint.0 -
Prices of premium brands won't stay still when this comes in
Majority of vodkas and rums are 37.5% alcohol
Under the new legislation
700*0.375*0.789*0.10 = €20.71 MUP cost for a bottle of vodka, rum etc
That is the same for your Tesco, Aldi, Lidl vodka and rum as the premium brands
What will happen is that the lower brands will go up to the MUP and the premium brands will increase prices by the same amount just shafting all consumers0 -
I just heard Doctor Frank Murray on the radio saying that people who drink a bottle of wine costing 6 or 7 E won't be affected.
That is at the very least disingenuous.0 -
I just heard Doctor Frank Murray on the radio saying that people who drink a bottle of wine costing 6 or 7 E won't be affected.
That is at the very least disingenuous.
Usual garbage from the RCPI then, they have been at the head of this for a while too, by all accounts they walk around their building smelling their own farts they are so full of themselves for helping spew these lies to the public0 -
I just heard Doctor Frank Murray on the radio saying that people who drink a bottle of wine costing 6 or 7 E won't be affected.
That is at the very least disingenuous.
What a load of clap trap
If prices go up everyone is affected when they purchase something that used to cost less for the same product0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement