Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

VinLieger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

Medical practitioner bandwagon im guessing

hawkelady

And pavee point. !!

ardinn

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

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

Where did I call you names??

Leroy42 wrote: »

your anecdotal stories, whilst enjoyable, are no basis for anything.

They are - unless your calling me a liar - your opinions are no basis for anything but im still engaging with them!

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

There is cheaper alternatives in the cigarette range as there is in alcohol - yes it's across the board but the cheaper options are still available as they will be when mup comes in - I believe "light" and reduced unit beverages will simply fill the void

Leroy42 wrote: »

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?

You see, this is an issue thats different in different types of pubs and opens up a wider issue, Im sure you will accuse me of avoiding your question but it isnt that simple.

Take me and my pub - You come in - buy a few drinks, i kick you at at closing. Or - if you show signs of intoxication or show signs your becoming an asshat, i'll stop serving you - with me, there is essentially a limit on what you can drink. Its my pub, I work in it, i deal with it and if your locked off your face i'll essentially take care of you, whether ive to bring you home or get you a taxi or whatever - I have in essence placed an alcohol limit on you.

Now - i have also run other peoples bars and clubs - people, who bought pubs as an investment in the boom - people with no experience or background in the game whatsoever and who are in it solely for greed and who still 10 yrs later have never pulled a pint or dealt with an unruly customer. They place targets to achieve, question why we didnt sell enough product, make sure promotions etc are being run and profits are maximized. Should a limit apply there - Maybe so yes!

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

Actually its the government saying that!

Leroy42 wrote: »

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 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.

Without reading all that I can discern that it completely backs up my stance that increased pricing leads to decreased consumption - are you now starting to agree with me

But since you have asked for the data "numerous times" here is is - quoted, from your own source

Two major meta-analyses have attempted to consolidate and summarise this research. Wagenaar et al reviewed 112 studies of the impact of changes in alcohol taxes or prices on consumption, and found on average a 1% increase in price leads to a:

0.46% decrease in beer consumption
0.69% decrease in wine consumption
0.80% decrease in spirits consumption

Baffling!!

Leroy42 wrote: »

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).

my poor tortured hands

We'll see a huge increase in counterfeit products, which are less safe, and a huge increase in home made products, where the exact alcohol content cannot be known, and which are therefore less safe.


There doesn't appear to be consequences for publicans who sell their customers so much drink that they die from it.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/icrime/hotel-staff-on-trial-for-alcohol-death-153557.html
That man was sold ten vodkas in a single drink and neither the barman nor the bar manager were convicted, despite the fact that the customer died, and there are strong laws around the sale of alcohol. Miscarraige of justice.



Is all the beauty gone from the world?

hatrickpatrick

Personally my stance on this bill is different to some others. Whether it "works" or not is not the issue for me, the issue is that as a social libertarian I don't approve of the government trying to coerce people into changing their lifestyles at all, by any means. If somebody's lifestyle doesn't directly hurt somebody else, it should be none of the government's damn business how they choose to live it. It's for the same reason that I oppose sugar taxes, drug prohibition, prostitution prohibition etc. For a number of years it's felt like Ireland has been moving in a socially libertarian direction, but lately it feels like we're taking several regressive steps away from individual liberty and towards authoritarianism "for the greater good". Regardless of whether MUP did in fact save the health of problem drinkers, I'd still oppose it - because not only do I not believe that the government should introduce measures which hit everybody in order to target the minority, I also don't believe that the government has any place telling people not to damage their health if that's the lifestyle they've chosen.

This isn't nearly as outlandish as it sounds, either. We all know that going out without sunscreen on a ridiculously sunny mid-summer day is horribly bad for us. And I have no issue with public information campaigns etc to this end (just as I fully support education in schools about alcohol consumption and the various drink aware campaigns). But I'd fully draw the line at anything coercive - mandatory sunscreen testing before you can chill out on the beach or any crap like that. In the same way, the idea of forcing people to drink less by making it too expensive for them to drink too much is, in my view, something which should be regarded as falling well beyond the legitimate powers of the state or government. Drinking too much in itself is not directly harmful to others, therefore the government should not be any sort of middle-man whatsoever in determining whether people can make the choice to do so.

I suspect there are more of us out there in Irish society than this government would like to admit, and I suspect that this will hammer them at the next election if they pursue too many more "the greater good > personal freedom" style policies.

