Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Leroy42

Just to clarify as it has gone OT.

I was referring to a comment that the AAI were scumbags. I was pointing out that I didn't agree with that and there was much worse actors in this area that them, who whilst I don't agree with them, at least have peoples health at their core.

Many seem to be of the opinion that MAP is not only wrong, which it is, but that there isn't even a problem which needs a solution.

Whatever about the pros and cons of MAP, I would have thought that most everyone acknowledged that alcohol causes many very serious problem in our society. I just because you, and those you know, are not negatively effected (although many people are able to hide up for many years from their friends and families) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

But probably best that we leave it there and get back to the substantive point of the thread, that being MAP, which I disagree with.

Reputable Rog

The problem with alcohol in this country is the kids glove attitude taken towards it. Restricting Alcohol like we do in this country creates a mystique around it and in turn an over indulgence.
I've just come back once again from Portugal where I was able to by Alcohol and any hour of the day if I wanted to and its availability is much more widespread than here.
I could go to the foodcourt in a shopping centre and have a beer with my lunch something I can't do here and it cost less than having a coke with my meal. I could go to Lidl and have a beer, wine or spirit in the cafe.
The difference is they treat people like adults as opposed to here. We've just swapped the shackles off the Catholic theocracy for a new Healthist regime.

KrustyUCC

You also could do all of those things far far cheaper than you do here as it is and prices are only going up under this poor legislation

I'm heading to Spain on Friday and I'm going to make sure to make a note of the prices over there

Reputable Rog

Its funny in the resort I was staying in people had been complaining about prices in the onsite Minimarket, Dutch and german tourists in particular.
One litre of Jameson was retaling at €20.50 in this "expensive" mini market. You could buy 2 litres and would nearly have the same for 1 litre in Ireland.

Taxes and levys don't work, people will just go without other essential items.

kunst nugget

Reputable Rog wrote: »

The problem with alcohol in this country is the kids glove attitude taken towards it. Restricting Alcohol like we do in this country creates a mystique around it and in turn an over indulgence.
I've just come back once again from Portugal where I was able to by Alcohol and any hour of the day if I wanted to and its availability is much more widespread than here.
I could go to the foodcourt in a shopping centre and have a beer with my lunch something I can't do here and it cost less than having a coke with my meal. I could go to Lidl and have a beer, wine or spirit in the cafe.
The difference is they treat people like adults as opposed to here. We've just swapped the shackles off the Catholic theocracy for a new Healthist regime.

I remember hearing before on the radio a link between how long alcohol has been in a culture versus rates of alcoholism and binge drinking. So Mediterranean countries have had it far longer than say countries like Ireland and the Uk and the Nordic countries who have corresponding higher rates of alcoholism and binge drinking. It gets more extreme when we look at Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians who have been decimated by alcohol. The person talking about it suggested a possible genetic component to it in that Mediterranean (and Gallic) people might have had much more to build up a tolerance to alcohol than their Celtic or Nordic counterparts.

dr.fuzzenstein

kunst nugget wrote: »

I remember hearing before on the radio a link between how long alcohol has been in a culture versus rates of alcoholism and binge drinking. So Mediterranean countries have had it far longer than say countries like Ireland and the Uk and the Nordic countries who have corresponding higher rates of alcoholism and binge drinking. It gets more extreme when we look at Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians who have been decimated by alcohol. The person talking about it suggested a possible genetic component to it in that Mediterranean (and Gallic) people might have had much more to build up a tolerance to alcohol than their Celtic or Nordic counterparts.

Interesting theory, but according to many links I've perused, whiskey has existed in ireland since the 12th century or earlier.
That, by anyone's standards, should qualify as a long time.
We're not talking about Indians going mad on firewater here.

edit:
This specifically for distilled alcohol, fermented alcohol has been around for thousands of years.
So the argument that the Irish and Scottish are not used to this new-fangled alcohol malarkey does perplex me a bit.

kunst nugget

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Interesting theory, but according to many links I've perused, whiskey has existed in ireland since the 12th century or earlier.
That, by anyone's standards, should qualify as a long time.
We're not talking about Indians going mad on firewater here.

