Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Zubeneschamali

ardinn wrote: »

I dont have to answer anything here by the way

No, you don't. But as in any debate, if you don't, people will assume that it's because you can't.

By coming here, stating the Vintners case and then refusing to engage with criticisms, you are making the Vintners case look worse.

Thanks for that.

Reputable Rog

VinLieger wrote: »

You haven't engaged though, you've behaved like a child and declared you are ignoring anyone who disagrees with you.

You did that after me replying to you once btw.

Now any chance you could address my original post which shows categorically that this has never had anything to do with public health?

I think that's a grossly unfair statement, he has engaged and articulated his view point.
He's not actively said that he supports MUP but would like a few more concessions for the publicans.

Macy0161

The place I was in over the weekend, in a rural location albeit a hotel, so in the sector that apparently needs a reduced VAT Rate - €5.90 for a pint of smithwicks. A third more than you'd pay for a non special offer craft beer 500ml bottle - The "on trade" is deluded if they think MUP is going to have everyone back into the pubs.

VinLieger

ardinn wrote: »

I certainly have engaged. That is not a fair statement.

I'm not behaving like a child either - If someone is annoying or insulting or whatever and I choose not to engage with that person thats my right, if you dont like it thats your issue to be fair!

Finally I cant even remember your post nor do I have a desire to go look for it.

Im not trawling through fg's "old" manifesto either if thats what this is in relation to - if you have a question ask it and if you have a source, link it and quote it!

I dont have to answer anything here by the way - you seem to think and behave like im on trial here or owe you something?! It's beyond baffling your demanding me to engage with you like we are at some town hall meeting!!

That's absolute garbage, i supplied you with the link you deliberately misinterpreted and pretty much accused me of trolling, you aren't engaging with any real debate and instead you are just stating your opinion as fact and not backing anything up, yet when confronted with real facts you dismiss them out of hand or ignore them completely.

Im not linking it again but you can check my post history or your post history in this thread for the relevant link its literally 2-3 pages back and again its section 5.3 on Page 27 of the file not the numbered pages as you well know by now, its not that hard and if you aren't willing to even do that you're basically admitting that you aren't willing to debate this at all and are just here to stamp your admitted bias opinion all over the thread and not properly engage.

VinLieger

Reputable Rog wrote: »

I think that's a grossly unfair statement, he has engaged and articulated his view point.
He's not actively said that he supports MUP but would like a few more concessions for the publicans.

He's articulated his viewpopint but refuses to engage with anyone else's and instead declares anyone who disagrees with him as being unqualified, inexperienced or a troll

Geuze

Macy0161 wrote: »

The place I was in over the weekend, in a rural location albeit a hotel, so in the sector that apparently needs a reduced VAT Rate - €5.90 for a pint of smithwicks. A third more than you'd pay for a non special offer craft beer 500ml bottle

And then pubs complain about a lack of trade!!!!

4.00 is a reasonable price for a pint of weak ale in a rural location.

Leroy42

Geuze wrote: »

And then pubs complain about a lack of trade!!!!

4.00 is a reasonable price for a pint of weak ale in a rural location.

But as Ardin has stated, they have costs so we need to pay more to make it worth their while.

I offered, admitedly only basic, pointers to how the pub trade could fight back but was told they had tried everything.

That really leaves only one conclusion. The pub trade, as currently constituted, is no longer viable. So instead of all this health concern nonsense lets face the reality.

So we need to look at the cost and process of licences. Rates. The power of the brewers. What sort of business relationship exists between the pub and the brewer. Are the pubs free to bring in other products? What can be done about insurance costs. Should opening hours be looked at? What about allowing them to offer specials.

Not doubt the lat few years have seen innovations such as more gastro-pubs, smoking garden etc, but it appears that it is not enough. So what its.

If we can agree on what the problem is (as alluded to in the FG manifesto) then we can first consider whether any intervention is necessary and then what form that should take.

I happen to agree that pubs do form a part of our culture. If they do, then why would we not look to invest in them much the same as we invest in the arts, music, heritage and language. That doesn't mean we should simply give them a free ride. There used to be a shop in every village but that is no longer the case. While regrettable, I don't hear anyone saying we should place restrictions on Tesco etc to help keep the corner shop open. (we tried that with bread etc)

The second point then is how that should happen. The government already made a move in that direction in the form of reduced VAT (albeit aimed at restaurants etc), but is MUP the way to go? I don't believe so as it places no responsibilities on the trade to give anything back.