Does anyone remember a number of years ago when the phone-voicemail hacking scandal erupted, the Irish government talked about introducing a law banning remote access to voicemail inboxes being provided as a service altogether, in order to protect people who never changed their passwords from potential hacking? This is along those same lines. Why should I, or you, or anybody else who frequently makes use of this service and is security conscious enough to guard our PIN numbers closely be inconvenienced because some other eejit isn't bothered to do so and then complains about it when he or she gets hacked?

Only throwing this into the debate since the last number of pages have focused almost entirely on whether MUP will work. Is anyone else coming at this more from a point of view that "it doesn't matter if it works or not, the point is that the state shouldn't be trying to lay down train tracks for how people will live their lives by removing or restricting choice"?

Reputable Rog

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally my stance on this bill is different to some others. Whether it "works" or not is not the issue for me, the issue is that as a social libertarian I don't approve of the government trying to coerce people into changing their lifestyles at all, by any means. If somebody's lifestyle doesn't directly hurt somebody else, it should be none of the government's damn business how they choose to live it. It's for the same reason that I oppose sugar taxes, drug prohibition, prostitution prohibition etc. For a number of years it's felt like Ireland has been moving in a socially libertarian direction, but lately it feels like we're taking several regressive steps away from individual liberty and towards authoritarianism "for the greater good". Regardless of whether MUP did in fact save the health of problem drinkers, I'd still oppose it - because not only do I not believe that the government should introduce measures which hit everybody in order to target the minority, I also don't believe that the government has any place telling people not to damage their health if that's the lifestyle they've chosen.

This isn't nearly as outlandish as it sounds, either. We all know that going out without sunscreen on a ridiculously sunny mid-summer day is horribly bad for us. And I have no issue with public information campaigns etc to this end (just as I fully support education in schools about alcohol consumption and the various drink aware campaigns). But I'd fully draw the line at anything coercive - mandatory sunscreen testing before you can chill out on the beach or any crap like that. In the same way, the idea of forcing people to drink less by making it too expensive for them to drink too much is, in my view, something which should be regarded as falling well beyond the legitimate powers of the state or government. Drinking too much in itself is not directly harmful to others, therefore the government should not be any sort of middle-man whatsoever in determining whether people can make the choice to do so.

I suspect there are more of us out there in Irish society than this government would like to admit, and I suspect that this will hammer them at the next election if they pursue too many more "the greater good > personal freedom" style policies.

Does anyone remember a number of years ago when the phone-voicemail hacking scandal erupted, the Irish government talked about introducing a law banning remote access to voicemail inboxes being provided as a service altogether, in order to protect people who never changed their passwords from potential hacking? This is along those same lines. Why should I, or you, or anybody else who frequently makes use of this service and is security conscious enough to guard our PIN numbers closely be inconvenienced because some other eejit isn't bothered to do so and then complains about it when he or she gets hacked?

Only throwing this into the debate since the last number of pages have focused almost entirely on whether MUP will work. Is anyone else coming at this more from a point of view that "it doesn't matter if it works or not, the point is that the state shouldn't be trying to lay down train tracks for how people will live their lives by removing or restricting choice"?

Members of the same government introducing this legislation also wanted to ban the chimes from Ice Cream Vans.
That's what this country has come to.

elperello

I was killing time in the lobby of a HSE hospital recently and took to a bit of internet browsing on the free wi-fi.

I came across a discussion on Boards about beer home brewing and followed a link to a supplier of home brew equipment.
It wouldn't connect and a message came up telling me I was in breach of t&c's reason Alcohol. Needless to say I was taken aback and as an experiment I tried to connect to O'Brien Wines site, same story no go.
I decided to try my luck a bit more and of course like most things connected with HSE the filter was less than optimal as I successfully connected to the Guiness Storehouse and Slane Distillery!

