Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Or maybe the price of office license booze is not a big election issue with most people.

No no. Stubborn hatred for the opposition. It's a very powerful motivator!

Jim Bob Scratcher

10000maniacs wrote: »

Just a reminder as to what this minimum pricing is all about. Nothing to do with health, but with keeping their vintner buddies happy.

It opens a whole new black market, plus brexit can't come soon enough. Suck on that blueshirts :pac:

hatrickpatrick

BigCon wrote: »

What does it taste like?

This is a totally off-topic post but because I'm a little tipsy on my own homebrew stout tonight, why not

First batch was supposed to be an IPA but came out as an amber or even copper ale both in colour and taste. Still not quite sure where I went wrong with that but I like copper ales so it tasted good to me. Was also far stronger in alcohol than it was meant to be which I'm also still trying to figure out - I may have used too much priming sugar as it was also highly carbonated.

Second batch was intended as a european lager style. Tasted good although very slightly soapy because I left it for too long in the fermenter before bottling (yeast starts creating soap after a while when it runs out of fermentable sugars, lesson learned) - still incredibly drinkable and none of my friends noticed that aftertaste even when I explicitly asked them if they'd noticed that specific taste, so take from that what you will.

Third batch was another lager (same ingredient pack, less time to develop off-tastes) which tasted great, like a bog-standard lager but with slightly more flavour in my view.

Fourth batch was an Irish stout (pouring it with the proper nitro-style head by using the old-fashioned Guinness method of injecting 1 ml or so of it under the surface of the pint with a medicine syringe ) and the new one is going to be a craft Pilsner, will be tasting that in a fortnight.

I should not that the cost of €250 total also includes one batch which got infected before bottling so I had to dump it - the price per bottle would have been significantly lower if that batch had worked out, as it would have been an extra 40 bottles to ratio against the total of €250. One infection out of five isn't bad for a newbie, so I'm ok with that - lesson learned, when dry hopping, make sure you properly re-seal the lid of the fermenter before leaving it for the remainder of the fermentation time.

Honestly give it a try, you'll know straight away whether it's something you enjoy doing or not. About 70% of it is sterilising and cleaning equipment and bottles

The only thing is, don't do it if you're not a patient person. Making good homebrew requires resisting the urge to start drinking it too early - thanks to the good Home Brewing folk of Boards, I was forewarned that bottles need at least a month to carbonate and settle their flavour before drinking. Assuming a roughly two week fermentation, that's a total of a month and a half from brewing day to drinking, which I'll be honest is difficult to stick to when you have 40 bottles of beer sitting in your room whenever you're doing any work, just..... Looking at you. Totally worth it though, the taste improves exponentially the longer you leave it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

10000maniacs wrote: »

Just a reminder as to what this minimum pricing is all about. Nothing to do with health, but with keeping their vintner buddies happy.

It opens a whole new black market, plus brexit can't come soon enough. Suck on that blueshirts :pac:

Aren't Fianna Fail in favour of the plan as well?

pleas advice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Run a flow pipe from your toilet to your water tank, and you'll have Heino coming out of the kitchen tap.

ah now, thats hardly fair...,

did the odd home brew here, with Coopers kits, how much more hassle is it doing an actual brew from scratch, with grain and hops...? I'd only be going for lagers, or whatevers handiest

Ipso

pleas advice wrote: »

ah now, thats hardly fair...,

did the odd home brew here, with Coopers kits, how much more hassle is it doing an actual brew from scratch, with grain and hops...? I'd only be going for lagers, or whatevers handiest

Extract brewing is easy enough. All grain takes longer, not very difficult but it can go wrong easily.
Lagers are more difficult than ales, as they require good temperature control (they ferment at a lower temperature).

VinLieger

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Aren't Fianna Fail in favour of the plan as well?

Something like half the FF parliamentary party are publicans of course they are in favour of it

VinLieger

It really is depressing how this is likely gonna pass without one reasonable politician pointing out the bull**** its based on. I get that its an easy pass that looks good for election time but its so fvcking annoying that it will ultimately do absolutely zero for the issue its attempting to fix and simply go towards propping up the failing vintners refusal to adapt their business models

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

It really is depressing how this is likely gonna pass without one reasonable politician pointing out the bull**** its based on. I get that its an easy pass that looks good for election time but its so fvcking annoying that it will ultimately do absolutely zero for the issue its attempting to fix and simply go towards propping up the failing vintners refusal to adapt their business models

I agree that it is annoying but disagree that it will have any effect on the vintners. (whilst I accept that that is one of the main reasons for it).

I just cannot see that any person will decide to go to the pub to pay nearly €6 for a pint rather than pay for cans in the offy as they do now. I cannot think of any circumstance that I would decide to hold a party in the pub rather than at home simply because the slab of drink costs X amount more, at least until the difference is much smaller.

You are still looking at €5 v's €1.70 a bottle. Its a no brainer.

weldoninhio

punisher5112 wrote: »

If I could make heino I would be very happy so if you say home brew could be nicer I likes the idea.

Just pee in a bottle. Presto, homemade Heino.

10000maniacs

A lot of brewers in the EU are objecting to minimum pricing. They break competition rules.
I can imagine the brewers of the Polish beers that you see in Aldi and Lidl will be up in arms. Also the makers of Dutch Gold.
These are going to put up against the premium beers like Guinness, Carlsberg and Hophouse 13 with similar prices.
Also if say a German beer wants to enter the Irish market, minimum pricing will make it virtually impossible for them to do so. No discounted promotions will be allowed anymore.

KrustyUCC

Calls for TDs not to delay final stages of Alcohol Bill

Alcohol Action Ireland is calling on TDs to consider peoples health rather than the interests of the alcohol industry.

The group want thirteen TDs to withdraw their proposed amendments to the Public Health Alcohol Bill, ahead of its final stages on Wednesday.

They say that they are advancing the business interests of the alcohol industry rather than the wellbeing of their constituents.

Eunan McKinney from Alcohol Action Ireland says that it needs to be finalised.

"This bill has now been in the offing for over a thousand days and it's very close to being completed," he said.

"What the TDs are endeavouring to do is simply delay, by instruments of the alcohol industry, by putting down a set of new amendments and we're asking for them not to be accepted."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/calls-for-tds-not-to-delay-final-stages-of-alcohol-bill-869464.html

Oh boo hoo

It's amazing that this bloody bill has got as far as it has

I really hope other EU countries get this billed stopped

To remind people where this so called health bill has come from
"5.3 Keeping Communities Vibrant

Supporting Irish Pubs: Fine Gael recognises the importance of the Irish pub for tourism, rural jobs and as
a social outlet in communities across the country. We will support the local pub by banning the practice
of below cost selling on alcohol, particularly by large supermarkets and the impact this has had on alcohol
consumption and the viability of pubs. "

I love how Alcohol Action Ireland are never called on the lies they are peddling about cheap alcohol in this country

We already have some of the most expensive alcohol in Europe

Take a can of Perlenbacher in Lidl

On sale in Spain for €0.35. On sale here €1.05

Already 200% dearer than in Spain

Under this bill it will increase to €1.89 which is 440% dearer for the exact same can

No doctor could claim that the same can is over 5 times more damaging to the health of an Irish person than a spanish person

10000maniacs

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Aren't Fianna Fail in favour of the plan as well?

And that makes the bill ok. :pac:

VinLieger

Alcohol action ireland are such a bunch of filthy liars, they are touting overall alcohol sales as having increased without any data on consumption per capita which makes their numbers absolutely meaningless.

hatrickpatrick

VinLieger wrote: »

Alcohol action ireland are such a bunch of filthy liars, they are touting overall alcohol sales as having increased without any data on consumption per capita which makes their numbers absolutely meaningless.

AAI are scumbags simply because they're advocating penalising the many to "help" "save" the few "from themselves". Their entire ideology absolutely sickens me, TBH.

Leroy42

I wouldn't call them scumbags, they are looking at the devastation that alcohol has caused throughout the country and trying to formulate ways to reduce the terrible effects it has on individuals, children, family etc.

They are up against formidable interests in the form of the producers and sellers of the produce, as well as the inbuilt favourability to the product of the general population. So to try to get some measures across they have to push very hard, and that of course impacts on the many whilst saving the few.

