Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

end of the road

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.



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

no the proposal is in the name of trying to force people back into the pubs. alcohol is not cheaper then food and even if it was, that's not a problem as most people are responsible.
minimum pricing does not reduce alcohol consumption. ireland's consumption has reduced hugely, all by itself over the years, and even then the problems were over exaggerated. there is no way to remedy the problem of irresponsible drinkers, they are just a fact of life.

end of the road

Leroy42 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.

that's the free market. it has determined that the off licence can sell the product cheaper then the pub. tough.

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

because it's lowering all by itself, so no need for interference in the market.

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

minimum pricing does not reduce alcohol consumption so there really isn't an argument to be had on that.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

that's the free market. it has determined that the off licence can sell the product cheaper then the pub. tough.

You're in favour of the free market all of a sudden? :pac:

end of the road

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

the concept is to get people back into pubs. it's not going to work thankfully. it was education of the effects that reduced smoking and the product hasn't lost it's position as a 'natural' part of everyday life for a large number of people. the removal of the 10 pack had little to no effect as young people just bought a pack of 20 between them negating the cost. minimum pricing is interference in the market for no good reason and it won't take any effect in terms of reduction of consumption and getting people back into the pubs. there are no arguments in favour of this nonsense and rightly, people will do whatever to negate the cost and having to go to the pub.

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?

pricing won't be an effective control on forcing people back in to the pubs. this non-necessary law will not be observed because most people know what it is about, and will either get alcohol from the black market, pay to the supermarket anyway or brew their own.

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?

the publicans have only won if they are let win. if people stop going to the pubs in protest that will send a message.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're in favour of the free market all of a sudden?

i have always been in favour of the free market where it actually works. there are a number of areas however where it doesn't work and causes problems. alcohol definitely isn't one of those areas.

pilly

Someone is bored with no referendum threads to go to.

BuilderPlumber

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.

This is not conspiracy theory. No, no one is directly banning alcohol but it is OBVIOUS there is an agenda being pushed, a sort of reverse marketing to turn people off a product. I'm sick and tired of this 'everything causes cancer' thing and yet no one is finding a cure for it or the real causes of it. Cancer (not alcohol) is STILL killing billions and some drink, some don't, some smoke, some don't. Cancer remains feared, remains serious, remains a killer. Foods, drinks and other things have been 'attributed' to it but there is no real progress being made is there?

This alcohol stuff is a recent thing and is an agenda being pushed at the moment. DO NOT hold up some 'doctor' as infallible. He is as likely to be corrupted or mistaken or misinformed or biased as anyone else. Pay him enough to spout an agenda, he'll do it. Simple as. Making gods of them and taking their often skewed statements as gospel has turned what is correlated findings wrongly into 'fact'. Cancer remains a killer and there is still no real progress made about its cause or cure.

What's your problem with alcohol? Why the hatred? Why do the rest of us have to suffer because YOU think that we should pay for abusers of it? Okay, go back to school and think of the class who ALL gets detention because of one messer? Fair? Definitely not. We may as well jail the entire population so for the gangland and robberies that plague our land. I am NOT denying there are troublesome drinkers and alcohol problems BUT they need to be dealt with separately from the rest of us.

ANYONE who advocates punishing an ENTIRE population based on the actions of a few are entering into Taliban area. Taliban may be killers and murderers but one can compare them to non-killers who also want to pursue some fanatical drive to change a culture. Be it by the gun or by a marketing campaign, it is still the same. Sure, alcohol destroys homes, destroys lives and destroys the health of some but so too does hurling, eating, golf, playing live music, social media, soccer, gambling and so much more all if taken to the extreme. Are we to punish all for the actions of the few. No civilised state should and it is a retrograde step to do so. No civilised state either should turn a blind eye to suffering caused by alcohol ... but it should be the people at this not the general drinking population that should be punished.

BuilderPlumber

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D74XF-kPX_4

This song by Christy Moore says it all. Increased oppression and agendas being forced. People did not speak. Eventually, they come to threaten you, the one who did not speak or agreed blindly with the agenda.

hatrickpatrick

As far as I can make out, it didn't pass the second stage today and as such will be debated again tomorrow. So it's possible that it'll get delayed before making it to committee stage, which would be feckin' epic.