The reason I am telling this little anecdote is to point out the extremes a public body will go to in order to censor completely innocuous websites just because they are connected to the demon drink.

footnote: on further experimentation I had no bother getting on web sites advertising machetes and hunting knives.

goose2005

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!

and if the difference is made up with smuggled alcohol, moonshine, mouthwash? Consumption is dropping anyway, this isn't needed

goose2005

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

think of all the ppl going blind from moonshine! They'll be quids in! /s

ardinn

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

goose2005 wrote: »

and if the difference is made up with smuggled alcohol, moonshine, mouthwash? Consumption is dropping anyway, this isn't needed

im pretty sure there wont be a host of new moonshine factories popping up you'l be safe enough

Spanish Eyes

goose2005 wrote: »

think of all the ppl going blind from moonshine! They'll be quids in! /s

And I always thought you could go blind from doing something else :P

I agree with pp our personal freedoms and liberties to imbibe a substance that is totally legal is being eroded competely now.

We will soon have cannabid oil, once a demon too. And sooner or later decriminalisation of hard drugs once they are for personal use.

I know it will take a while, but it will happen, along with injection centres.

Meanwhile, a legal substance is undergoing a lot of restrictions isn't it?

Qui Bono?

my poor tortured hands

my poor tortured hands wrote: »

We'll see a huge increase in counterfeit products, which are less safe, and a huge increase in home made products, where the exact alcohol content cannot be known, and which are therefore less safe.
/quote]

I know how much alcohol is in my homebrew. It's not difficult to work out.

elperello

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-banning-cheap-alcohol-3694447-Nov2017/

..the mask slips....

my poor tortured hands

the mask slips...

But only to reveal another mask beneath. Fake news and fake people thrive together.

It's masks all the way down. Or turtles, I can never remember.

hatrickpatrick

elperello wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-banning-cheap-alcohol-3694447-Nov2017/

..the mask slips....

Ugh.

Despite what lobbyists in the drinks industry say, Harris said the new laws will not increase the price of the majority of alcohol products.
“It won’t do what a lot in the drinks industry and those with very deep resources will claim in terms of the cost of many drinks, but what it will do is target particularly cheap brands, very high in alcohol, and I think it is a very appropriate public health policy.

This is a LIE, and I'm sure minister Harris knows that. The vast, vast, vast majority of major beer brands can be bought for less than €1.58 per can in multi packs, be they six, eight or 24 groupings. The minister knows this and so do most of the senators who support the measure, as that was mentioned repeatedly during the debate the other day ("students buying slabs") - so any time this comment is made publicly, it is a lie. Plain and simple. Unless he's going to suggest that Guinness (€24-€30 for 24 cans) isn't a major brand for instance, and it's hardly "high in alcohol relative to its price" at 4.1%.

Practically all beer bought in packs is going to increase in price. That is not in question and Harris is being, in my view, deliberately disingenuous with remarks like these.

site_owner

remember all those other times we waited for northern ireland before implementing "public health" changes?

elperello

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ugh.

Despite what lobbyists in the drinks industry say, Harris said the new laws will not increase the price of the majority of alcohol products.
“It won’t do what a lot in the drinks industry and those with very deep resources will claim in terms of the cost of many drinks, but what it will do is target particularly cheap brands, very high in alcohol, and I think it is a very appropriate public health policy.

This is a LIE, and I'm sure minister Harris knows that. The vast, vast, vast majority of major beer brands can be bought for less than €1.58 per can in multi packs, be they six, eight or 24 groupings. The minister knows this and so do most of the senators who support the measure, as that was mentioned repeatedly during the debate the other day ("students buying slabs") - so any time this comment is made publicly, it is a lie. Plain and simple. Unless he's going to suggest that Guinness (€24-€30 for 24 cans) isn't a major brand for instance, and it's hardly "high in alcohol relative to its price" at 4.1%.

Practically all beer bought in packs is going to increase in price. That is not in question and Harris is being, in my view, deliberately disingenuous with remarks like these.

I agree that somewhere along the line the figures have been massaged to make the people feel that they won't be affected. Hard to figure out why they decided to run with that little wheeze because it will be all too clear when the Bill is implemented. Then the Government will have to shoulder the blame.

As for blaming Harris I'm not so sure. Not wishing to be hurtful or anything but does he look like a guy who enjoys a few cans?

KrustyUCC

I wonder what the ministers definition of very high alcohol is?

Minimum standards now

500ml*4% can * .789 x 0.10 = €1.57 minimum

500ml * 4.2% can * .789 x 0.10 = €1.65 minimum

500ml * 4.3% can * .789 x 0.10 = €1.69 minimum

500ml * 4.5% can *.789 * 0.10 = €1.77 minimum

500ml * 4.8% can * .789 x 01.0 = €1.89 minimum

4.9 % = €1.93 minimum

5% = €1.97 minimum

Of course the Ministers has not addressed that if the "cheap brands" increase in price what will happen the premium brands?