I don't know the answer, but certainly simply wiping out the competition is not it.

my poor tortured hands

Publicans like for people to think that it's safer to drink in pubs. But that's not true.

It should be true, in that there are laws to protect drinkers, but in Ireland those laws are rarely enforced, and when they are, the case doesn't always succeed.

Barmen should not serve customers who are drunk, nor should they allow customers to play dangerous drinking games, like drinking 5 shots of vodka in a pint of Guinness.


This story reflects very poorly on Ireland.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/hotel-staff-on-trial-for-alcohol-death-153557.html

from the link above wrote:

A drinking competition started and Mr Parish said he could down 10 spirits faster than any of the others could down a pint or half-pint.

Mr McCarthy said it was the state’s case that the barman Aidan Dalton asked the bar manager Wright if it was OK to give him the shots and the bar manager said it was. Shortly after, Mr Parish collapsed and was taken by the group to the upstairs conference room, where he was found dead the following morning.

Mr McCarthy claimed the two bar staff were guilty of gross negligence and were both “actors” in the cause of Mr Parish’s death.

The bar staff above, including the manager, were not convicted despite the fact a man was dead, and despite their own behaviour, which was clearly inappropriate.

Don't believe the hype that drinking in pubs is safe.

The Irish State, and it's laws and institutions, are unfit for purpose.

ardinn

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

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, you don't. But as in any debate, if you don't, people will assume that it's because you can't.

By coming here, stating the Vintners case and then refusing to engage with criticisms, you are making the Vintners case look worse.

Thanks for that.

Luckily i couldnt give a flying fcuk what anyone assumes

I didnt state anyones case but my own.

Thanks for that!

ardinn

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

VinLieger wrote: »

That's absolute garbage, i supplied you with the link you deliberately misinterpreted and pretty much accused me of trolling, you aren't engaging with any real debate and instead you are just stating your opinion as fact and not backing anything up, yet when confronted with real facts you dismiss them out of hand or ignore them completely.

I thought you were trolling as the link you provided was false - sorry, but it was, I didnt have the time to go rooting through the other 100 pages to find your mistake - and as the page was on drugs (alcohol) and crime (for instance cartels) I thought you were trolling.

It was a fair assumption!

May I ask what real facts I have ignored?? Careful now on the "real" bit - please do your research before you go on an accusatory bender of misinformation

VinLieger wrote: »

Im not linking it again but you can check my post history or your post history in this thread for the relevant link its literally 2-3 pages back and again its section 5.3 on Page 37 of the file not the numbered pages as you well know by now, its not that hard and if you aren't willing to even do that you're basically admitting that you aren't willing to debate this at all and are just here to stamp your admitted bias opinion all over the thread and not properly engage.

I'll answer anything you want - be it to your satisfaction or otherwise, but im not going looking for whatever point it is you have to make for you. Find it and i'll give you my opinion. thats how it supposed to work I think.

"Im basically admitting" Would ye ever get down off yourself! Ive engaged with everyone who has a real point or is in some manner respectful, again If you want to have a discussion i'll have it - you seem to think im running scared of your masterful interrogation techniques or something!! get a life mate! either ask what it is you want to ask or go away and stop dereailing the thread with this crap!

hawkelady

Kat1170 wrote: »

ardinn wrote: »

They are not.

They are trying to stop access to your weekly limit of alcohol for less than €5 which can be achieved.

It's a health bill more than anything, im just backing up my argument with job statistics

From the Fine Gale Manifesto, Page 26,Sec 5, Community and Rural Affairs.Sub sec. 5.3, Keeping Communities Vibrant.

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 pub

HERE

You can, with all my heartfelt sincerity stick the HEALTH argument where the sun don't shine :mad::mad::mad::mad:

There it is ardinn ..... scratching backs time

Leroy42

I have a question for you Ardinn.

Do you think that the price of the product has implications on the health effects? For example, do you think a btl of Carlsberg from the offy at €1.50 is better or worse (or the same) than a bottle for €4.50 in a pub?

