Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

VinLieger

Deedsie wrote: »

Reducing alcohol misuse is obviously the priority and most important part of any bill.

Except it isnt, there is no evidence to support that MUP affects consumption. Also FG have been caught out by their manifesto from 2011 which blatantly states the original intention for this was to help out the pub trade

weldoninhio

Deedsie wrote: »

It can have more than one benefit. Public drunkenness and littering go hand in hand unfortunately. Reducing alcohol misuse is obviously the priority and most important part of any bill. However if it also reduces this I will be very pleased.

http://connachttribune.ie/thousands-empty-buckfast-bottles-found-claddagh-basin-022/

I would imagine "thousands" is a little hyperbolic. And there are millions who'd agree with me.

weldoninhio

Deedsie wrote: »

Thousands of plastic bottles polluting the water table is a real issue to a lot of people. God the tone on this thread is militant against any change to how alcohol is consumed in Ireland. Its amusing.

What alcohol comes in plastic bottles?? You are all over the place with your points. First it was the litter, now its imaginary plastic bottles. Are you just in her to wind people up??

VinLieger

Deedsie wrote: »

Thousands of plastic bottles polluting the water table is a real issue to a lot of people. God the tone on this thread is militant against any change to how alcohol is consumed in Ireland. Its amusing.

LOL im really not, this bill has nothing to do with positively changing attitudes and has all to do with about Vintners keeping their stranglehold on the alcohol trade. If you want to talk about people refusing to change how alcohol is consumed you might want to open your eyes and take a look at them

elperello

Deedsie wrote: »

Ever taken part in a river clean, coast clean, street clean?

Yes I have on many occasions and while I share your concern for the environment I don't feel that me paying more for my bottle of beer at home before dinner will help.

kylith

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.

If they'd just beg, borrow, or steal it'd be bad enough, but if they can't afford booze then they'll turn to alternatives like meths, hand sanitiser, and fck knows what brewed up in someone's bath and guaranteed to only have an 80% chance of turning you blind.

People think this will help public health? I say that we have yet to see the kind of problems that'll be caused if alcos can't get their fix.

Deedsie wrote: »

Thousands of plastic bottles polluting the water table is a real issue to a lot of people. God the tone on this thread is militant against any change to how alcohol is consumed in Ireland. Its amusing.

Booze rarely comes in plastic bottles. It's the soft drink and bottled water crowd you should be directing that ire at.

kylith

Deedsie wrote: »

Sorry I beg your pardon. I thought Buckfast had changed to plastic bottles. Thousands of glass bottles in the claddagh basin is much better.

Reintroduce a deposit on glass and plastic bottles, say 5c for plastic and 50c for glass, and you just watch people save them up and return them. They've done it with plastic pint glasses at festivals and, iirc, it really helped clean up. People were going searching for the things. Some countries have plastic banks in train stations: insert 10 bottles = 1 free journey.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what? WE simply do nothing. Its an issue without an recourse?

Was that suggested?

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).

You said "abuse of alcohol" and this isn't even close to "abuse" of alcohol! People go to these events but for the most part, drink responsibly.

Fruthermore, the the aim of the law is not to limit access, it's to focus access in the pubs. Which, according to your first line above, is part of the "ingrained abuse of alcohol" so the law will actually aggreviate the porblems you claim exist.

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.

Badly researched points, both.

1 - Brand awareness - the number of craft-beer drinkers is rise, as is the number of people who think Budweiser/Heinicken et al are not really great beers. You say this yourself: things are changing. One of the worst things about going to the local in Ireland was the same choice of three or four bland branded beers.

2 - Traveling north - if you think people won't do it, you're either under the age of about 40 or you have chosen to ignore the memories of traffic jams full of cars going to Newry any given Saturday in the early 80s. They can, and they will. Also, there are several people talking about buying home-brew kits in this thread alone.

McMurphy

Deedsie wrote: »

Ugh, the government in drafting legislation do not just concern themselves with the impact solely under your roof.

