Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh
Options
Comments
-
How does Committee stage in the Dail work? Is it likely or unlikely that there could be another filibuster stay of execution there? I presume that it gets referred to the health committee which is unfortunate, will probably be lopsided with people in favour of it compared to the Dail at large
0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »It would be a social revolution in Ireland if this imbecilic, utterly immature glorification of alcohol and the plethora of euphemisms - "Ah he likes a drink", 'He's under the weather', 'He had a few too many' etc - to describe problem drinking were to be consigned to the dustbin of Irish history. The 'drunken Irish' label was never a compliment, although it never fails to astonish how many Irish think getting drunk is something to be proud of.
I don't care what the Irish government does - banning alcohol advertising would be a great start, though - as long as this incessant romanticisation of alcohol in Irish society is ended. It's as if the Irish people have nothing of substance to their culture, no achievements of their own, and so this horseshíte "pub culture" has become the centre of Irish life. I'm sick of all the drunks, be they driving on roads at night, clogging up A&E, fighting on our streets, or creating an enormous array of abuses in homes that drip into schools across Ireland, and the excuses made for them. Spending Paddy's Day walking around Dublin is really high up on the list of winners of the most disgusting spectacle of the year in Ireland.
Your waffle would have more relevance if alcohol consumption in Ireland wasn’t dropping year on year and we weren’t mid table in Europe in regards to alcohol consumption. But keep up the nonsense outrage about how we are a nation of alcoholics.0 -
weldoninhio wrote: »Your waffle would have more relevance if alcohol consumption in Ireland wasn’t dropping year on year and we weren’t mid table in Europe in regards to alcohol consumption. But keep up the nonsense outrage about how we are a nation of alcoholics.
I found nothing inherently wrong in anything they posted.
There is no doubt that alcohol plays a large roll in the life, and culture, of the Irish. There is no doubt that our relationship with alcohol has been problematic over the years. There continues to be a glorification of alcohol in Ireland, and acceptance of drunk people and their antics. "Ah sure he's just enjoying himself".
Even many of the responses on this thread go towards that. "People need to unwind after a stressful day", "Everyone deserves a drink now and then" etc etc. There is little doubt that we see alcohol as a core part of what it is to live.
It is too simplistic to simply state alcohol consumption. How many tee-totallers do we have compared to other countries as if there is a significant difference that would skew the figures per capita.
What is the level of intake? Is it linear, one bottle of wine a week, or wave like, nothing for 3 weeks then a big bender once a month?0 -
Like the minimum pricing legislation Fuaranach's post blames the entire propulation for the harm which individuals do and vilifies the vast majority of Irish people up and down the country who on any given night can drink yet who do not drive on roads at night, clog up A&E, fight on our streets, or create an enormous array of abuses in homes that drip into schools across Ireland
Sure just lump everyone together
When consumption was going up it was used as a means to increase prices
Now when consumption is falling consistently it's that's great but ....0 -
Just as there's a minority who abuse alcohol to the detriment of those around them, there's also a minority on the other side who try to impose their values on everybody.
Unfortunately, minimum alcohol pricing won't put an end to either.0 -
Advertisement
-
We live in a society, every day you deal with values that are placed on us by others.
What you hope is that those values are the best for everyone. Of course it entails people giving up some rights, the thinking is that it is for the greater good.
So no point arguing about how this is unfair for society to try to place limits, it happens all the time.
To focus on the law itself, the question then becomes does this law take the best approach to an issue that most people will accept exists. Part of the argument is the extent that it exists, and what impact that has on society at large.
Are drunk people staggering around having fights, pissing in lane ways and causing damage a problem? Yes.
Is it a big problem? That is somewhat subjective but I would wager that it is.
Will this bill do anything to curb that? I have yet to see any evidence that it would or indeed any argument to make the case that it would.
Is drinking at home a problem? Overall I would say no, although there is clearly quite a sizeable minority to which this does constitute a problem, be that through spending too much, being unable to function properly, effects on family life etc.
Is it a significant problem? I would argue that isn't. Although I would argue that continued decline in alcohol consumption is a good thing.
Will this law do anything to deal with even the stated levels of the problem? I really doubt it. I think those that have the biggest issue will find ways around it, be that getting other alternatives or simply using more money to keep up the habit. For those, the majority, that it isn't an issue for, they will either cut back (a good thing) or simply spend more but in either case the usage and costs are not major issues so it seems to be using a hammer to smash a nut.
I think that a law curbing peoples ability to do things should always be slow to be enacted, certainly until a clear reason can be put forth and clear objectives laid out. For example, speeding limits and penalty points. Does it remove my right to do what I want, yes, but the evidence clearly shows that speeding both increases the number of accidents and the severity of those accidents. This law has neither a clear objective or a clear reason, for a societal point of view.
TL:DR, I am of the view that as a culture we have an issue with alcohol. I believe that we should be working towards dealing with this issue, not necessarily to reduce consumption overall but to change the type of consumption and attitudes to it. This bill, IMO, does nothing to tackle any of this.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »How does Committee stage in the Dail work? Is it likely or unlikely that there could be another filibuster stay of execution there? I presume that it gets referred to the health committee which is unfortunate, will probably be lopsided with people in favour of it compared to the Dail at large
The problem as I see it is all the Publican parties are in favor of it. So theres little political capital to be made from filibustering it or voting against it.0 -
We live in a society, every day you deal with values that are placed on us by others.
What you hope is that those values are the best for everyone. Of course it entails people giving up some rights, the thinking is that it is for the greater good.
Your thinking, maybe. Certainly not mine.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The problem as I see it is all the Publican parties are in favor of it. So theres little political capital to be made from filibustering it or voting against it.
The small shops and traders lobby was very strong in the Seanad, and the "compromise" that has been reached doesn't seem to placate them as the minister had hoped. I can still see a decent scrap over this and not the walkover the government is hoping for.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
We live in a society, every day you deal with values that are placed on us by others.
What you hope is that those values are the best for everyone. Of course it entails people giving up some rights, the thinking is that it is for the greater good.
So no point arguing about how this is unfair for society to try to place limits, it happens all the time.
To focus on the law itself, the question then becomes does this law take the best approach to an issue that most people will accept exists. Part of the argument is the extent that it exists, and what impact that has on society at large.
Are drunk people staggering around having fights, pissing in lane ways and causing damage a problem? Yes.
Is it a big problem? That is somewhat subjective but I would wager that it is.
Will this bill do anything to curb that? I have yet to see any evidence that it would or indeed any argument to make the case that it would.
Is drinking at home a problem? Overall I would say no, although there is clearly quite a sizeable minority to which this does constitute a problem, be that through spending too much, being unable to function properly, effects on family life etc.
Is it a significant problem? I would argue that isn't. Although I would argue that continued decline in alcohol consumption is a good thing.
Will this law do anything to deal with even the stated levels of the problem? I really doubt it. I think those that have the biggest issue will find ways around it, be that getting other alternatives or simply using more money to keep up the habit. For those, the majority, that it isn't an issue for, they will either cut back (a good thing) or simply spend more but in either case the usage and costs are not major issues so it seems to be using a hammer to smash a nut.
I think that a law curbing peoples ability to do things should always be slow to be enacted, certainly until a clear reason can be put forth and clear objectives laid out. For example, speeding limits and penalty points. Does it remove my right to do what I want, yes, but the evidence clearly shows that speeding both increases the number of accidents and the severity of those accidents. This law has neither a clear objective or a clear reason, for a societal point of view.
TL:DR, I am of the view that as a culture we have an issue with alcohol. I believe that we should be working towards dealing with this issue, not necessarily to reduce consumption overall but to change the type of consumption and attitudes to it. This bill, IMO, does nothing to tackle any of this.