Wine was being produced for trade in Italy in the 2nd century BC so they would have more than a thousand years on us.

Here's actually an interesting research paper on the issue:

http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/ar1096.htm

The weather and scarcity of alcohol in the North. Cunliffe (1986) suggests that infrequent, but heavy, drinking to intoxication may have developed among northern Celtic and Germanic tribes in antiquity, because alcoholic beverages were not always available due to variations in the weather. Even today, unpredictable weather patterns, including drought and floods, can produce lean years for fruit or grains in the north. If alcohol production was limited, due to the grain supply, a "feast or famine" situation may have occurred leading to sporadic bouts of heavy drinking to intoxication whenever any alcohol was available. This behaviour is suggestive by the many descriptions of overindulgence when wine was imported to the northern inhabitants by Mediterranean traders to be discussed in more detail later.

Also, "malt liquor" produced without preservatives tends to spoil quickly, thus inducing people to consume it while still fresh. Mead, which depends upon a honey supply, was likely scarce. Because grain and fruits also needed to be used as food supplies, is it likely that alcoholic beverages may have been, scarce in the northern European region for most of its early history, and even later history (Brun-Gulbrandsen 1988:13,19) ? Could this scarcity have influenced a pattern of episodic drinking to intoxication in the North among some of the population ? Could episodic drinking and its ensuing problems have resulted in an attitude of ambiguity towards alcohol ?

I know it's totally off topic but some might find it interesting.

dr.fuzzenstein

kunst nugget wrote: »

Wine was being produced for trade in Italy in the 2nd century BC so they would have more than a thousand years on us.

Here's actually an interesting research paper on the issue:

http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/ar1096.htm



I know it's totally off topic but some might find it interesting.

Thanks, that is fascinating.
Well, the date of the 12th century was more for whiskey, but fermented drinks, such as mead, have been around for a lot longer.

kunst nugget

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Thanks, that is fascinating.
Well, the date of the 12th century was more for whiskey, but fermented drinks, such as mead, have been around for a lot longer.

The theory about the seasons affecting ingredients resulting in a feast or famine scenario in terms of the production of alcohol which in turn lent itself to episodic, binge drinking is really interesting.

Edit: It does put a different spin on things in terms of looking at the continent and wondering why we can't have a drinking culture like theirs.

hatrickpatrick

Leroy42 wrote: »

Doesn't make them scummy though.

In my view, it does.

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?

I don't agree with limits on drugs either, nor on laws which do not involve an explicit victim or threat to others. It shouldn't be up to the individual to guarantee that their behaviour won't impact on others, it should be up to legislation to guarantee that it does. If even one person can get plastered without hurting anyone, then that person is unfairly impacted by minimum pricing and therefore the law is the wrong way to deal with the problem - it should be dealt with by more specifically targeted measures. Speed limits are different because if you speed, you're guaranteed to pose a threat to other drivers. Not everyone reacts the same way to drinking or behaves the same way when drunk, so they're not guaranteed to pose a threat to anyone.

The balance of probabilities is not a good enough standard for restricting individual freedom across the board.

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.

If we apply that standard to restricting individual freedom, we have to apply it to everything. Logically, it doesn't make sense to apply it to some instances where others have to help clean up peoples' mistakes, but not all. So for instance, should casual sex be restricted because the health services will have to take care of those who contract STDs? Should swimming be restricted across the board in case people who can't swim get into difficulty and have to be rescued? Should buying a box of matches or a lighter be subject to restrictive measures because the customer might be an arsonist?

"Might" cause harm is not a good enough justification for restricting everyone's freedom, and that's what AAI are not only promoting, but gleefully celebrating whenever this horrendous legislation takes another step towards being passed.

It is not about celebrating anything

AAI's Twitter and social media posts would beg to differ, I'm afraid.

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.

Those are personal choices, though. The only person responsible for doing bad things while intoxicated is the person who does bad things while intoxicated. It's not anyone else's job in society, nor should it be, to hold that person's hand - if they do bad things, intoxicated or otherwise, they should be prosecuted for it. The rest of us should not have any of our individual liberty curtailed because some people, might cause problems when abusing those liberties.

elperello

I sat down at home this evening before dinner and drank two beers and a small whiskey.
Can anyone explain how making me pay €1.40 - €2.00 more for this modest pleasure will benefit either my health or anyone else's?

