Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

BuilderPlumber

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

The reason is the vintners do not want to extend opening hours and are happy with the way it is. Not a fan of pubs anymore and I know everything they do is to take the most with minimum effort. There was a time I felt sad when I saw a pub close, now I couldn't care less. Their attitude hardly deserves custom any longer.

In many pubs, one enters and the first smell is urine from the jacks. Then, it is the smell of stale beer. The dirt is ingrained for years in the seats and the manner of the man behind the bar is atrocious. I feel city pubs are better because there is competition down the street but rural pubs often feel they can do what they like because they have a captive audience. That is the mistake they make. They seem to think that the audience will go there no matter what and forget that even in a one pub village that people have other options.

I find Irish pubs with regard to whiskey haven't a clue and have no variety often either. Often, it is just Paddy, Powers and one type of Scotch and nothing more.

hatrickpatrick

BOLLOCKS. They've scheduled the bill to be debated over several days with several hours of each day put aside for it, so it's highly unlikely that it won't make it to committee stage by the end of this week.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37747&&CatID=60

Meanwhile the health committee (I assume this is where it will be sent?) has a majority of FF and FG TDs so assuming they're whipped, we might be screwed as far as further filibusters or delays go

elperello

Prof. Frank Murray on Prime Time tonight making out there is a similarity between "America's gun law problem" and "Ireland's alcohol problem".

Is there half a chance that even one TD will see through this nonsense even at this late stage?

BuilderPlumber

elperello wrote: »

Prof. Frank Murray on Prime Time tonight making out there is a similarity between "America's gun law problem" and "Ireland's alcohol problem".

Is there half a chance that even one TD will see through this nonsense even at this late stage?

It seems everywhere in the media, there is someone being overly negative about alcohol or alcohol problems. I'm sure this Murray guy drinks himself!! He can well afford to. Or is his expensive champagne by the bottle load a different species. Alcohol for the rich v alcohol for the poor.

Why are the media trying to brainwash people against alcohol? Why are the media exaggerating everything? Where is the source of this agenda? It is like the Taliban in an atheist guise. If alcohol is so 'bad' for us, how come the MAJORITY of the Irish population who drink live into their 80s and 90s and older? How come cancer has gone up in recent times and was lower in the past despite alcohol being ALWAYS a feature of Irish life? If the health Taliban really care about people's health, they should be looking at what is peculiar to the MODERN lifestyle. That's where the cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, etc. problems are answered, not just because the majority of the people enjoy alcohol. It is time to out this creeping healthocratic dictatorship before it becomes the new fundamentalist threat. Once the threat of hell was used by misguided Christians and Muslims to ban alcohol. Now, atheist healthocrats use the threat of 'causing cancer' instead. Christianity, Islam and health science all AGREE that it is alcohol ABUSE that is wrong, not the enjoyment of alcohol in a responsible manner. Try telling the fanatics this, who themselves live by double standards, is like talking to a stone.

Jim Bob Scratcher

It's not the the people who buy alcohol from the off licence that are filling up emergency departments every weekend, it is the silly ****s out at night who are served by greedy publicans who are best buddies with gombeen politicians. They are hypocrites of the highest order.

ziggyman17

Is it all alcohol that they want to raise the price of ? Or just the cheaper stuff ? Will brand names like Guinness, Carlsberg be put up ?

ziggyman17

Is it all alcohol that they want to raise the price of ? Or just the cheaper stuff ? Will brand names like Guinness, Carlsberg be put up ?

Leroy42

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

It seems everywhere in the media, there is someone being overly negative about alcohol or alcohol problems. I'm sure this Murray guy drinks himself!! He can well afford to. Or is his expensive champagne by the bottle load a different species. Alcohol for the rich v alcohol for the poor.