Rubbish.
Drunks have an issue with alcohol, not non drunks.
People should be responsible for their own actions.
Non drunks should not have to cough up an extra €1.50 for a can of Guinness because of drunks.
Read my lips.
IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBLIITY.
The last thing we need here is a nanny state.0 -
10000maniacs wrote: »Rubbish.
Drunks have an issue with alcohol, not non drunks.
People should be responsible for their own actions.
Non drunks should not have to cough up an extra €1.50 for a can of Guinness because of drunks.
Read my lips.
IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBLIITY.
The last thing we need here is a nanny state.
Great. There are multiple studies done showing the effects of alcohol. We have choked up A&E every weekend. We have countless drink driving convictions. We have multiple reports showing the effects of alcohol misuse on family lives. All I have seen in terms of benefits is that is reduces stress
Do you think all the people who have fights outside nightclubs are drunks, or do your classify them as simply drunk? Do they have an issue with alcohol or simply had a bad night?
You are already coughing up extra money in all your taxes to pay for drunks, through extra spending on gards, health care etc etc.
Society is your responsibility, whether you like it or not. Stamping your feet doesn't change anything. Nanny state? Give me a break. Are you for a free for all on everything, or only on the things you like?
Stop with the hyperbole and come up with facts. What level of alcohol is healthy? Does alcohol have health benefits or are we talking about limits below which the damage is minor? Is there no alternatives to this product?
Do you think it would make any noticeable difference to your life if the price did rise, and you had to drink less?0 -
Great country we live in.
Publicans lobby for MUP (off sales only) cos health concerns.
Publicans lobby for their pubs to be allowed to sell the the unhealthy gargle on Good Friday.
0 -
Great. There are multiple studies done showing the effects of alcohol. We have choked up A&E every weekend. We have countless drink driving convictions. We have multiple reports showing the effects of alcohol misuse on family lives. All I have seen in terms of benefits is that is reduces stress
Do you think all the people who have fights outside nightclubs are drunks, or do your classify them as simply drunk? Do they have an issue with alcohol or simply had a bad night?
You are already coughing up extra money in all your taxes to pay for drunks, through extra spending on gards, health care etc etc.
Society is your responsibility, whether you like it or not. Stamping your feet doesn't change anything. Nanny state? Give me a break. Are you for a free for all on everything, or only on the things you like?
Stop with the hyperbole and come up with facts. What level of alcohol is healthy? Does alcohol have health benefits or are we talking about limits below which the damage is minor? Is there no alternatives to this product?
Do you think it would make any noticeable difference to your life if the price did rise, and you had to drink less?
Do you think it would make any noticeable differences to these problems if MUP was introduced? Because I have seen nothing to suggest that it would.0 -
Great. There are multiple studies done showing the effects of alcohol. We have choked up A&E every weekend. We have countless drink driving convictions. We have multiple reports showing the effects of alcohol misuse on family lives. All I have seen in terms of benefits is that is reduces stress
Do you think all the people who have fights outside nightclubs are drunks, or do your classify them as simply drunk? Do they have an issue with alcohol or simply had a bad night?
You are already coughing up extra money in all your taxes to pay for drunks, through extra spending on gards, health care etc etc.
Society is your responsibility, whether you like it or not. Stamping your feet doesn't change anything. Nanny state? Give me a break. Are you for a free for all on everything, or only on the things you like?
Stop with the hyperbole and come up with facts. What level of alcohol is healthy? Does alcohol have health benefits or are we talking about limits below which the damage is minor? Is there no alternatives to this product?
Do you think it would make any noticeable difference to your life if the price did rise, and you had to drink less?
1. consumption is falling anyway.
