Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Shelflife

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

3 pints of average 4.3 percent lager of an evening, is a far cry from what most of us know is actual binge drinking.

Thats the point I was making.

Figures are massaged to create the situation.

McMurphy

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Alcoholism and problem drinking is a huge issue in Ireland. It’s a hidden crisis. The bottle of wine or 6 cans a night crew are everywhere. People should be annoyed about the lack of support services for this problem, and not about 6 cans of karpackie going from 8 quid to a tenner.

Fake outrage.

Here's the thing, only the complete and utter foolish would deny that there are genuine cases of alcohol abuse in Ireland., and a lack of resources to treat same, be it via rehab counselling or other services.

The thing Is, the govt are pretending to tackle this in a very badly disguised, arse about face way.

A levy increase on alcohol sold would indicate that they were serious about taking in extra cash that they might ringfence towards treatment and reeducation centre's etc.

However, levying alcohol - period, would obviously impact the pubs (we can't have that now)

MUP in our case is merely guaranteeing drinks giants a higher profit margin, narrowing the price differences between a drink bought in a supermarket with that of a pub.

The alcoholic will continue to neck his drink regardless of how much they raise its cost. He will just forsake other things to get it.

Unless the gargle sold in the pubs that FG wish "to protect the viability of", is the kind of gargle that is immune to causing alcohol related problems than that of the gargle that the shops are selling, I call bullsiht on the whole scam.

Shelflife

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

Alcoholism and problem drinking is a huge issue in Ireland. It’s a hidden crisis. The bottle of wine or 6 cans a night crew are everywhere. People should be annoyed about the lack of support services for this problem, and not about 6 cans of karpackie going from 8 quid to a tenner.

Fake outrage.

people are annoyed that the services arent up to standard.

But instead of getting them up to standard and engaging in good education plans they are messing about with structural separation and MUP.

Rumpy Pumpy

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Donal55 wrote: »

And do you think more support services or addiction centres will be opened following the €2 increase on my 6 cans of karpackie?

There’s a positive correlation between increasing the price of alcohol and lower consumption. Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug, and any decrease in overall consumption is good news. Like fags. Less consumption will lead to fewer A&E visits, suicides, domestic violence.

So a few quid extra on cheap lager or wine is nothing but a good thing.

Donal55

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

There’s a positive correlation between increasing the price of alcohol and lower consumption. Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug, and any decrease in overall consumption is good news. Like fags. Less consumption will lead to fewer A&E visits, suicides, domestic violence.

So a few quid extra on cheap lager or wine is nothing but a good thing.

So nothing to do with services which you also conceded in your initial post are poor. And the price of alcohol isn't being increased across the board either. Just for those who don't frequent pubs.

McMurphy

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

There’s a positive correlation between increasing the price of alcohol and lower consumption. Alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug, and any decrease in overall consumption is good news. Like fags. Less consumption will lead to fewer A&E visits, suicides, domestic violence.

So a few quid extra on cheap lager or wine is nothing but a good thing.

So, to put it into context, we have a party in govt who wish to ensure the viability of establishments that dispenses this dangerous drug, many of its members are selling it in their pubs and shops, and we us as tax payers subsidising this same dangerous drug for them, at their own place of work via the Dail bar?

Worst shill ever.

Rumpy Pumpy

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

So, to put it into context, we have a party in govt who wish to ensure the viability of establishments that dispenses this dangerous drug, many of its members are selling it in their pubs and shops, and we us as tax payers subsidising this same dangerous drug for them, at their own place of work via the Dail bar?

Worst shill ever.

What’s your point exactly? That some politicians are publicans? That there’s a bar in the Dail? That night follows day?

Increasing the price of alcohol is a positive thing as it reduces consumption levels. Low cost alcohol is fuelling a crisis in home drinking and binge drinking. The lad hoovering back 42 cans a week to ‘relax’ or the lady polishing off 7 bottles of cheap plonk a week to ‘wind down after a long day’ are everywhere. Doing it at home, and often doing it alone.