They would see their fight as akin to the battle against smoking. If we look back at that fight, there are clear similarities between them, in terms of how the industry tried to portray itself as benign and simply trying to help the consumer and the consumer felt hard done by.

Now I agree that the way they are going about it is both disingenuous and wrong, but I can understand where they are coming from. Faced with doing nothing, or getting something, they are taking what they can get. They will fight the vintners at a later stage as at present it is a bridge too far.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wouldn't call them scumbags, they are looking at the devastation that alcohol has caused throughout the country and trying to formulate ways to reduce the terrible effects it has on individuals, children, family etc.

They are fascists who want to run everybody else's lives - because they can't run their own - and believe their cause so just they are above the truth. They are more dangerous than scumbags. Liberty and responsibilty scares them.

KrustyUCC

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wouldn't call them scumbags, they are looking at the devastation that alcohol has caused throughout the country and trying to formulate ways to reduce the terrible effects it has on individuals, children, family etc.

They are up against formidable interests in the form of the producers and sellers of the produce, as well as the inbuilt favourability to the product of the general population. So to try to get some measures across they have to push very hard, and that of course impacts on the many whilst saving the few.

They would see their fight as akin to the battle against smoking. If we look back at that fight, there are clear similarities between them, in terms of how the industry tried to portray itself as benign and simply trying to help the consumer and the consumer felt hard done by.

Now I agree that the way they are going about it is both disingenuous and wrong, but I can understand where they are coming from. Faced with doing nothing, or getting something, they are taking what they can get. They will fight the vintners at a later stage as at present it is a bridge too far.

I'd be very surprised if they take on the Vintners as they know they will lose

Sure this bill is solely to help the Vintners out and try to get people back into the pubs

Leroy42

odyssey06 wrote: »

They are fascists who want to run everybody else's lives - because they can't run their own - and believe their cause so just they are above the truth. They are more dangerous than scumbags. Liberty and responsibilty scares them.

There are very clear dangers with alcohol, both from an individual health POV and societal. As I said, I think they are going about it the wrong way, but there is a clear case that something needs to be done to tackle the problem.

Irish society has, in general terms, showed itself to be incapable of dealing with it. When that happens, you invariably get those people that think they are above the level of the normal person and in the right place to solve the problem on their terms.

IMO, we should be demanding that alcohol free alternatives are available in all pubs, at a reasonable price. We should be demanding more stringent dealing with alcoholics and drink driving. Drink should not ever be used as an excuse to reduce the severity of a charge/sentence.

We should be demanding that all alcoholic drinks carry a levy to help fund education and treatment. All alcoholic producers, above a certain size, should have to provide cost effective non alcoholic alternatives.

Anyone found selling alcohol to underage should be closed down (with increasing terms for each offence) and a hefty fine.

odyssey06

Leroy42 wrote: »

There are very clear dangers with alcohol, both from an individual health POV and societal. As I said, I think they are going about it the wrong way, but there is a clear case that something needs to be done to tackle the problem.

There are but that's not this group's agenda. They are not trying to tackle the problem which would involve an adult and mature view that other people are going to drink and a look at how other countries deal with the issue.
Faking stats is just plain wrong and treating adults like children does not lead to a healthy relationship with alcohol. AAI have an unhealthy attitude to alcohol too and in fact their agenda is part of the problem that takes us further away from a mature relationship with alcohol.

hatrickpatrick

Good news, looks like there's a potential "damned if they do, damned if they don't" issue coming up with regard to trying to implement this bill:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ff-will-withdraw-irish-amendment-if-it-puts-alcohol-bill-at-risk-1.3632480

Fianna Fáil will withdraw an amendment to controversial legislation requiring health warnings to be listed on alcohol products in Irish as well as English if there is a “genuine risk” to implementation of the Bill.
Party health spokesman Stephen Donnelly said he had submitted an amendment to the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill, which aims to improve drinking habits in Ireland, “solely with the intention of protecting the implementation of the Bill and recognising the role of the Irish language”.