And therefore do you think that increasing the price of that btl from the offy will have a positive impact on the health benefits of the product?

I am talking about a single btl, not the long term effects as anything like that.

In my own view, there is not. So therefore targeting price for health grounds is a non-starter. Targeting quantity is the way to go but nothing in the MUP deals with that other than price. So those that have the means will not be affected by this.

It seems to me, that if they are looking to reduce alcoholic consumption (something I see as a worthwhile objective in society) then surely it should be the whole market that is targeted and not just one single sector.

ardinn

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

hawkelady wrote: »

There it is ardinn ..... scratching backs time

First off i'd like to know the question im being asked!

2nd

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.

is this what you are referring to??

I answered this allready - We are talking about MUP NOT the groceries order - they are 2 seperate issues and the above does not relate to the current legislation!!!!! Seriously - I answered that like 4 pages back!!!!

Minimum unit pricing is not below cost selling. I hope I have missed something here though and that wasnt the question, otherwise I will be totally underwhelmed after such a big build up!!!

ardinn

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

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have a question for you Ardinn.

Do you think that the price of the product has implications on the health effects? For example, do you think a btl of Carlsberg from the offy at €1.50 is better or worse (or the same) than a bottle for €4.50 in a pub?

And therefore do you think that increasing the price of that btl for the offy will have a positive impact on the health benefits of the product?

In my own view, there is not. So therefore targeting price for health grounds is a non-starter. Targeting quantity is the way to go but nothing in the MUP deals with that other than price. So those that have the means will not be affected by this.

It seems to me, that if they are looking to reduce alcoholic consumption (something I see as a worthwhile objective in society) then surely it should be the whole market that is targeted and not just one single sector.

But you are targeting the quantity by targeting the price. Specifically for problem drinkers and young people!

If you have a pound and a drink is a pound you can buy 1 - if the drink is 10 pence you can buy 10.

It may not be an ideal solution, or be fair to those on lower incomes, but thats the way it is - and you have kind of backed up my point the way you have worded yours.

If you can now buy 20 cans for €20 - and tomorrow you will have to pay €38 (or whatever) do you not believe that will, in itself lower consumption. You can dress it up whatever way you like - But it will - thats not to say im for or against it btw - im just saying it undoubtedly, undeniably, absolutely will lower consumption!

Leroy42

ardinn wrote: »

But you are targeting the quantity by targeting the price. Specifically for problem drinkers and young people!

If you have a pound and a drink is a pound you can buy 1 - if the drink is 10 pence you can buy 10.

It may not be an ideal solution, or be fair to those on lower incomes, but thats the way it is - and you have kind of backed up my point the way you have worded yours.

If you can now buy 20 cans for €20 - and tomorrow you will have to pay €38 (or whatever) do you not believe that will, in itself lower consumption. You can dress it up whatever way you like - But it will - thats not to say im for or against it btw - im just saying it undoubtedly, undeniably, absolutely will lower consumption!

Well you specifically avoided my question, even though I clearly stated I was talking about one unit. The reason I asked it, and knew you wouldn't answer, is the very reason you gave.

There is nothing magical about drinking in the pub to protect a person from the health effects.

From your response, it is clear that it is quantity rather than the specific price that is the issue. Price has the effect of limiting the quantity, at least for certain parts of society, but it is the lazy approach that happens to be useful to one sector of the industry.

So why not let people only buy certain quantities, same as we do for Paracetamol. No need to do anything on price. Pubs are not saying that they will limit quantity, so I don't see how you can make that argument

I agree that it will lower consumption, but only at the margins. People who rarely drink will buy 10 cans instead of 20. But what effect would it have on pub customers? None. Almost every year we see excise increases in alcohol, yet it makes no difference to consumption, so I don't think price is the only factor in the consumption of the product. And this is why I was earlier asking about alcohol problems prior to availability of cheap alcohol. This debunks the argument that getting everyone back into the pubs will solve the problem. All that has happened is that the problem has moved from the pubs to the home.

It is not in pubs interests to limit quantity, and they are not calling for any such moves.

The only limiting factor from MUP is disposable income. And we have seen time on again that people with addictions will go to great lengths to feed that addiction. Do drug users simply stop when the money runs out? Do smokers just stop when they are struggling with cash? Some do, but the majority don't.