This is a good news story, and will have positive health implications. Any other perspective is wrong, and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

Cantona's Collars

What about a maximum price on alcohol for those establishments that raise prices as it gets later into the night?
As it is we have laws that favour pubs,the hours off licences can serve have been cut and now the price of a drink to have at home is planned to raise....all to help "the health of the nation".
Problem drinkers will remain problem drinkers no matter what the price is.I see these lads with their cans, sipping on them from morning til night and repeating the cycle. What I don't see is the same fellas shoving as much booze into themselves as possible when a barman starts to call time.
I'll be out later for the rugby and will stay out for the football,if the government have their way I may drink 2 pints because 3 or more and I'm a binge drinker.

my poor tortured hands

In 1990 or thereabouts cans in the off-licence were about 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of a pint. (cans were 80p to £1, pints were £2.50 to £3.)

Now the cans are about 1/5 to 1/4 of the price, maybe 1/3 for more expensive stuff.
(cans are 80c to 1.25, pints are 4.00 to 5.00)

The government want cans to be about half the price of pints, about 2.00 to 2.50 per can, and about 4.00 to 5.00 for pints.


Brew your own beer and grow your own cannabis. See how the government likes them apples.

buried

I'll more than likely just give up booze the way things are going at this rate. It's a boring drug anyways and I can enjoy other avenues of escapism without its grim side effects. Feel bad for the moderate drinker who just wants to enjoy a few whenever and is now targeted as some sort of problem who must be taught a lesson through their wallet. Politicians would do well to be careful with this state level of control they're becoming increasingly fond of dishing out, if they think this will send people rushing back to the pub they are in for a big shock, the only result of this and similar measures is the people will more than likely vote in some sort of new shady politics that will promise the people "they will teach the controlling politicians a lesson".

Sofiztikated

If there's health problems now, wait until the spike in black market booze, and people drinking paint thinners and whatever ****e will be in "Smirnoffish" bottles.

We already know hiding a problem doesn't solve a problem.

McMurphy

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

What’s your point exactly? That some politicians are publicans? That there’s a bar in the Dail? That night follows day?

My point is quite clear. Alcohol is alcohol, it can't be something that needs to be encouraged, and the livelihoods of those selling it needs to be protected in one breath.

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.

And then having the same notion about "below cost selling" but with the "health" facade tacked on to it because, perhaps the last manifesto was too barefaced to ever fly with the public.

Increasing the price of alcohol is a positive thing as it reduces consumption levels. Low cost alcohol is fuelling a crisis in home drinking and drinking. The lad hoovering back 42 cans a week to ‘relax’ or the lady polishing off 7 bottles of cheap plonk a week to ‘wind down after a long day’ are everywhere. Doing it at home, and often doing it alone.

This is a good news story, and will have positive health implications. Any other perspective is wrong, and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

We already have consumption levels falling regardless of MUP or no MUP, as in the housing and motoring industry, this is politicians meddling in free markets, with the result that they will in all likelines, phuck it up(they've form here).

If they had any serious notions of tackling alcohol abuse from a health angle, they'd increase taxes (that would also raise the cost too you know) and ringfence the extra revenue generated for treatment.

But the truth of the lie gets exposed without much digging.

** see above text from 2011 manifesto**

This part in particular is the kicker.

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

The only health angle there is the heath of the publicans bank balance.

You usually come across as an intelligent enough lad, so I'm going to assume you're toeing the party line, rather than being a fool.

Rumpy Pumpy

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

There’ll be no impact on those going to the pub, picking up a special bottle of wine, or partaking in a few craft beers while watching a match at home. It will stop supermarkets from selling wine you could strip paint off a trawler with for 5 quid a bottle. Or slabs of strong lager for less than a euro a can.

This is a good thing. It’s good for the economy, good for public health, good for pubs, good for independent off licences, good for craft brewers.

It’s bad for alcoholics, German discount supermarkets, polish lager producers, and cranks on the internet who like to blame everything on ‘da gubberment’.