No, it's the roofs over the VFI Owned establishments they're concerning themselves over.

elperello

Deedsie wrote: »

Ugh, the government in drafting legislation do not just concern themselves with the impact solely under your roof.

When the government proposes to interfere with my modest enjoyment of a safe legal product under my roof I am concerned.

Mr. teddywinkles

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Kids litter the road in front of my house with coke cans. Sugar tax. That'll teach those pesky kids

osarusan

kylith wrote: »

Reintroduce a deposit on glass and plastic bottles, say 5c for plastic and 50c for glass, and you just watch people save them up and return them. They've done it with plastic pint glasses at festivals and, iirc, it really helped clean up. People were going searching for the things. Some countries have plastic banks in train stations: insert 10 bottles = 1 free journey.

I would absolutely love to see a deposit system for plastic, glass, and metal drink containers.

ohnonotgmail

Deedsie wrote: »

Good for you. Unfortunately they have to look out for the greater good. I am sure that will be there chief concern. And some conspiracy theory about vintners too. Thats it I am sure.

no conspiracy theory needed. FG included it in their 2011 manifesto

Supporting Irish Pubs:
Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as
a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice
of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol
consumption and the viability of pubs.

McMurphy

Deedsie wrote: »

Good for you. Unfortunately they have to look out for the greater good. I am sure that will be there chief concern. And some conspiracy theory about vintners too. Thats it I am sure.

No conspiracy theories needed.

If you could point out the health concerns from their earlier manifesto, we can put the theory to bed.

In fact, I see the opposite. Theyre basically endorsing alcohol as a social safe past time.

But only in the safety of a nice warm VFI bar.

elperello

Deedsie wrote: »

Good for you. Unfortunately they have to look out for the greater good. I am sure that will be there chief concern. And some conspiracy theory about vintners too. Thats it I am sure.

Thanks for the good wishes but if you research this more rigourously you may come to the conclusion as I have that MUP will do nothing for the greater good.

VinLieger

Deedsie wrote: »

Good for you. Unfortunately they have to look out for the greater good. I am sure that will be there chief concern. And some conspiracy theory about vintners too. Thats it I am sure.

Conspiracy theory? They included it as posted above in their 2011 manifesto AND the Vintners have been lobbying consistently since then for it, check the lobby register if you don't believe me

https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/search?currentPage=1&pageSize=10&queryText=&subjectMatters=&subjectMatterAreas=&period=&returnDateFrom=&returnDateTo=&lobbyist=Vintners%27%20Federation%20of%20Ireland&lobbyistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

10 Times they are listed as actively lobbying for the Public Health Alcohol bill and MUP for 2016 and 2017 alone since the register was implemented, thats not counting all the times they were in discussing excise and you can be sure MUP was brought up in those discussions too

VinLieger

Deedsie wrote: »

I have already conceded that point several times. Whats wrong with promoting the pub? Social isolation etc etc

So your for better attitudes to alcohol but also think that people should be encouraged to go to the pub more?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deedsie wrote: »

IWhats wrong with promoting the pub? Social isolation etc etc

Nohting. Promoting it as the sole or most important promotion of a social life is probably one of the most limiting and counter-profdcutive ideas suggested on this board if you see alcoholism as a problem.

Theres nothing wrong with promoting the pub, but to understand why less people are frequenting, lets look at all the factors. Opening times is one of my bugbears. Is there anything more irritating than being out with a friend enjoying a couple of pints when you hear the dreaded "Last orders please!". You check your watch and its half eleven. To continue drinking its either try to find a late bar or go to a nite club(and I hate nite clubs).

So many nights instead of visiting my local establishment, I'll go to a friends house instead and we'll have a couple of cans, and I can go home when I want, not when someone thinks I should go home. Closing time tonight is 11.30. I got paid today and I finish work at 11. Will I be going for a pint on the way home? No point. If im lucky enough to make it to the bar before 11.30, I'll have to throw it back as I'll be turfed out by 12.