Why do you think that people will stop drinking when the price goes up when all the evidence says otherwise?

elperello

More supporters of the Bill.

This list is from the Alcohol Action Ireland website. see link

http://alcoholireland.ie/campaigns/aha/

members of the Alcohol Health Alliance are:

Alcohol Action Ireland Royal College of Physicians of Ireland Health Service Executive
Irish Heart Foundation National Youth Council of Ireland Irish Cancer Society
Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
Children’s Rights Alliance The National Rehabilitation Hospital

Irish Road Victims’ Association, No Name Club,
Marie Keating Foundation, Purple House Cancer Support,
Irish College of General Practitioners, Aware, Samaritans,
Institute of Public Health, Rape Crisis Network Ireland,
The Rise Foundation, Alcohol Forum,
Cork Local Drug and Alcohol Task Force, Family Support Network,
The Irish College of Ophthalmologists, Union of Students of Ireland,
National Suicide Research Foundation,
National Women’s Council of Ireland, Alzheimer Society of Ireland,
Mental Health Reform, Irish Medical Organisation,
Social Justice Ireland, Men’s Health Forum, Irish Student Health Association,
Irish Dental Association, AMEN Support Services, Dual Diagnosis Ireland,
A Lust For Life,
REACT (Responding to Excessive Alcohol Consumption in Third-level)
Pavee Point, Barnardos, Environmental Health Association of Ireland,
South Western Regional Drug and Alcohol Task Force,
Galway Healthy Cities, Community Awareness of Drugs,
Ballymun Local Drugs & Alcohol Task Force,
Finglas/Cabra Drug and Alcohol Task Force, Tallaght Drug and Alcohol Task Force
Drugs.ie, Dental Health Foundation, One Step Clinic, Lifewise
Dr Siobhan Jennings, Dr Suzanne Cotter, Dr Hugh Gallagher, Professor Joe Barry
Dr Bobby Smyth, Jillian Van Turnhout, Professor John Crown,
Kathleen Moore Walsh, Law Lecturer, Waterford Institute of Technology

KrustyUCC

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have a question for you Ardinn.

Do you think that the price of the product has implications on the health effects? For example, do you think a btl of Carlsberg from the offy at €1.50 is better or worse (or the same) than a bottle for €4.50 in a pub?

And therefore do you think that increasing the price of that btl from the offy will have a positive impact on the health benefits of the product?

I am talking about a single btl, not the long term effects as anything like that.

In my own view, there is not. So therefore targeting price for health grounds is a non-starter. Targeting quantity is the way to go but nothing in the MUP deals with that other than price. So those that have the means will not be affected by this.

It seems to me, that if they are looking to reduce alcoholic consumption (something I see as a worthwhile objective in society) then surely it should be the whole market that is targeted and not just one single sector.

That would defeat the whole purpose of this from Fine Gaels point of view as they are only interested in getting people back into the pubs

Supporting Irish pubs not health

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.

All about the viability of pubs

Take the example of Graffenwalder can in Lidl. 500 ml * 4.8% *0.789 * 0.10
Currently €1.15

Will increase to €1.89 minimum

That is a 64.53% increase

That same can same product is 0.39c in Spain

So we will be paying 384.61% more for the same product

Nobody will convince me that the same can will do almost 4 times the same damage when in Ireland as opposed to Spain

Queen Margot 700ml whiskey at 40% is €9.99 in Germany

That same bottle will now need to be €22.09 over here

Is that same product magically twice as harmful over here than in Germany?

my poor tortured hands

It's ok for rich people to do what they want, but poor people must be controlled.

Get as drunk as you want on top shelf brandy but don't think about getting drunk if you're poor.

All we've done is replace the Catholic Church with different preachers and liars, but what has remained the same is that these people say 'do what I say, not what I do'.

Government, I don't intend to act as you would like.

Leroy42

elperello wrote: »

More supporters of the Bill.

This list is from the Alcohol Action Ireland website. see link

http://alcoholireland.ie/campaigns/aha/

members of the Alcohol Health Alliance are:

Alcohol Action Ireland Royal College of Physicians of Ireland Health Service...............

I can understand why they are supporting it. They have been fighting for something to be done for so long.

They see first hand the real effects of alcohol abuse across society. I imagine they have met with closed ears and disdain for many years.