Shelflife

Seems to be a common theme in the press as well that this bill will stop below cost selling.

It just means that premium products will now be the target of any below cost selling.

my poor tortured hands

Below cost selling is a myth.

ardinn

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

my poor tortured hands wrote: »

Below cost selling is a myth.

Please elaborate on this. Genuinely interested on how you have come to this conclusion and the facts surrounding it!

Cookie_Monster

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

Pubs are not saying that they will limit quantity, so I don't see how you can make that argument

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

But one of the key responsibilities of any barman or owner is to limit supply, where people are intoxicated. They should, in theory, also be aiding reduction of binge drinking as any responsible publican would. I doubt you'll ever see any barstaff anywhere limiting anyone to 3 pints...

So the above is nothing but extremely hypocritical from pubs and VFI

jimmycrackcorm

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

my poor tortured hands wrote: »

Below cost selling is a myth.

Clearly a career in marketing is not for you.

Shelflife

my poor tortured hands wrote: »

Below cost selling is a myth.

Ahh stop will you, its a very efficient way of doing a promotion and getting the Taxpayer to subsidise it.

Tesco buy 100 cans off Guinness at €1 each plus vat so thats €123 in total.

They then claim back €23 in VAT giving a net cost of €100.

They then sell those cans off at a great price of €1 including vat to the customers.

Of the €100 now in the till they pay €18 to the Revenue for the Vat element of the sale.

So the promo costs them €18 net but the Taxpayer has subsidised it to the tune of €5.

Leroy42

Shelflife wrote: »

Ahh stop will you, its a very efficient way of doing a promotion and getting the Taxpayer to subsidise it.

Tesco buy 100 cans off Guinness at €1 each plus vat so thats €123 in total.

They then claim back €23 in VAT giving a net cost of €100.

They then sell those cans off at a great price of €1 including vat to the customers.

Of the €100 now in the till they pay €18 to the Revenue for the Vat element of the sale.

So the promo costs them €18 net but the Taxpayer has subsidised it to the tune of €5.

True, but that is the same for everything. It does not only relate to alcohol.

KrustyUCC

Minimum price for alcohol can go ahead after whisky makers lose high court appeal

During a hearing in July, the judges heard argument from the organisation that minimum unit pricing (MUP) is "disproportionate" and illegal under European law

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/minimum-price-alcohol-can-go-11524353

Shelflife

Leroy42 wrote: »

True, but that is the same for everything. It does not only relate to alcohol.

That is true but they wont do it on groceries as much as the VAT savings arent there.

hatrickpatrick

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Minimum price for alcohol can go ahead after whisky makers lose high court appeal

During a hearing in July, the judges heard argument from the organisation that minimum unit pricing (MUP) is "disproportionate" and illegal under European law

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/minimum-price-alcohol-can-go-11524353

God.
F*cking.
DAMMIT.

Does this mean there's no chance of our own courts rejecting it on EU competition grounds? How similar are our legal systems in this regard?

Deise Vu

Shelflife wrote: »

Ahh stop will you, its a very efficient way of doing a promotion and getting the Taxpayer to subsidise it.

Tesco buy 100 cans off Guinness at €1 each plus vat so thats €123 in total.

They then claim back €23 in VAT giving a net cost of €100.

They then sell those cans off at a great price of €1 including vat to the customers.

Of the €100 now in the till they pay €18 to the Revenue for the Vat element of the sale.

So the promo costs them €18 net but the Taxpayer has subsidised it to the tune of €5.

I don't know whether you deliberately twisted this or are being disingenuous but Guinness paid the €23 VAT to the Government who refunded that amount to Tesco who then paid the €18 to the Govt when they sold the product. The Govt is up €18 not out of pocket €5.

On the general point: We have among the highest excise duties in the EU. IF cheap drink is the problem why are the French and Italians not swamping cirrhosis clinics when they can buy gallons of wine for a few euro? And of course, Scandinavian countries must have a wonderfully mature attitude to alcohol considering how much they pay.

That ties in with my experience alright.:rolleyes:

Snickers Man

511 wrote: »

Distilling is illegal in Ireland.

But home brewing isn't. There is a difference you know.