Will wait and see what happens tomorrow afternoon.

VinLieger

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I can make out, it didn't pass the second stage today and as such will be debated again tomorrow. So it's possible that it'll get delayed before making it to committee stage, which would be feckin' epic.

Will wait and see what happens tomorrow afternoon.

I don't hold out much hope, the lunatics are running the asylum

animaal

VinLieger wrote: »

I don't hold out much hope, the lunatics are running the asylum

They're not lunatics, they have calculated that it's more beneficial for them to carry out the wishes of specific lobbies than to find out what people actually want.

VinLieger

animaal wrote: »

They're not lunatics, they have calculated that it's more beneficial for them to carry out the wishes of specific lobbies than to find out what people actually want.

By lunatics I was referring to the VFI and College of Physicians, i dont for one second think any politician has any say in whether this specific legislation gets passed or not

animaal

Ah apologies, when I hear "lunatics", the first image that comes to mind is politicians. Not sure why...

jbt123

VinLieger wrote: »

By lunatics I was referring to the VFI and College of Physicians, i dont for one second think any politician has any say in whether this specific legislation gets passed or not

But aren't the politicians voting this legislation into existence?

VinLieger

jbt123 wrote: »

But aren't the politicians voting this legislation into existence?

With HEAVY lobbying by the VFI and college of physicians, ive contacted every one of my representatives and of the ones who replied not one could give me a single good reason when presented with the real facts regarding this about why they were going to vote for it, which means they have been told to vote for it and not ask questions

Reputable Rog

My local TD and part time pig farmer, told me " We have to get people back in the pubs", that's why he supports the bill. He also supports Drink Driving as it deters Robbers.

McMurphy

In fairness I just caught the tail end of it there as I pulled in at the side of the road to write stuff in a diary - but did I just hear Mattie McGrath - he who opposes almost everything any govt wish to introduce support this madness?

Apologies if I got it wrong, but I heard him give out about alcoholics who may go into a filling station "and the first thing they see is alcohol"

In my local service station the drinks up in the furthest corner of the premises from the door you walk in - ie you'd have no reason to go near there unless you were looking it.

Sure why not ban pubs completely Mattie. God forbid an alcoholic ever ventured into one of them places - they'd spontaneously combust.

VinLieger

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

In fairness I just caught the tail end of it there as I pulled in at the side of the road to write stuff in a diary - but did I just hear Mattie McGrath - he who opposes almost everything any govt wish to introduce support this madness?

Apologies if I got it wrong, but I heard him give out about alcoholics who may go into a filling station "and the first thing they see is alcohol"

In my local service station the drinks up in the furthest corner of the premises from the door you walk in - ie you'd have no reason to go near there unless you were looking it.

Sure why not ban pubs completely Mattie. God forbid an alcoholic ever ventured into one of them places - they'd spontaneously combust.

You can be sure Mattie has quite a few nights out in his locals promised as on the house for his support of this garbage

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

You can be sure Mattie has quite a few nights out in his locals promised as on the house for his support of this garbage

I still don't understand how this is going to work in the favour of the publicans (of course I understand that it doesn't harm them either). It does nothing really in terms of the price difference, you can't buy the cheaper stuff in the pubs anyway and most brands are at or close to the MUP already. I doubt many people will simply go from paying €1 a can to getting fed up with paying €1.63 so decide to pay €5+ in a pub.

In addition, the other fundamentals still exist. Smoking ban, effects of continued pressure on drink driving, falling consumption in the younger demographic and decline in drinking as the rest of the population ages. High prices paid for rent and licences. There have been posters on here extolling the problems of running a pub and this will do nothing to change any of that.

So apart from cost people more to buy from the off-licence, I don't follow this narrative that suddenly due to change in pricing that somehow people will flock back to the pub.

McMurphy

So apart from cost people more to buy from the off-licence, I don't follow this narrative that suddenly due to change in pricing that somehow people will flock back to the pub

I don't follow it either, but that's the thoughts behind it apparently.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

In addition, the other fundamentals still exist. Smoking ban, effects of continued pressure on drink driving, falling consumption in the younger demographic and decline in drinking as the rest of the population ages. High prices paid for rent and licences. There have been posters on here extolling the problems of running a pub and this will do nothing to change any of that.