So is this flawed, yes, but in their eyes it is better than nothing.

I think they are wrong headed. I think it is short term win at best and will only lead to moving the issues onto something else.

But I can understand it

ardinn

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

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well you specifically avoided my question, even though I clearly stated I was talking about one unit. The reason I asked it, and knew you wouldn't answer, is the very reason you gave.

Are you actually serious?? Are you completely mental or just trolling???!?!?!

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is nothing magical about drinking in the pub to protect a person from the health effects.

Where did I say there was??

Leroy42 wrote: »

From your response, it is clear that it is quantity rather than the specific price that is the issue. Price has the effect of limiting the quantity, at least for certain parts of society, but it is the lazy approach that happens to be useful to one sector of the industry.

It is quantity thats the issue - what a stupid post

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why not let people only buy certain quantities, same as we do for Paracetamol. No need to do anything on price. Pubs are not saying that they will limit quantity, so I don't see how you can make that argument

Yea sure why not - not a bad idea!

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree that it will lower consumption, but only at the margins. People who rarely drink will buy 10 cans instead of 20. But what effect would it have on pub customers? None. Almost every year we see excise increases in alcohol, yet it makes no difference to consumption, so I don't think price is the only factor in the consumption of the product. And this is why I was earlier asking about alcohol problems prior to availability of cheap alcohol. This debunks the argument that getting everyone back into the pubs will solve the problem. All that has happened is that the problem has moved from the pubs to the home.

There has been no increase in excise on alcohol for over 6 years - your so called "facts" are makey uppy nonesense

in 2016 it was deemed a major blow that excise was not REDUCED on alcohol.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not in pubs interests to limit quantity, and they are not calling for any such moves.

Water is wet!

Leroy42 wrote: »

The only limiting factor from MUP is disposable income. And we have seen time on again that people with addictions will go to great lengths to feed that addiction. Do drug users simply stop when the money runs out? Do smokers just stop when they are struggling with cash? Some do, but the majority don't.

I would argue the majority do but some dont. Having a shop I have first hand experience of price increases helping smokers quit. I have a very small e-liquid franchise and in the last 2 yrs I have sold about 200 kits out of the shop. The majority of those are straight after the budget increases!

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why do you think that people will stop drinking when the price goes up when all the evidence says otherwise?

You have presented no "evidence" only opinion, which I have answered with my own "opinion"

elperello

KrustyUCC wrote: »

That would defeat the whole purpose of this from Fine Gaels point of view as they are only interested in getting people back into the pubs

Supporting Irish pubs not health

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.

All about the viability of pubs

Take the example of Graffenwalder can in Lidl. 500 ml * 4.8% *0.789 * 0.10
Currently €1.15

Will increase to €1.89 minimum

That is a 64.53% increase

That same can same product is 0.39c in Spain

So we will be paying 384.61% more for the same product

Nobody will convince me that the same can will do almost 4 times the same damage when in Ireland as opposed to Spain

Queen Margot 700ml whiskey at 40% is €9.99 in Germany

That same bottle will now need to be €22.09 over here

Is that same product magically twice as harmful over here than in Germany?

Taking your figures for the Grafenwalder a very modest drinker consuming 6 cans per week and sharing a bottle of wine with his wife at the weekend will see an increase in his drink prices of €359 per year.

350 cans x 74 cent = €259
50 bottles of wine x €2 = €100

note: I am allowing for an increase of €2 for the wine on the basis that you can currently buy a bottle for €5.50 and the MUP will be €7.50
I also allowed for 2 weeks holiday (hopefully in Spain!)

my poor tortured hands

The government are very dishonest to use figures which they know are suspect or not representative.


For example, the government says Guinness is often sold at 1.65 euro per can.

8 cans for 13 euros does indeed work out at approx 1.65 each.

But most people look for cheaper brands. Guinness is often sold at 1.25 per can and is sometimes sold at 1 euro per can. LIDL sold crates for less than 24 at one stage in the last three years.



The important question is; what proportion of cans are sold at 1.65?
or..
What is the average sale price for a can of Guinness in Ireland?

I estimate that the average sale price of cans of Guinness would be about 1.30, not 1.65 which is the figure the government uses.