Fr Tod Umptious

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 tend to agree.

The first thing they went after with smoking was the visibility. They took the tobacco logos off shop fronts, the adds off the parpers and magazines, and earlier off the TV of course.
Then they banned it from sports events, eventually they took away the visibility from the points of sale and the packets themselves.
So a generation grew up not recognizing tobacco brands the way the generation before them did.
And smoking numbers have dropped and dropped.

Do the same with alcohol, to take the brands off the TV, off the sports field, out of the shop window.
It's not going to effect or inconvenience anyone already drinking but will help prevent future generations to start.

hatrickpatrick

Well the bill has been pulled from the Dáil - again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/shortall-claims-spurious-reasons-being-used-to-delay-alcohol-bill-1.3633377

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has assured the Dáil that the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill will be dealt with this week, if it is possible.
TDs were informed on Tuesday morning that the controversial legislation, which includes measures on segregating alcohol sales in shops and placing health warnings on labels, had been withdrawn to allow for consideration of new amendments.

...


Government Chief Whip Joe McHugh said he believed the Bill would be back before the Dáil next week after new amendments were considered.
“There is no delay,” he said.
Mr Varadkar told the House that “as head of the Government and the minister who published the Bill I want to get it passed. If there is a way to get it back on this week we will do so.”

Long may the delays continue :cool:

andekwarhola

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

You have to almost admire the gall of it all.

They've basically exploited an emotional and simplistic angle on alcohol abuse in order to usher through legislation to prop up an ailing publican industry.

RobbingBandit

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

elperello wrote: »

I sat down at home this evening before dinner and drank two beers and a small whiskey.
Can anyone explain how making me pay €1.40 - €2.00 more for this modest pleasure will benefit either my health or anyone else's?

The tax collected will pay for a new private jet for an taoiseach and the gang to go off on their holliers and all that, now doesn’t that feel healthy

RobbingBandit

RobbingBandit wrote: »

The tax collected will pay for a new private jet for an taoiseach and the gang to go off on their holliers and all that, now doesn’t that feel healthy

Except it isn't a tax. The exchequer will make very little from this. Mr Diageo will be getting a new jet though. Mr Tesco too.

TallGlass

RobbingBandit wrote: »

The tax collected will pay for a new private jet for an taoiseach and the gang to go off on their holliers and all that, now doesn’t that feel healthy

There summer holidays are so long they run into Autumn.

Today is the 18th of September in another 6 weeks they'll be off for another week.

Following that in 6 weeks they'll be off for another 4 weeks.

Quite literally the most handy number you'd ever come across, paid to go to work, paid a great salary, great allowances, free bar and food in your job, answerable to literally no-one unless you really **** up and your job is literally coming up with charges and taxes, along with ramming them in as quick as possible while everything around the place is falling apart.

Some party needs to go in and clear the deck with this system, it's quite literally not fit for purpose, the country is in **** in every single area and all these boys keep on doing is taking days off. Can't stand the look of the miserable bastards when they walk around the place, miserable cause they have to actually do there job and yano listen to the people in there communities and solve problems.

VinLieger

RobbingBandit wrote: »

The tax collected will pay for a new private jet for an taoiseach and the gang to go off on their holliers and all that, now doesn’t that feel healthy

It wont actuslly as its not a tax which is another ridculous part of this, thr vast majority of the price increases will go into the retailers pockets as pure profit

RobbingBandit

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

For you lads saying it's not a tax remember VOTE QUIMBY

the_syco

RobbingBandit wrote: »

For you lads saying it's not a tax remember VOTE QUIMBY

By "it's not a tax", they mean that the government doesn't get it. The minimum price will just be extra profit for the companies selling it.

Thus, all cans would in theory all be the same price.

kunst nugget

RobbingBandit wrote: »

For you lads saying it's not a tax remember VOTE QUIMBY

But it's not generating any revenue for the state so it's not a tax...

Zubeneschamali

kunst nugget wrote: »

But it's not generating any revenue for the state so it's not a tax...