Sofiztikated

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

There’ll be no impact on those going to the pub, picking up a special bottle of wine, or partaking in a few craft beers while watching a match at home. It will stop supermarkets from selling wine you could strip paint off a trawler with for 5 quid a bottle. Or slabs of strong lager for less than a euro a can.

This is a good thing. It’s good for the economy, good for public health, good for pubs, good for independent off licences, good for craft brewers.

It’s bad for alcoholics, German discount supermarkets, polish lager producers, and cranks on the internet who like to blame everything on ‘da gubberment’.

It'll also be good for smugglers, dealers ("Ye know that sketchy bottle of whiskey, do you want a bag of sketchy coke to go with it?") and bad for small store owners , who will have to redo their shops to adhere to law, and peoples pockets in general.

Cheaper brands won't necessarily disappear, more premium brands will be want to maintain their premium price.

Why does drinking that off licence wine become safer to drink when you do it in a restaurant?

weldoninhio

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

What’s your point exactly? That some politicians are publicans? That there’s a bar in the Dail? That night follows day?

Increasing the price of alcohol is a positive thing as it reduces consumption levels. Low cost alcohol is fuelling a crisis in home drinking and binge drinking. The lad hoovering back 42 cans a week to ‘relax’ or the lady polishing off 7 bottles of cheap plonk a week to ‘wind down after a long day’ are everywhere. Doing it at home, and often doing it alone.

This is a good news story, and will have positive health implications. Any other perspective is wrong, and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

Hmmm, what to believe, your anecdotal evidence or the EOCD figures?? Ireland’s consumption is dropping year on year and has been over the last decade or so.

Rumpy Pumpy

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hmmm, what to believe, your anecdotal evidence or the EOCD figures?? Ireland’s consumption is dropping year on year and has been over the last decade or so.

Which is good.
Stopping supermarkets from selling cheap lager and gutrot wine will also help to bring consumption levels down.

This is a good news story and should be lauded as such.

ziggyman17

Rumpy Pumpy wrote: »

There’ll be no impact on those going to the pub, picking up a special bottle of wine, or partaking in a few craft beers while watching a match at home. It will stop supermarkets from selling wine you could strip paint off a trawler with for 5 quid a bottle. Or slabs of strong lager for less than a euro a can.

This is a good thing. It’s good for the economy, good for public health, good for pubs, good for independent off licences, good for craft brewers.

It’s bad for alcoholics, German discount supermarkets, polish lager producers, and cranks on the internet who like to blame everything on ‘da gubberment’.

You sound like a right laugh.....

Rumpy Pumpy

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

ziggyman17 wrote: »

You sound like a right laugh.....

I am, ya. What’s your point pal?

elperello

Currently you can purchase a bottle or can of quite nice beer for 1 euro, even less using special offers.
You can also buy a presentable bottle of wine for 5 euro using special offers.

Anything that stops you buying at these market prices is just robbery plain and simple.

ardinn

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that a poster who is rowing in behind MUP legislation, and claiming binge drinking doesn't happen in pubs is also a publican?

Where did I say I was behind the legislation - please point that out for me, I'll wait - you take your time. Your pig can help!

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Edit. I see the poster owns more than one pub.
And an off license too.

Its win/win for him if it gets brought in.

If this detrimentally effects off Licences, how does that equate to win win??

I shall also wait for this answer, should be a good one!!

Spanish Eyes

The hilarity of all this is the subliminal message..... drinking to excess in a pub/restaurant will save you from the dangers of alcohol consumption in your home, my child.

elperello

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The hilarity of all this is the subliminal message..... drinking to excess in a pub/restaurant will save you from the dangers of alcohol consumption in your home, my child.

Agreed.
And in some cases the drinks are exactly the same.
Bottle of Peroni in restaurant 5.50 euro GOOD
Bottle of Peroni at home 2.00 euro BAD

ardinn

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The hilarity of all this is the subliminal message..... drinking to excess in a pub/restaurant will save you from the dangers of alcohol consumption in your home, my child.