If you want to encourage people back to the pub, relax opening hours. If people find it hard to get up in the morning then they will have to grow up and start looking after themselves.

elperello

Deedsie wrote: »

I have already conceded that point several times. Whats wrong with promoting the pub? Social isolation etc etc

Nothing at all.
Let those who want to go to pubs enjoy themselves and let people who want to drink at home do likewise.
It's generally covered by the saying "live and let live".

ohnonotgmail

Deedsie wrote: »

I drink in a pub occasionally. I can also manage to drink responsibly. Like it or not, The Irish Pub is a big part of our tourism draw so it is natural that the government are going to support the pub over cheap booze in supermarkets.

So can most people who drink at home. so why the need to punish them?

Deedsie wrote: »

This does not equal "the bill is only to benefit vintners" It is mainly a public health initiative with impacts elsewhere.

if you believe that you are fooling yourself. Even FG didnt think that a few short years ago. their change of stance is purely political.

ohnonotgmail

Deedsie wrote: »

And who is saying anything different. Should we not also try to reduce the negative impacts caused by binge drinking etc? In the pub and in the home?

and how does minimum pricing reduce the negative impacts of binge drinking in pubs?

elperello

Deedsie wrote: »

I drink in a pub occasionally. I can also manage to drink responsibly. Like it or not, The Irish Pub is a big part of our tourism draw so it is natural that the government are going to support the pub over cheap booze in supermarkets.

This does not equal "the bill is only to benefit vintners" It is mainly a public health initiative with impacts elsewhere.

I don't see how it is part of the Governments remit to make me pay more for a bottle of wine to "support the pub"

elperello

Deedsie wrote: »

And who is saying anything different. Should we not also try to reduce the negative impacts caused by binge drinking etc? In the pub and in the home?

You are.
The whole point of this discussion is that you support the legislation and I don't.

VinLieger

Deedsie wrote: »

I drink in a pub occasionally. I can also manage to drink responsibly. Like it or not, The Irish Pub is a big part of our tourism draw so it is natural that the government are going to support the pub over cheap booze in supermarkets.

So you are for the government giving one section of an industry an unfair boost/advantage over another section?

Deedsie wrote: »

This does not equal "the bill is only to benefit vintners" It is mainly a public health initiative with impacts elsewhere.

Why do you keep ignoring the evidence in front of you that this is imply not true? You already admitted you agreed it will have no benefit to the public's health, are you retracting that now?

elperello wrote: »

Thanks for the good wishes but if you research this more rigourously you may come to the conclusion as I have that MUP will do nothing for the greater good.

Deedsie wrote: »

I have already conceded that point several times. Whats wrong with promoting the pub? Social isolation etc etc

Padraig Mor

Deedsie wrote: »

the government are going to support the pub over cheap booze in supermarkets.

The booze in the supermarkets isn't cheap - it just seems that way due to the rip off prices in pubs.

ohnonotgmail

Deedsie wrote: »

Where did I say it did. I am suggesting further measures to discourage alcohol misuse in the home and the pub.

the proposed minimum pricing will do no such thing. the only possible outcome is driving more people towards pubs. Funny that.

VinLieger

Deedsie wrote: »

And who is saying anything different. Should we not also try to reduce the negative impacts caused by binge drinking etc? In the pub and in the home?

But this does nothing to reduce either again there is zero evidence that MUP reduces consumption and if anything it will be increasing binge drinking in pubs.

ohnonotgmail

Deedsie wrote: »

20 bottles of beer for €20? Ya, thats responsible behaviour from a retailer

you know you're not obliged to drink them all in one go?

VinLieger

Deedsie wrote: »

20 bottles of beer for €20? Ya, thats responsible behaviour from a retailer

Why is it up to the retailer to be responsible? Why do people who drink too much suddenly get to abdicate their responsibility for buying booze and drinking too much?