Why are the media trying to brainwash people against alcohol? Why are the media exaggerating everything? Where is the source of this agenda? It is like the Taliban in an atheist guise. If alcohol is so 'bad' for us, how come the MAJORITY of the Irish population who drink live into their 80s and 90s and older? How come cancer has gone up in recent times and was lower in the past despite alcohol being ALWAYS a feature of Irish life? If the health Taliban really care about people's health, they should be looking at what is peculiar to the MODERN lifestyle. That's where the cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, etc. problems are answered, not just because the majority of the people enjoy alcohol. It is time to out this creeping healthocratic dictatorship before it becomes the new fundamentalist threat. Once the threat of hell was used by misguided Christians and Muslims to ban alcohol. Now, atheist healthocrats use the threat of 'causing cancer' instead. Christianity, Islam and health science all AGREE that it is alcohol ABUSE that is wrong, not the enjoyment of alcohol in a responsible manner. Try telling the fanatics this, who themselves live by double standards, is like talking to a stone.

Ah, another factless rant. A doctor is on telling the facts about alcohol, which you negate with some conspiracy rubbish and something to do with the taliban. Nobody is stopping you from drinking. Nobody is banning alcohol.
The Prof is stating that there is a cost to drinking, a cost that Ireland pays dearly for. Any reduction in the overall level of drinking will be a good thing. I have yet to see any evidence that this is not fact.
We have growing evidence that alcohol is a carcinogen. We have ample evidence that it can have social effects, both in the community and in the home and for the individual. There are plenty of peoples lives that are destroyed by alcohol.
What is being proposed is that there should be a limit to the lowest price that it can be sold out to reverse the trend of alcohol being cheaper than food.
The question is whether this will lead to any reductions, you seem intent on arguing that alcohol is a benefit and all these people with negative things to say are somehow either corrupt (though you haven't explained to what end) or fundamentalists.

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

It's not the the people who buy alcohol from the off licence that are filling up emergency departments every weekend, it is the silly ****s out at night who are served by greedy publicans who are best buddies with gombeen politicians. They are hypocrites of the highest order.

You know this because? Are you really suggesting that alcohol related problems all stem to products sold in the pubs and that the off-trade has no bearing on it?

So what is your proposal? You admit that there is a problem, and since you state that its the greedy publicans to blame perhaps you could give some details of how to remedy the problem

weldoninhio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah, another factless rant. A doctor is on telling the facts about alcohol, which you negate with some conspiracy rubbish and something to do with the taliban. Nobody is stopping you from drinking. Nobody is banning alcohol.
The Prof is stating that there is a cost to drinking, a cost that Ireland pays dearly for. Any reduction in the overall level of drinking will be a good thing. I have yet to see any evidence that this is not fact.
We have growing evidence that alcohol is a carcinogen. We have ample evidence that it can have social effects, both in the community and in the home and for the individual. There are plenty of peoples lives that are destroyed by alcohol.
What is being proposed is that there should be a limit to the lowest price that it can be sold out to reverse the trend of alcohol being cheaper than food.
The question is whether this will lead to any reductions, you seem intent on arguing that alcohol is a benefit and all these people with negative things to say are somehow either corrupt (though you haven't explained to what end) or fundamentalists.

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. - Nope, nothing there about alcohol cheaper than food or health.


As for your nonsense about seeing if this will lead to a reduction in drinking, Ireland's alcohol consumption is falling year on year and has been for the past few years, we are currently mid table in Europe for alcohol consumption. The "goal" of this nonsense sop to the publicans of Ireland is exactly in line with the CURRENT rate of decrease in alcohol consumption, as in if Irish consumption keeps dropping at the level it is without this stupid law, the law will be deemed a success.

Its a real life version of Lisa's anti-tiger rock.

https://youtu.be/xSVqLHghLpw

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Those "legalised drug dealers" as you call them are the ones behind the legislation in the first place, the VFI are the ones who demanded this from FG, encouraged them to put this into the plan for government AND have visited the Dail multiple times to have this legislation pushed forward.

But dont let the facts get in the way of your clueless yammerings

suicide_circus

What happens the day after minimum pricing comes in a the A&Es are still full and kids still go neglected?