Yes, I would be much happier with this if it was a tax. Just raise the % tax on all alcohol - Dom Perignon in line with Galahad, and use the cash for alcohol education.

This measure is not anti-alcohol, it is pro-alcohol-business.

Richard Hillman

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'd tend to agree.

The first thing they went after with smoking was the visibility. They took the tobacco logos off shop fronts, the adds off the parpers and magazines, and earlier off the TV of course.
Then they banned it from sports events, eventually they took away the visibility from the points of sale and the packets themselves.
So a generation grew up not recognizing tobacco brands the way the generation before them did.
And smoking numbers have dropped and dropped.

Do the same with alcohol, to take the brands off the TV, off the sports field, out of the shop window.
It's not going to effect or inconvenience anyone already drinking but will help prevent future generations to start.

Smoking is one thing but what's wrong with drinking though? It's part of our culture. Why would we want to turn future generations away from Alcohol? Alcohol is great fun, for all to enjoy.

McMurphy

All the lads reminding us that it's not a tax......

Of course it's not a tax hike.

A tax hike on booze - would mean a tax on booze sold everywhere - including the booze Mr Vintner sells.

FG want to protect Mr Vintner, and gently try and entice you back into his pub by targeting his competitors.

They're not even trying to be subtle about it eifher.

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, I would be much happier with this if it was a tax. Just raise the % tax on all alcohol - Dom Perignon in line with Galahad, and use the cash for alcohol education.

This measure is not anti-alcohol, it is pro-alcohol-business.

champagne has higher taxation per % than pretty much everything else.

Leroy42

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Smoking is one thing but what's wrong with drinking though? It's part of our culture. Why would we want to turn future generations away from Alcohol? Alcohol is great fun, for all to enjoy.

There are multiple reports showing the risks to health from alcohol.

There are clear signs, in every A&E every weekend, or the negative effects of alcohol. There are societal effects.

Gun ownership is part of the culture in the US, doesn't make it right (I am not equating alcohol with gun ownership, only the cultural attachment to it.

Clearly, a limited amount of alcohol is of no risk to anyone (in terms of the general population). The problem is that the makers and sellers of the product have never come up with anything that would reduce the negative effects and that has allowed the likes of AAI and the vintners (strangely) to position themselves in that space.

Unfortunately, it is the general public that is going to pay the price.

kunst nugget

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

All the lads reminding us that it's not a tax......

Of course it's not a tax hike.

A tax hike on booze - would mean a tax on booze sold everywhere - including the booze Mr Vintner sells.

FG want to protect Mr Vintner, and gently try and entice you back into his pub by targeting his competitors.

They're not even trying to be subtle about it eifher.

Plus they don't want to piss off retailers so they make sure that they get handy extra profit on all the alcohol they sell. Win win for everyone!!! Well... except the consumer.

Fr Tod Umptious

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Smoking is one thing but what's wrong with drinking though? It's part of our culture. Why would we want to turn future generations away from Alcohol? Alcohol is great fun, for all to enjoy.

I don’t know if you are taking the p*ss or not.
Alcohol causes untold damage in our society. I believe the impact of alcohol is far more wide ranging than that of smoking.

Smoking primarily kills the smoker, and since the workplace smoking ban the impact of smoking on non-smokers has been reduced.

But alcohol can do damage all over the place, not only the health of the drinker but also abused spouses and kids, assaults on the streets, road deaths etc etc

I don’t see any downside of a society with less alcohol.

Greyfox

Leroy42 wrote: »

Clearly, a limited amount of alcohol is of no risk to anyone

In that case why punish those that can handle there drink. Increasing the minimum cost of alcohol is attacking something that's a big part of our culture and something thats a big part of whats great about Ireland. The government needs to find a way to deal with over consumption without punishing those who don't regularly overdo it.

VinLieger

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Do the same with alcohol, to take the brands off the TV, off the sports field, out of the shop window.
It's not going to effect or inconvenience anyone already drinking but will help prevent future generations to start.

Id have no problem with most of that tbh, sports will take a hit but will ultimately find funding elsewhere.


The curtain idea which was originally in this bill and thankfully has been left by the wayside was absolute idiocy though.