Mr Donnelly said: “I have discussed with Minister [for Health Simon] Harris potential concerns with regard to the Bill being delayed.
“If having debated this further with him in the Dáil there is a genuine risk to implementation then I will withdraw the amendment.”
Public health advocates have expressed concern that the amendment will require notification to the European Commission if passed, because it is a strengthening of the measure and the EU will have to consider whether it constitutes a barrier to trade.

The notification will require a minimum three-month automatic standstill on the Bill, which has already spent almost three years going through the Oireachtas.
Mr Donnelly said he believed that not having the warnings in Irish “opens the Bill up to legal challenge”, pointing to a successful High Court challenge and ruling that health warnings on tobacco products must also be in Irish.

So in other words, the bill could either be delayed (and potentially thrown out) by a court challenge if the warning labels aren't in Irish, but subject to another massive delay at the European Commission if this amendment is brought in. Either one would increase the possibility of the bill not passing before the next election. :cool:

Also:

Thirteen TDs including Independents and other members of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have also submitted amendments opposing elements of the label and advertising warnings.

We'll see how the debate goes (according to this it's on Wednesday and not tomorrow as I thought) but it looks somewhat likely that the bill could face a further delay. With 13 amendments to be discussed and the bill scheduled for discussion during a five-hour period on Wednesday which also includes four other motions (including statements on the Scally report which I imagine will take up a significant portion of the evening), it's possible they may not even get around to discussing it this week at all.

hatrickpatrick

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wouldn't call them scumbags, they are looking at the devastation that alcohol has caused throughout the country and trying to formulate ways to reduce the terrible effects it has on individuals, children, family etc.

They are up against formidable interests in the form of the producers and sellers of the produce, as well as the inbuilt favourability to the product of the general population. So to try to get some measures across they have to push very hard, and that of course impacts on the many whilst saving the few.

They would see their fight as akin to the battle against smoking. If we look back at that fight, there are clear similarities between them, in terms of how the industry tried to portray itself as benign and simply trying to help the consumer and the consumer felt hard done by.

Now I agree that the way they are going about it is both disingenuous and wrong, but I can understand where they are coming from. Faced with doing nothing, or getting something, they are taking what they can get. They will fight the vintners at a later stage as at present it is a bridge too far.

The missing element of this is the fact that they're trying to "help" people by restricting their freedom of choice even in their own home, and expecting us to celebrate that. As far as I'm concerned, any movement which encroaches upon personal freedom at home is far too authoritarian for a civilised society. If they were just talking about societal issues in general, that'd be one thing - but they're essentially preaching that I don't fully own my body and don't have autonomy over whether I choose to risk harm to it or not by engaging in an activity that I choose to engage in, on my own, in private.

Any such argument is one I regard as scummy, but again that's just because I'm an ideological social libertarian who doesn't believe that an individual's body belongs to anyone, in any way or in any context, other than that individual alone.

Reputable Rog

Leroy42 wrote: »

There are very clear dangers with alcohol, both from an individual health POV and societal. As I said, I think they are going about it the wrong way, but there is a clear case that something needs to be done to tackle the problem.

Irish society has, in general terms, showed itself to be incapable of dealing with it. When that happens, you invariably get those people that think they are above the level of the normal person and in the right place to solve the problem on their terms.

IMO, we should be demanding that alcohol free alternatives are available in all pubs, at a reasonable price. We should be demanding more stringent dealing with alcoholics and drink driving. Drink should not ever be used as an excuse to reduce the severity of a charge/sentence.

We should be demanding that all alcoholic drinks carry a levy to help fund education and treatment. All alcoholic producers, above a certain size, should have to provide cost effective non alcoholic alternatives.

Anyone found selling alcohol to underage should be closed down (with increasing terms for each offence) and a hefty fine.

That is some sanctimonious rubbish.

Leroy42

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The missing element of this is the fact that they're trying to "help" people by restricting their freedom of choice even in their own home, and expecting us to celebrate that. As far as I'm concerned, any movement which encroaches upon personal freedom at home is far too authoritarian for a civilised society. If they were just talking about societal issues in general, that'd be one thing - but they're essentially preaching that I don't fully own my body and don't have autonomy over whether I choose to risk harm to it or not by engaging in an activity that I choose to engage in, on my own, in private.