Leroy42

weldoninhio wrote: »

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. - Nope, nothing there about alcohol cheaper than food or health.

I sorry, but in any of the pubs I have ever been in the price of alcohol is significantly more expensive that the off-licence. Clearly, the issue with ,so price alcohol is not with the pubs, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

weldoninhio wrote: »

As for your nonsense about seeing if this will lead to a reduction in drinking, Ireland's alcohol consumption is falling year on year and has been for the past few years, we are currently mid table in Europe for alcohol consumption. The "goal" of this nonsense sop to the publicans of Ireland is exactly in line with the CURRENT rate of decrease in alcohol consumption, as in if Irish consumption keeps dropping at the level it is without this stupid law, the law will be deemed a success.

And should we simply settle for mid-table? Why should we not look to lower it as much as possible? It is of course great that the level is decreasing, and we should be looking to take advantage of that trend.

Again, the argument should revolve around whether this law will result in a reduction and not whether a reduction is a good thing.

Leroy42

suicide_circus wrote: »

What happens the day after minimum pricing comes in a the A&Es are still full and kids still go neglected?

The same thing that happens with the introduction of any new law. We give it time to take effect, since people will stock up prior to its introduction and many of the health problems are long term and as such will not disappear overnight.

Many people will continue to drink too much in pubs, as is the case now and many people will simply cut out something else to cover the additional costs.

The concept behind minimum pricing is to make it a bigger decision to buy it. Like with cigarettes, getting rid of 10 packs and making the price of 20 so high puts many younger people off trying them in the first place, much rather have €10 credit on the phone. Over time that drops the numbers using the product and it starts to lose it position as an 'natural' part of everyday life.

weldoninhio

Leroy42 wrote: »

weldoninhio wrote: »

I sorry, but in any of the pubs I have ever been in the price of alcohol is significantly more expensive that the off-licence. Clearly, the issue with ,so price alcohol is not with the pubs, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

It is currently, but once this law comes in that gap will close. That is the point. Make drinking at home more expensive and push people into the pubs.


And should we simply settle for mid-table? Why should we not look to lower it as much as possible? It is of course great that the level is decreasing, and we should be looking to take advantage of that trend.

Again, the argument should revolve around whether this law will result in a reduction and not whether a reduction is a good thing.

We were near the top only a few years ago. It is lowering year on year. We are steadily moving down the table. Reduction is happening without this stupid law.

There is zero evidence to show that a pricing law will work. This is about stopping people drinking at home and getting them into pubs

KrustyUCC

ziggyman17 wrote: »

Is it all alcohol that they want to raise the price of ? Or just the cheaper stuff ? Will brand names like Guinness, Carlsberg be put up ?

Depends really

Guinness is 4.2%

500 x 0.42 x .789 = 16.569 x 0.10 = €1.66 a can

Guinness is usually about €2 a single can so that shouldn't go up

However if every 4.2% can is a minimum of €1.66 no doubt Guinness will prob increase price to keep their margin

Where it will increase is in multi packs

8 pack will be a minimum of €13.28

Slab will be a minimum of €39.84 so no more Christmas bargins

For Calrsberg

500 x 0.043 x .789 = 16.96 x 0.10 = €1.69 a can

8 pack is €13.52

Slab is €40.56

Take Breysers beer in aldi

At the moment 4.3% and 0.99c

will be minimum of 1.69 so this legislation will be a 70% increase

Leroy42

Well, I think fundamentally lower the consumption of alcohol in whatever venue, is a good thing.

Do you understand the reasons behind the reductions? Are they permanent or simply based on a certain circumstance (for example pre 2008 our levels were growing due to increased disposable income and it fell after to the recession). Like traffic, when things turn back favourable it would mean an increase. So simply saying the level has decreased is not, in itself, very telling.

I agree that there is no evidence that this will work, but mainly because it hasn't been tried very often. So data is necessarily limited and even within the available data there are other factors at work. There was no evidence that the smoking ban would work either but luckily Martin stuck to his guns on that.