2. minimum pricing does not reduce consumption just like general price increases.
so essentially this is a big waste of time, and the legislation is only designed to target non-publicans who sell alcohol. funny that. the issues caused by a minority due to alcohol will continue.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »Do you think it would make any noticeable differences to these problems if MUP was introduced? Because I have seen nothing to suggest that it would.
Read my earlier posts. It was on the same page.
However, that is not my point in that post. You cannot start to defeat this idea by putting out anecdotes and wishes. Claiming medical conspiracies and ISIS style atheist campaigns to take away peoples rights.
Claims such as 'Ireland has no drink problem' and alcohol causes no issues are blatantly false, a simple visit to town centre at closing time or an A&E will tell you that we have problems.
Don't fall into the trap of using hyperbole and made up stuff as ones argument if lost straight away. There has been plenty of very well thought out postings on this thread so show the major issues with this law, but I simply can't accept when people spout nonsense dressed as outrage.0 -
This may well hasten up further.end of the road wrote: »1. consumption is falling anyway.
There is always a point at which a good is no longer viable. The point with drink, as with cigs, is that many people simply continue to buy as before regardless of price, up to a point. The continued increase in cig prices, together with advertising limits etc, have had a positive effect on the consumption of cigs.end of the road wrote: »2. minimum pricing does not reduce consumption just like general price increases.
I assume the thinking is that 1.83 per can is a step too far for many.end of the road wrote: »so essentially this is a big waste of time, and the legislation is only designed to target non-publicans who sell alcohol. funny that. the issues caused by a minority due to alcohol will continue.
Totally agree and it is a pretty transparent waste of time at that. I don't agree at all with this law, I think it is both badly thought out and fails to address the real issues.
What I have an issue with is when people come on here claiming that there is no issue in the first place.0 -
Great. There are multiple studies done showing the effects of alcohol. We have choked up A&E every weekend. We have countless drink driving convictions. We have multiple reports showing the effects of alcohol misuse on family lives. All I have seen in terms of benefits is that is reduces stress
Do you think all the people who have fights outside nightclubs are drunks, or do your classify them as simply drunk? Do they have an issue with alcohol or simply had a bad night?
You are already coughing up extra money in all your taxes to pay for drunks, through extra spending on gards, health care etc etc.
Society is your responsibility, whether you like it or not. Stamping your feet doesn't change anything. Nanny state? Give me a break. Are you for a free for all on everything, or only on the things you like?
Stop with the hyperbole and come up with facts. What level of alcohol is healthy? Does alcohol have health benefits or are we talking about limits below which the damage is minor? Is there no alternatives to this product?
Do you think it would make any noticeable difference to your life if the price did rise, and you had to drink less?
There is no hyperbole in my statement.
Cans of lager are as low as €0.49c in France and Spain.
Is there any evidence that alcoholism is worse in those countries?
And this bull$hit that Ireland somehow has an alcoholism culture as opposed to other countries annoys me. Where is the evidence of this?0 -
This may well hasten up further.
where it has been tried minimum pricing has failed to cause any further reductions.There is always a point at which a good is no longer viable. The point with drink, as with cigs, is that many people simply continue to buy as before regardless of price, up to a point. The continued increase in cig prices, together with advertising limits etc, have had a positive effect on the consumption of cigs.
there is absolutely no evidence for this what soever, given that there is a substantial black market for cigs. if anything, it's education around the effects that may have caused any reduction.I assume the thinking is that 1.83 per can is a step too far for many.
that may be the thinking, but the reality is people will just make their own or go to the black market. so, we are going to lose tax money, but end up spending even more money as well.Totally agree and it is a pretty transparent waste of time at that. I don't agree at all with this law, I think it is both badly thought out and fails to address the real issues.