This Minimum Unit Price drastically increases prices at the lower end. It'll be very unpopular.

Zubeneschamali

ardinn wrote: »

Luckily i couldnt give a flying fcuk what anyone assumes

I didnt state anyones case but my own.

Keep it up!

elperello

my poor tortured hands wrote: »

The government are very dishonest to use figures which they know are suspect or not representative.


For example, the government says Guinness is often sold at 1.65 euro per can.

8 cans for 13 euros does indeed work out at approx 1.65 each.

But most people look for cheaper brands. Guinness is often sold at 1.25 per can and is sometimes sold at 1 euro per can. LIDL sold crates for less than 24 at one stage in the last three years.



The important question is; what proportion of cans are sold at 1.65?
or..
What is the average sale price for a can of Guinness in Ireland?

I estimate that the average sale price of cans of Guinness would be about 1.30, not 1.65 which is the figure the government uses.



This Minimum Unit Price drastically increases prices at the lower end. It'll be very unpopular.

As shown in my example above a drinker who is well within the 17 unit limit will end up paying more extra than what water charges would have cost.
In some cases people will pay more extra for their few cans than for their property tax.

Very unpopular when the penny drops.

VinLieger

ardinn wrote: »

the above does not relate to the current legislation!!!!!

My arse it doesn't

ardinn

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

VinLieger wrote: »

My arse it doesn't

Very good!

VinLieger

ardinn wrote: »

Very good!

Seriously, explain why the vintners are lobbying for this specific piece of legislation so hard then?

Do you honestly believe they care one iota for the public's health and this is not about yours and their own bottom lines?

Leroy42

Firstly Ardinn, I would appreciate if you could stop calling me names. I am trying to have a debate with you, and although I find many of your answers less than complete I have not reverting to name calling or induction as to level of education.

your anecdotal stories, whilst enjoyable, are no basis for anything. You mentioned smoking, but have those people actually stopped smoking or simply looked for a cheaper alternative. Second, I would agree that price increase have been a factor, but only a small factor. But in any case, it was across the board price increase. That is not the case for MUP. We already know, that people are prepared to pay way over the MUP for a drink.

You agree that quantity is the issue, and even agree that some type of limit is an idea. Should those limits be applied to pubs?

I don't need to provide evidence, you are the one saying it is the health benefits, the burden lies with you.

But here you go anyway;

http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Price/Factsheets/How-does-the-price-of-alcohol-affect-consumption.aspx

Alcohol is a relatively inelastic good. The report only claims that

heavy drinkers are less responsive to price, with a 1% increase in price reducing drinking in the group by 0.28%

So the very people that this is aimed at are the last ones to be change their behaviour!

I have asked on this forum numerous time for any data that shows the impact that MUP will have on the consumption. For that is the very cornerstone of your position. So show me the evidence.

Will a change in price affect consumption, yes of course it will. Nobody is arguing that is won't it is a simple supply (of money) vs demand (price of the product). But this appears to be a very crude, lazy and largely unproductive way of achieving the aim of reduction consumption. Far better would be much stricter regulations. Far more Garda on the road doing breath test both at night and in the morning. Getting a system to limit the amount of alcohol which a person can purchase at a time (a voucher system of such like for example). Tighter regulations on closing times (drinking up time being 10 minutes not an hour).

elperello

Leroy42 wrote: »

I can understand why they are supporting it. They have been fighting for something to be done for so long.

They see first hand the real effects of alcohol abuse across society. I imagine they have met with closed ears and disdain for many years.

So is this flawed, yes, but in their eyes it is better than nothing.

I think they are wrong headed. I think it is short term win at best and will only lead to moving the issues onto something else.

But I can understand it

When I look at the list of Bill supporters I would have to agree with you that there are some on it who genuinely believe in it.

However there are more on it who are just busying themselves about other peoples life choices.

At the end of the day they all have one thing in common. They all want to plunder my pocket to try out their little experiment.

ohnonotgmail

elperello wrote: »

When I look at the list of Bill supporters I would have to agree with you that there are some on it who genuinely believe in it.

However there are more on it who are just busying themselves about other peoples life choices.

At the end of the day they all have one thing in common. They all want to plunder my pocket to try out their little experiment.

still cant understand what skin The Irish College of Ophthalmologists have in this game.