Pricing, for most goods, is an effective control mechanism. Price goes up, consumption goes down. Why would this pretty basic and fundamental law not be observed in this case?

andrew1977

How it progressing through the Dail ? It seems to have stalled somewhat or am I wrong ?

Any update on when they will push it through or they got more pressing matters on their minds to worry about in the halls of power ?

McMurphy

Leroy42 wrote:

sorry, but in any of the pubs I have ever been in the price of alcohol is significantly more expensive that the off-licence.

And the publicans - witnessing a reduction in their customers, (not only due to pricing btw) want to make the offlicense prices less affordable in a vain (imo) attempt at making their outdated business model more attractive. It says it right here in the manifesto.

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

TLDR?

ohnonotgmail

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, I think fundamentally lower the consumption of alcohol in whatever venue, is a good thing.

Do you understand the reasons behind the reductions? Are they permanent or simply based on a certain circumstance (for example pre 2008 our levels were growing due to increased disposable income and it fell after to the recession). Like traffic, when things turn back favourable it would mean an increase. So simply saying the level has decreased is not, in itself, very telling.

I agree that there is no evidence that this will work, but mainly because it hasn't been tried very often. So data is necessarily limited and even within the available data there are other factors at work. There was no evidence that the smoking ban would work either but luckily Martin stuck to his guns on that.

Pricing, for most goods, is an effective control mechanism. Price goes up, consumption goes down. Why would this pretty basic and fundamental law not be observed in this case?

well it may make some people consume less but for the people who have alcohol issues it will make no difference. they will do whatever they have to to get some. The people around them will suffer but they won't.

weldoninhio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, I think fundamentally lower the consumption of alcohol in whatever venue, is a good thing.

Do you understand the reasons behind the reductions? Are they permanent or simply based on a certain circumstance (for example pre 2008 our levels were growing due to increased disposable income and it fell after to the recession). Like traffic, when things turn back favourable it would mean an increase. So simply saying the level has decreased is not, in itself, very telling.

I agree that there is no evidence that this will work, but mainly because it hasn't been tried very often. So data is necessarily limited and even within the available data there are other factors at work. There was no evidence that the smoking ban would work either but luckily Martin stuck to his guns on that.

Pricing, for most goods, is an effective control mechanism. Price goes up, consumption goes down. Why would this pretty basic and fundamental law not be observed in this case?

Because, like a junkie, an alco will need to get his/her fix no matter what. They are addicted to the product they need. They'll get it by whatever means possible, fair or foul.

A junkie doesn't go, well I can't afford a hit today, that's unlucky. They beg, steal, borrow and rob to get what they need.

An alco isn't gonna say, well, that's the price of alcohol out of my range, I'll have to cut down. They'll beg, steal, borrow and rob to get what they need.

jbt123

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Depends really

Guinness is 4.2%

500 x 0.42 x .789 = 16.569 x 0.10 = €1.66 a can

Guinness is usually about €2 a single can so that shouldn't go up

However if every 4.2% can is a minimum of €1.66 no doubt Guinness will prob increase price to keep their margin

Where it will increase is in multi packs

8 pack will be a minimum of €13.28

Slab will be a minimum of €39.84 so no more Christmas bargins

For Calrsberg

500 x 0.043 x .789 = 16.96 x 0.10 = €1.69 a can

8 pack is €13.52

Slab is €40.56

Take Breysers beer in aldi

At the moment 4.3% and 0.99c

will be minimum of 1.69 so this legislation will be a 70% increase

My local Centra at Christmas were giving €10 vouchers to customers with no minimum spend.
These could be used for everything except cigarettes. I'm kind of hoping that this will be a way for the supermarkets and off-licenses to circumvent this ridiculous legislation.

elperello

jbt123 wrote: »

My local Centra at Christmas were giving €10 vouchers to customers with no minimum spend.
These could be used for everything except cigarettes. I'm kind of hoping that this will be a way for the supermarkets and off-licenses to circumvent this ridiculous legislation.