What I have an issue with is when people come on here claiming that there is no issue in the first place.
nobody is saying there is no issue. however it is well known that the issues in relation to alcohol are completely over exaggerated in an aim to push through the next rule to help the publicans. alcohol causes issues but those issues are going to continue no matter what.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »where it has been tried minimum pricing has failed to cause any further reductions.
there is absolutely no evidence for this what soever, given that there is a substantial black market for cigs. if anything, it's education around the effects that may have caused any reduction.
that may be the thinking, but the reality is people will just make their own or go to the black market. so, we are going to lose tax money, but end up spending even more money as well.
nobody is saying there is no issue. however it is well known that the issues in relation to alcohol are completely over exaggerated in an aim to push through the next rule to help the publicans. alcohol causes issues but those issues are going to continue no matter what.
The smoking culture has changed drastically in this country from when I was growing up in the 80s, and I think it's down to a combination of price, advertising, product visibility, smoking ban and education.
I work close to a secondary school. I see the kids walk downtown at lunchtime.
None are smoking
In my school days half or more would be smoking.
I don't think the change in smoking culture can be understated.0 -
Advertisement
-
So what do you think?
I don't believe that the government should ever meddle in anything which is directly victimless. I don't approve of drugs laws, I don't approve of laws around consensual prostitution, I don't approve of censorship laws where libel or depiction-consent is not involved and thus I also don't approve of laws on alcohol pricing.
I believe that society and culture should be entirely organic; I do not and never will support measures by the government to shape or impose the kind of society or culture we live in.0 -
I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.weldoninhio wrote: »Your waffle would have more relevance if alcohol consumption in Ireland wasn’t dropping year on year and we weren’t mid table in Europe in regards to alcohol consumption. But keep up the nonsense outrage about how we are a nation of alcoholics.
'Waffle' indeed. Congratulations, Ireland: 'Ireland is no longer the heaviest drinking nation in the EU'
Success. 'Not the worst in the EU' anymore. Everything grand so, Paddy.
Should you wish to exchange your drinks industry-twisted 2014 "statistics" for 2017 ones, this bizarre conception of 'success' looks even more so:
How much do we drink?Per capita alcohol consumption in Ireland was 11.46 litres of pure alcohol per person aged 15+ in 2016, an increase of 4.8% from 2015, when it was 10.93 litres... (2017)
Ireland top of the table for drinking at home (March 2017)
I look forward to this state coming down on the alcohol drug-pushing industry as hard as it has come down on the nicotine drug-pushing industry. It's long, long overdue.0 -
I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.Like the minimum pricing legislation Fuaranach's post blames the entire propulation for the harm which individuals do and vilifies the vast majority of Irish people up and down the country who on any given night can drink yet who do not drive on roads at night, clog up A&E, fight on our streets, or create an enormous array of abuses in homes that drip into schools across Ireland
It clearly doesn't 'blame' the entire population, so that's plainly silly. It would, however, entertain the idea of 'the entire population' "suffering" from state policy that is designed to address problem drinking. This is the way society works. To take one example of many, millions of people have had to endure road ramps all over Dublin, and no doubt elsewhere in Ireland. Why? Because joyriders decided to go nuts on the roads in the 1980s and people were killed. We were all "punished" in the state's desire to protect some lives. There have been dodgy buildings and businesses which resulted in fires and tragedies, and as a result we all have to spend money bringing our businesses and buildings up to a higher level of fire safety and health that we would otherwise not have had to. And so on ad infinitum. Similarly, legislation which addresses the alcohol abuse problem in this state in as comprehensive a way as possible will be for society's overall benefit.
That the "drink culture" in Ireland is the principal selling point of the island abroad is embarrassing. It really is a level of obtuseness and stereotype-fulfilment by the drunken Paddies that is up there with the Stage Oirish characters of the 19th century. People who think it's admirable need to stroll around a city in Spain, for instance, at night to realise that binge drinking and drinking to excess is not a universal norm. It's just not, as shocking as that might be. The idea of having a fun night without being ossified and ruining the night for other people is genuinely alien to a huge number of Irish people and the sooner this cultural stupidity is tackled, just as smoking was, the better.