So apart from cost people more to buy from the off-licence, I don't follow this narrative that suddenly due to change in pricing that somehow people will flock back to the pub.

Ohh people most likely wont as the main problems of rip off prices for sub par customer experience still exist across the entire pub sector but all evidence without a doubt points to this being the logic behind the VFI lobbying so hard for this.

So we all will still be stuck paying more for booze to drink at home and pubs will likely continue seeing a decline and it will all have been for naught as alcoholics will still be alcoholics regardless of the price they have to pay for it.

McMurphy

VinLieger wrote: »

You can be sure Mattie has quite a few nights out in his locals promised as on the house for his support of this garbage

That was my thoughts.

It was on newstalk for anyone that would like to listen back.

kenmc

Leroy42 wrote: »

I still don't understand how this is going to work in the favour of the publicans (of course I understand that it doesn't harm them either). It does nothing really in terms of the price difference, you can't buy the cheaper stuff in the pubs anyway and most brands are at or close to the MUP already. I doubt many people will simply go from paying €1 a can to getting fed up with paying €1.63 so decide to pay €5+ in a pub.

In addition, the other fundamentals still exist. Smoking ban, effects of continued pressure on drink driving, falling consumption in the younger demographic and decline in drinking as the rest of the population ages. High prices paid for rent and licences. There have been posters on here extolling the problems of running a pub and this will do nothing to change any of that.

So apart from cost people more to buy from the off-licence, I don't follow this narrative that suddenly due to change in pricing that somehow people will flock back to the pub.

You're not supposed to apply logic FFS.duh.

Reputable Rog

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/alcohol-bill-drinks-lobby-digs-in-1.3383507

A rather sanctimonious editorial from The Irish Pontificator which gives the impression that this bill has some way to go before it becomes law, the issues highlighted and Northern politicians running around with loaves of bread on their heads indicate that this is not a done deal.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I still don't understand how this is going to work in the favour of the publicans (of course I understand that it doesn't harm them either). It does nothing really in terms of the price difference, you can't buy the cheaper stuff in the pubs anyway

So when it doesn't work, which do you think is more likely, they scrap the stupid idea, or they raise the MUP until it starts "working"?

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So when it doesn't work, which do you think is more likely, they scrap the stupid idea, or they raise the MUP until it starts "working"?

IE prohibition by another name, also quite a blatant form of class warfare to just keep raising the price of a luxury good until its out of reach of people with less money

hatrickpatrick

It's still being discussed right now, and they supposedly have another bill to discuss before 5PM as per this week's Dail schedule, so it's looking at least somewhat possible that the bill won't progress to committee stage this week as the government had hoped

hatrickpatrick

It's been adjourned. As I understand it, that means no vote on the bill today and therefore they'll have to schedule it in for a further debate next week. Quite a few bills already slated for discussion next week, so possibility of further delays :cool:

DEFTLEFTHAND

Was out there Fri Sat at separate functions and was completely fleeced. Dropped over 100 on booze each night. And here's the kicker I stayed on pints of Guinness aside from one whiskey on the second night.

Granted I overindulge but Jesus Christ I don't need to be leaving that much behind the bar. Drop your prices and I'll drop the offie.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Was out there Fri Sat at separate functions and was completely fleeced. Dropped over 100 on booze each night. And here's the kicker I stayed on pints of Guinness aside from one whiskey on the second night.

Granted I overindulge but Jesus Christ I don't need to be leaving that much behind the bar. Drop your prices and I'll drop the offie.

By my calculation, that's close to 40 pints in 48 hours - are you Andre the Giant or something?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

By my calculation, that's close to 40 pints in 48 hours - are you Andre the Giant or something?

Depends on the venue. I was charged 7 for a pint of Guinness recently. I'm also assuming the poster bought a drink for someone during the night. I've seen a "fancy" G&T on a menu for €14. 10 pints in an evening is very doable.

It's a while since I've gotten change from a fiver for the black stuff in Dublin city centre.