We can only hope that you are right and that we will find a "nod's as good as a wink" fix to get around the MUP law.

But isn't it profoundly dispiriting that we are reduced to that?

How did it come to pass that we have fallen into the grip of a perfect storm of Neo-Prohibitionists, Health Fanatics and Sectoral Interests?

weldoninhio

jbt123 wrote: »

My local Centra at Christmas were giving €10 vouchers to customers with no minimum spend.
These could be used for everything except cigarettes. I'm kind of hoping that this will be a way for the supermarkets and off-licenses to circumvent this ridiculous legislation.

I think someone said earlier in the thread that there was something in this bill to stop that.

OldRio

Deary me. The publicans have won. Their monopoly was threatened and they use their 'friends in high places'
This is about money, nothing else. The falsehood about health is frankly a joke, a rather sick one at that.
Drink is good in the bar. Drink is bad at home. How the hell have people been conned with this I know not.

I'm a man who likes a bottle of wine at a weekend. 2 bottles at the most. Last time I was in a bar was Paddy's day last year. 2 pints of Guinness. It will be the last.

I shall be spending my hard earned cash in the North. My choice. Unfortunately we will probably do our two weekly shopping up there as well. Less money to our local shops. That wouldn't effect the publicans of course. Not that they care.

I wonder what they will come for next?

weldoninhio

OldRio wrote: »

Deary me. The publicans have won. Their monopoly was threatened and they use their 'friends in high places'
This is about money, nothing else. The falsehood about health is frankly a joke, a rather sick one at that.
Drink is good in the bar. Drink is bad at home. How the hell have people been conned with this I know not.

I'm a man who likes a bottle of wine at a weekend. 2 bottles at the most. Last time I was in a bar was Paddy's day last year. 2 pints of Guinness. It will be the last.

I shall be spending my hard earned cash in the North. My choice. Unfortunately we will probably do our two weekly shopping up there as well. Less money to our local shops. That wouldn't effect the publicans of course. Not that they care.

I wonder what they will come for next?

Wouldn't be surprised to see an "alcohol license" introduced for home consumption, along with a nice yearly fee.

Akrasia

Return of the Booze Cruise.

I have a caravan, anyone want to give me a few bob to help cover the cost of a ferry ticket and I'll bring back a few hundred bottles of the cheapest finest wine France has to offer?

OldNotWIse

Akrasia wrote: »

Return of the Booze Cruise.

I have a caravan, anyone want to give me a few bob to help cover the cost of a ferry ticket and I'll bring back a few hundred bottles of the cheapest finest wine France has to offer?

We are planning France too. Even if we just broke even when all costs are factored in, I'd rather not give it to the Irish scroungers. Will be going up North too.

OldNotWIse

Has anyone asked why you can buy cans of beer in countries like Spain for 50c a can - and they don't have the same (alleged) alcohol misuse issues?

OldRio

Akrasia wrote: »

Return of the Booze Cruise.

I have a caravan, anyone want to give me a few bob to help cover the cost of a ferry ticket and I'll bring back a few hundred bottles of the cheapest finest wine France has to offer?

Haha. I forgot all about the booze cruise. Many a building site in the UK would down tools when the Van arrived.

KrustyUCC

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Has anyone asked why you can buy cans of beer in countries like Spain for 50c a can - and they don't have the same (alleged) alcohol misuse issues?

The answer mostly given is 'cultural'

The EU’s official statistics body, Eurostat’s survey on food, beverages and tobacco prices discovered that the price of alcohol in Ireland an incredible 75% higher than the EU average as it is and that will be worse when the nanny state brings in MUP.

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

Another poster was in Germany and referenced a beer called Oettinger. This is something of a cult beer, I guess somewhat like Dutch Gold here. 4.7% Anyway, on special at 24c a bottle.

Taking that German beer at 24c, it would need to be €1.85 minimum here under MUP

670% dearer

Is that same product 670% worse off for an Irish drinker than a German?

Nobody not even the anti-drinks lobby could claim that