I couldn't care less about people who sit at home and drink themselves to death. As sad as it is, it's not my business. If only all people with drink problems stayed single and stayed at home there'd be no societal problem with alcohol. That, and that alone, is my concern.0 -
I disagree, the "drinking problems" are myths from the government.10000maniacs wrote: »...IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBLIITY.
The last thing we need here is a nanny state.
I always sense somebody is losing the argument when out of all words in the English language they wretch up those very two words, straight from Thatcher's lexicon, and subsequently used ad nauseam by her Tory-supporting tabloids, from the year 1987 to describe any thing or proposal which seeks to regulate the excesses of corporations.
Quite simply, anybody who thinks the state does not need to keep an eye on these legalised drug dealers that constitute the alcohol industry, and their army of sycophants in public relations/spin doctoring and in medialand who depend upon their advertising revenue, has not got society's interests at heart.0 -
10000maniacs wrote: »Rubbish.
Drunks have an issue with alcohol, not non drunks.
People should be responsible for their own actions.
Non drunks should not have to cough up an extra €1.50 for a can of Guinness because of drunks.
Read my lips.
IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBLIITY.
The last thing we need here is a nanny state.
I agree 100%. Yes, there are problem drinkers and yes, alcohol can be a problem in the wrong hands and yes, there are people who would be better off not touching alcohol. But I or you or a lot more should NOT be punished because of such people's actions. That's their issue and the state should deal with problem drinkers and the like separately to the rest of us. MUP and other such stuff has no impact on them or either does the media's unconvincing attempts to demonise alcohol.
Saudi Arabia and other such nanny states who implement their anti-booze policies via violence have not worked. Guess what? Drunkenness still exists in these places and may be worse because of their rules. Nanny state policy is not imposed via violence here but if it fails when imposed by violence, then it has little chance of being a success without it.
The choice to drink or not should be one's own. When someone's drinking does harm to another, the other has a right to do something about it. Otherwise, it is none of their business. Forcing one's culture on another be it to drink or not to is equally wrong. Yes, there are people who look at non-drinkers with disdain and will not like it when they don't join them in a drink. Then there are those who frown on people who take a drink. Both equally wrong. If I want to drink tea, coffee, a fizzy mineral or alcohol, I will. I guarantee there is some self appointed healthocrat who would frown on all 4 types of drink I mentioned!"0 -
Sorry to be pedantic here, but MUP is all about getting people back to the pubs. End of and I am sure it has already been said. And you all know it too.
The pubs wouldn't even give you a peanut or a few crisps. NO.
But anyway we are facing this and it is the thin end of the wedge regarding controlling our lives for the sake of lobbyists.
I am a bit older than many on here, but if this passes I will avoid pubs forever more. Unless it is a special occasion with my family. Needs must sometimes!0 -
Spanish Eyes wrote: »Sorry to be pedantic here, but MUP is all about getting people back to the pubs. End of and I am sure it has already been said. And you all know it too.
The pubs wouldn't even give you a peanut or a few crisps. NO.
But anyway we are facing this and it is the thin end of the wedge regarding controlling our lives for the sake of lobbyists.
I am a bit older than many on here, but if this passes I will avoid pubs forever more. Unless it is a special occasion with my family. Needs must sometimes!
I agree 100%. Of course, lobbyists and agendas control all our lives and it is sold to us. Notice all this demonising of alcohol in the media of late? Notice then how they give out about home drinking and how it is uncontrolled and then how the pubs say it is controlled in their premises.
I rarely go to pubs these days. There is not one thing in them. Pubs expect customers to go to them and make no effort and expect support. If they want custom, they should make an effort. Charging high prices for ordinary beers to accompany a lonely, dead, depressed night? No thank you!0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I always sense somebody is losing the argument when out of all words in the English language they wretch up those very two words, straight from Thatcher's lexicon, and subsequently used ad nauseam by her Tory-supporting tabloids, from the year 1987 to describe any thing or proposal which seeks to regulate the excesses of corporations.