Any such argument is one I regard as scummy, but again that's just because I'm an ideological social libertarian who doesn't believe that an individual's body belongs to anyone, in any way or in any context, other than that individual alone.

Doesn't make them scummy though.

But society, as the name suggests, means that individual rights are always being reduced to take account of the betterment for the overall. That is why we have speed limits, and limits on drugs, and laws. If your drinking had no impact on anyone else then its fine, but how can you guarantee that?

Problem drinkers don't start out that way. Abusive alcoholics don't start out like that. At if the product you consume ends up making you ill, or having an accident, who will help you out? The health service by any chance? The garda and firebrigade to clean up after another drink driver has an accident.

It is not about celebrating anything, I am against this bill and against the tactics use by AAI, but they are in no way scummy. Scummy are the pub owners that continue to sell the product to the town alcoholic. That continue to sell the product to the already drunk group that then goes on to cause a fight in the town.

To the producers that market the product as a lifestyle choice, full of smiles and happiness, but give only a passing nod to the effects that continued and excessive use that cause. A society that despite welcoming the marketing spend and branding of the products blames those that get entangled in it negative effects.

A society that has almost every social outing based around the product. Every sports club has a bar, every christening, birthday party etc is centered around the product.

Reputable Rog wrote: »

That is some sanctimonious rubbish.

So you think there are no dangers with alcohol, that it is a perfectly safe product to consume?

You think it is right that these producers should be free of the societal effects? You don't think they carry any responsibility to pay for the outcomes as a direct result of their product?

You need to separate your desire for drink, perfectly reasonable, from the overall effects that it continues to have on our country. Take a trip to A&E on Friday and Saturday night and tell me that alcohol is not having a negative impact.

Read the stories at the weekend of another fight in town, fueled by people with too much to drink, read the story of the drunk driver that killed a young mother. Read that and tell me who is sanctimonious.

kunst nugget

Reputable Rog wrote: »

That is some sanctimonious rubbish.

Strictly enforce drink driving laws, encourage companies to create alcohol-free alternatives (although tbf, there's been a plethora of non-alcholohic beers after coming on the market) and have a levy on drinks to fund education and treatment... I'm not sure what's sanctimonious there.

To be honest, most of the above is what I'd want the government put in place before they legalise cannabis if that ever happens - strict enforcement of drug driving and a levy to support education and treatment.

Zubeneschamali

kunst nugget wrote: »

Strictly enforce drink driving laws, encourage companies to create alcohol-free alternatives (although tbf, there's been a plethora of non-alcholohic beers after coming on the market) and have a levy on drinks to fund education and treatment... I'm not sure what's sanctimonious there.

None of those things are MUP though.

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

None of those things are MUP though.

MUP?

Zubeneschamali

kunst nugget wrote: »

MUP?

typo - MAP minimum alcohol pricing, the subject of the thread.

AAI supporting MAP is just a case of:

1) We must do something.
2) This is something.
3) Therefore we must do this.

MAP is a tax on poor people who can't afford craft beer or good wine with the proceeds going to the drinks industry. It is horrifically regressive and props up the industry which AAI should be fighting.

A % increase in excise with the proceeds going to fund education and rehab would be a genuine anti-alcohol measure. This is just a prop-up-the-TDs-family-pub measure.

ohnonotgmail

kunst nugget wrote: »

MUP?

Minimum Unit Pricing

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

typo - MAP minimum alcohol pricing, the subject of the thread.

AAI supporting MAP is just a case of:

1) We must do something.
2) This is something.
3) Therefore we must do this.

MAP is a tax on poor people who can't afford craft beer or good wine with the proceeds going to the drinks industry. It is horrifically regressive and props up the industry which AAI should be fighting.

A % increase in excise with the proceeds going to fund education and rehab would be a genuine anti-alcohol measure. This is just a prop-up-the-TDs-family-pub measure.

I'm still confused. Nothing I said suggested I agreed with the Minimum Alcohol Pricing Bill being put forward at the moment. I don't agree with it all - it's a bunch of bullshít - but I'd be in favour of the measures that Leroy 42 suggested.