See the point is - You are limited financially in a pub, unless you have above average disposable income. And also, if you get locked in my pub i'll stop serving you and send you home, if you go to another pub the likelihood is you will be refused entry.

Example

A man used to drink in our place 3 nights a week, he'd have 3 pints and a half one and he would head home. he is an older man and needs his car, so when the big drink drive push happened he stopped drinking in the pub and started at home.

This man now buys a btl of Jameson EVERY day, has no social interaction in the evenings apart from talking to his dogs and is completely isolated where he is.

Now, this is a drink drive issue, but it shows what happens when people can buy cheap drink and consume with no time limit (closing time) no supervisions (barmen) very little price constraint (the bottle of J served in the pub as 35.5ml shots would be over €70)

That man would be a far healthier, happier, and better looked after by the community should he be in the pub 3 nights a week! No doubt about it.

buried

Do you or can you organize transport for your customers, ardinn? A little mini bus or something like that?

ardinn

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

buried wrote: »

Do you or can you organize transport for your customers, ardinn? A little mini bus or something like that?

We are very rural so have always arranged transport for those who want it free of charge at weekends. We can't do it every night though due to staff constraints etc, most weeknights only one person would be working.

Spanish Eyes

buried wrote: »

Do you or can you organize transport for your customers, ardinn? A little mini bus or something like that?

Exactly, they wouldn't even give you a packet of salty peanuts on the house. And it is moan, moan, moan.

If vintners made their pubs more inviting they would have half a chance, but they appear to do very little apart from having giant Tvs and a drink dispatching service.

Even once a year, say around Christmas if they provided a few chicken wings or something for the table, people would go WOW! not being used to such free grub in a pub.

Vintners have to do something now to help themselves, and a lift home for the old timers in a rural place would surely be a godsend to them.

Leroy42

ardinn wrote: »

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The hilarity of all this is the subliminal message..... drinking to excess in a pub/restaurant will save you from the dangers of alcohol consumption in your home, my child.

See the point is - You are limited financially in a pub, unless you have above average disposable income. And also, if you get locked in my pub i'll stop serving you and send you home, if you go to another pub the likelihood is you will be refused entry.

Example

A man used to drink in our place 3 nights a week, he'd have 3 pints and a half one and he would head home. he is an older man and needs his car, so when the big drink drive push happened he stopped drinking in the pub and started at home.

This man now buys a btl of Jameson EVERY day, has no social interaction in the evenings apart from talking to his dogs and is completely isolated where he is.

Now, this is a drink drive issue, but it shows what happens when people can buy cheap drink and consume with no time limit (closing time) no supervisions (barmen) very little price constraint (the bottle of J served in the pub as 35.5ml shots would be over €70)

That man would be a far healthier, happier, and better looked after by the community should he be in the pub 3 nights a week! No doubt about it.

Why not put a levy on all sales then? Its ok for wealthy people to drink whatever they want seems to be the reasoning.

And you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head. The issue isn't really price. Its convenience. It was not that this customer of yours didn't want to drink but your offering was no longer convenient. How will charging him more for the offy fix that issue?

Macy0161

The issue in that example isn't the price of the drink, it's (yet again) pubs not modifying their product to reflect a changed market place.

ardinn

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Exactly, they wouldn't even give you a packet of salty peanuts on the house. And it is moan, moan, moan.

If vintners made their pubs more inviting they would have half a chance, but they appear to do very little apart from having giant Tvs and a drink dispatching service.

Even once a year, say around Christmas if they provided a few chicken wings or something for the table, people would go WOW! not being used to such free grub in a pub.

Vintners have to do something now to help themselves, and a lift home for the old timers in a rural place would surely be a godsend to them.

WOW - You sir have never drank in our place haha! What a backward uneducated view - Have you only ever been in the one pub is it??

Laughable!!!

ardinn

I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.

Macy0161 wrote: »

The issue in that example isn't the price of the drink, it's (yet again) pubs not modifying their product to reflect a changed market place.

I understand that example is a bit off, I was using it more as an "effect of home drinking" more than pricing, which is related to the main issue!