Quite simply, anybody who thinks the state does not need to keep an eye on these legalised drug dealers that constitute the alcohol industry, and their army of sycophants in public relations/spin doctoring and in medialand who depend upon their advertising revenue, has not got society's interests at heart.
But it has to be balanced. Sure, alcohol has to be treated with respect and, sure troublesome drinkers need to be dealt with but the population in general should not suffer because of it. Demonising drink or more specifically home drinking does not solve problems.
There is a whole load of double standards and hypocrisy regarding drink in Ireland. Here are some examples:
1. I was at an event where local paper journalists were gathering. 2 of them wrote articles during the previous months about the 'dangers' of alcohol. I noticed both were drinking brandy and ginger before their meal and chateauneuf de pape wine with their meal. Both were pretty well on afterwards.
2. A friend of mine went to an event with another person and both had 5 glasses of wine and/or beer. Next day, both went to a mass and the other person accused my friend it was disrespectful to have a smell of drink off them in church .... despite the fact the other person, who I know quite well and has issues, also having the same amount of drink. I did not join them as I think the other person is a total hypocrite.
3. Gerry Ryan presenting Operation Transformation!!!!
4. Christmas = time to booze. January = time to not booze. February-Novermber = ?? Our media like to lay out what we should be doing at a particular time. I still have drink left over since Christmas .... because I did not want to drink to excess over that period.
5. On the other side of the issue, people who offer to buy one a drink and say if you order non-alcohol, you are on your own so.
6. Likewise, when one refuses to drink and drive, people in the pub mock them. While others boast about drink driving and avoiding the Gardaí.
7. So-called friend who one meets for a meal and then you order a drink. For some, if it is alcohol, they will start saying you should not be drinking it and then will say you choose between that or the 'friendship'. Likewise, others may say you are no fun when you don't order alcohol. True friends won't comment on what drink another is having.
8. Publicans giving out about home drinking and the problems it causes. They sell drink all night and think no one else has the right to sell it and that nothing negative happens when people drink pub alcohol and that all the negative aspects of alcohol happens only when it is drunk at home. If so, how come trouble exists in cities at pub and club closing times?!?!?!
The hypocrisy of Irish alcohol double standards never ceases!0 -
48 for a slab-- AAaaaaaah NNoooooooooo, Please ears don't let me hear this.0
-
Advertisement
-
BuilderPlumber wrote: »I agree 100%. Of course, lobbyists and agendas control all our lives and it is sold to us. Notice all this demonising of alcohol in the media of late? Notice then how they give out about home drinking and how it is uncontrolled and then how the pubs say it is controlled in their premises.
I rarely go to pubs these days. There is not one thing in them. Pubs expect customers to go to them and make no effort and expect support. If they want custom, they should make an effort. Charging high prices for ordinary beers to accompany a lonely, dead, depressed night? No thank you!
The thing I don't understand about the vintners lobby is why don't they lobby to extend opening hours? I finish work at 11pm 5 nights a week. Thats 5 nights a week I can't have a pint or two on the way home from work because most of them are already shut or as soon as you take a sip you're being harassed to leave.
As well as one of the countries with the highest pricing for alcohol, we also have one of the most restrictive laws on opening hours.
In 2010, Russia banned the sale of alcohol over the strength of 15% after 10pm and before 10am - but they have 24 hour licensing for pubs, restaurants and shops. Just they can't sell effectively, hard or medium spirit after 10pm.
I'm not necessarily advocating that, but for many people, myself included, it'd make a night out a bit calmer, if instead of the rush for shorts at the end of the night, everyone knew they could still have a beer or two later on in the night.
Incidentally and off topic, I know, as someone who loves whiskey, and Ireland having some of the finest in the world, Irish pubs are some of the worst in the world for serving whiskey.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement