Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Liamo08

Leroy42 wrote: »

MAP will mean that it really won't make any real difference.

How will MAP have any impact on a decent bottle of wine that costs more than the minimum already? There will be a cost to the new labeling process which won't just be absorbed by the importer.

Leroy42

10000maniacs wrote: »

What has that got to do with non alcoholics? Why is everybody being hit?
Beer and wine are 4 times cheaper in Spain, so why the alcohol consumption rate less in Spain?
This minimum pricing farce has nothing to do with peoples health. Its an attempt by Fine Gael (and FF too) to bail out their vintner buddies.

There are many reasons why alcohol consumption is higher in Ireland, the UK, Norway etc than in other countries.

Social acceptance, climate, history all play a role.

Do you think the consumption rate would be altered if we brought our prices in line with the likes of Spain? I would think that it would be far higher than it is now.

Contrary to that, a recent report has shown that underage drinking (15 yo) is dropping dramatically in UK and Ireland https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/26/uk-and-irish-teenagers-among-worst-in-europe-for-problem-drinking but still remains high. So it is clear that our attitudes are changing.

So is this measure the next step on the path or simply a waste of time and will do nothing to change the chances already happening? I don't know but I don't see it as bad step. On its own, the way it is currently devised, it is going to achieve nothing, apart from a possible small reprieve for Pubs (although I seriously doubt it). If it was part of a wider campaign, a campaign to ensure that the drinks companies started to contribute to the solution through levies and targeted educational programs, though sports development grants etc, then I would be more in favour of it.

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

Jesus when did everyone need to be babied so much, if people don't have the cop on to understand anything in excess is probably bad for you then they deserve whatever the results are.



Are we going to put warnings on ice cream now that too much might make you fat?

Depending on the person to much excercise can also be bad for you, wheres the warnings plastered all over the gym, or on all exercise gear and equipment?

Watching TV or sitting in front of a computer all day everyday isnt great for your health either, wheres the warnings on chairs, couches or TV's?


Seriously what happened to personal responsibility?

I totally agree with your sentiment, but that is the world we now live in. Everyone, well some, what to blame everything on someone else. Its all fine saying personal responsibility but where does that begin and end?

Should we refuse health care to smokers? If there is one area that people should really be aware of the risks cigarettes are it. What about stopping fat people from getting access to doctors until they get fit?

Again, its a real tricky one. But society does carry the responsibility and therefore is has a duty to inform people of the risks.

McMurphy

Pizza boxes with photos of obese lads?
Sugar filled sweets or confectionary products with rot toothed/toothless gurning folk smiling back at them?

As above - you can't demand health warning messages on drink from offences, but make licensed premises exempt.

Where will the nanny state bull crap end?

These vintners have some balls.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

I totally agree with your sentiment, but that is the world we now live in. Everyone, well some, what to blame everything on someone else. Its all fine saying personal responsibility but where does that begin and end?

Should we refuse health care to smokers? If there is one area that people should really be aware of the risks cigarettes are it. What about stopping fat people from getting access to doctors until they get fit?

Again, its a real tricky one. But society does carry the responsibility and therefore is has a duty to inform people of the risks.

Agreed however that is not what is being pushed in this legislation, the labeling being proposed will be saying "alcohol can cause cancer" Nothing about drinking to excess or the nuances that studies have revealed about how it can cause cancer has been suggested as this amendment was written by nanny staters such as frances black who don't care about accurate information they just have their own agenda and will do anything to achieve it.

The agenda may be noble but by giving incorrect or inaccurate information we are getting into territory whereby the ends justify the means.

southstar

Leroy42 wrote: »

But no one is claiming that any alcohol is bad. What they are saying is that the public should be giving the real information, not just the information provided by the PR of the breweries. So Diageo etc get to out out the lifestyle, the fun, the social gatherings line, and it is left to the state to try to balance that with some of the not some fun features of the product.

It is a tricky one because as you say a small amount of the product is probably fine (and certainly IMO no worse than lots of other stuff we are forced to consume and I include air pollution in that) but clearly larger amounts or continual use causes problems.

It is tricky then on how to deal with that. We don't want to go down the road of buying limits so the only alternative is to put it on each product.

Yeah like that's really going to work....people know that excess is harmful ...its not feckin rocket science....now we all faced being ripped off even further as result of pandering to the whims of a patronoizing cohort who always know whats best...save the sanctiminous blather and do something useful that involves real effort ..like sorting out the housing issue for example.

10000maniacs

Leroy42 wrote: »

There are many reasons why alcohol consumption is higher in Ireland, the UK, Norway etc than in other countries.

Social acceptance, climate, history all play a role.

Do you think the consumption rate would be altered if we brought our prices in line with the likes of Spain? I would think that it would be far higher than it is now.

Contrary to that, a recent report has shown that underage drinking (15 yo) is dropping dramatically in UK and Ireland https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/sep/26/uk-and-irish-teenagers-among-worst-in-europe-for-problem-drinking but still remains high. So it is clear that our attitudes are changing.

So is this measure the next step on the path or simply a waste of time and will do nothing to change the chances already happening? I don't know but I don't see it as bad step. On its own, the way it is currently devised, it is going to achieve nothing, apart from a possible small reprieve for Pubs (although I seriously doubt it). If it was part of a wider campaign, a campaign to ensure that the drinks companies started to contribute to the solution through levies and targeted educational programs, though sports development grants etc, then I would be more in favour of it.

With all due respect, this is complete BS.

Leroy42

10000maniacs wrote: »

With all due respect, this is complete BS.

Every part of it? You don't think that anything other than price plays a part?

You don't agree with the findings of the research that underage drinking is declining?

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's this thing called the EU Single Market. We're not supposed to be putting up barriers to producers in other countries (or importers based here) and taking actions which restrict competition here.

Alchohol labelling should be standardised across the EU.

This will hit Irish alcohol exporters badly as their product will be the only ones with huge, unjustified scary warnings on the label.

Meanwhile importers of craft / specialised products here are going to either give up on less popular products, or apply stickers by hand, prices go up (even in products way above the MUP price) and competition goes down.

VinLieger wrote: »

It will affect the price as for many smaller breweries(specifically irish ones) having to create multiple labels for domestic and foreign markets will seriously impact their bottom line.

Which of you is right?

Anyway would they not be putting different labels on with different languages anyway?

Leroy42

southstar wrote: »

[/B]


Yeah like that's really going to work....people know that excess is harmful ...its not feckin rocket science....now we all faced being ripped off even further as result of pandering to the whims of a patronoizing cohort who always know whats best...save the sanctiminous blather and do something useful that involves real effort ..like sorting out the housing issue for example.

Its not rocket science and yet we have clear issues with alcohol in this country. This effects domesticially, A&E, productivity etc.

Are you suggesting that this is simply down to the fault of those caught up in it and they deserve no protection of help from the state? That problem drinker have only themselves to blame?

You clearly have no understanding of the creaping nature of alcoholism. Nobody sets out to become an alcoholic. There are a multitude of reasons why people become addicted to the product. Depression, life challenges, personality trait, lack of self esteem for example, and a major part is both the availability and the social acceptance of the produce coupled with the way that it is marketed.

hatrickpatrick

This is scheduled for debate again this evening but with this latest U-turn from Harris, I can foresee the bill being filibustered and delayed yet again

@Leroy, the state has no business pursuing policies which restrict everyone in order to either help or penalise the few. For the record, I have the same objection to the new sugar tax, to laws limiting where chippers can be, to laws allowing the council to regulate the geographical placement of sex toy shops, to laws banning consensual prostitution, etc.

Some may take the argument that there is no harm involved in alcohol, personally I'm not denying it and am merely ideologically aligned with one's total ownership of one's body and therefore one's right to harm it if one chooses to do so.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its not rocket science and yet we have clear issues with alcohol in this country. This effects domesticially, A&E, productivity etc.

No more than any other country.

Are you suggesting that this is simply down to the fault of those caught up in it and they deserve no protection of help from the state? That problem drinker have only themselves to blame?

You clearly have no understanding of the creaping nature of alcoholism. Nobody sets out to become an alcoholic. There are a multitude of reasons why people become addicted to the product. Depression, life challenges, personality trait, lack of self esteem for example, and a major part is both the availability and the social acceptance of the produce coupled with the way that it is marketed.

So, Nanny State, then?

10000maniacs

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There's this thing called the EU Single Market. We're not supposed to be putting up barriers to producers in other countries (or importers based here) and taking actions which restrict competition here.

Alchohol labelling should be standardised across the EU.

This will hit Irish alcohol exporters badly as their product will be the only ones with huge, unjustified scary warnings on the label.

Meanwhile importers of craft / specialised products here are going to either give up on less popular products, or apply stickers by hand, prices go up (even in products way above the MUP price) and competition goes down.

And also, brewers in say Holland and Poland who sell to Lidl and Aldi and to supermarkets as, for example Dutch Gold. If the prices of these brands suddenly jumped to premium Guinness and Carlsberg type levels, they will not be able to compete here and it is probably a sizable enough market for them.
I hope politicians in Holland and Poland are putting in strong objections to minimum pricing in Ireland. if not, their politicians should be held to account.

Flex

10000maniacs wrote: »

And also, brewers in say Holland and Poland who sell to Lidl and Aldi and to supermarkets as, for example Dutch Gold. If the prices of these brands suddenly jumped to premium Guinness and Carlsberg type levels, they will not be able to compete here and it is probably a sizable enough market for them.
I hope politicians in Holland and Poland are putting in strong objections to minimum pricing in Ireland. if not, their politicians should be held to account.

Something I mentioned on this ages ago regards brewers in other countries that seemed to be getting overlooked was around the labelling. If this does come to pass (which appears to be a certainty now) then many smaller breweries/wineries/distilleries will likely stop supplying Ireland as they will have very specific and unique labels that they will need to use for a relatively small export market of theirs. Beyond that, many distributors might choose to forego exporting to Ireland rather than have to apply labels to their brands that (from what I last read) will require 30% of the space to be covered in cancer warnings.

Very disappointed with this, will likely result in Irish based business units of Diageo and Heineken and the like having far greater reign over supply in Ireland. And yet again, this will have minimal impact on publicans. The original call with labelling had called for pouring taps to have to bear such warnings in pubs so that it would be very 'in your face', but it was dropped after the VFI and LVA complained about it. If it absolutely has to happen then it should be done as an EU wide standardised label of some sort

xckjoo

Flex wrote: »

Something I mentioned on this ages ago regards brewers in other countries that seemed to be getting overlooked was around the labelling. If this does come to pass (which appears to be a certainty now) then many smaller breweries/wineries/distilleries will likely stop supplying Ireland as they will have very specific and unique labels that they will need to use for a relatively small export market of theirs. Beyond that, many distributors might choose to forego exporting to Ireland rather than have to apply labels to their brands that (from what I last read) will require 30% of the space to be covered in cancer warnings.

Very disappointed with this, will likely result in Irish based business units of Diageo and Heineken and the like having far greater reign over supply in Ireland. And yet again, this will have minimal impact on publicans. The original call with labelling had called for pouring taps to have to bear such warnings in pubs so that it would be very 'in your face', but it was dropped after the VFI and LVA complained about it. If it absolutely has to happen then it should be done as an EU wide standardised label of some sort

Wouldn't that leave more room for Irish craft producers? Surely that's a good thing?

VinLieger

xckjoo wrote: »

Wouldn't that leave more room for Irish craft producers? Surely that's a good thing?

No as they would be left to only be able to compete with the Likes of Diageo with no realistic overseas market expansion being viable unless they want to bear the cost of having 2 different labels which for small breweries is not a small cost especially when it comes along with a risky new market. They are effectively marooned in the Irish Market stuck with the biggest and lets be honest aggressively monopolistic player in the game.

The Rape of Lucretia

Leroy42 wrote: »

But no one is claiming that any alcohol is bad.

It is a tricky one because as you say a small amount of the product is probably fine.

Not the case. It is known that any alcohol at all is bad.
There is no safe limit. People keep deluding themselves on this point and need to improve their knowledge of the matter.
As with smoking previously, public education if finally moving, and a huge reduction in alcohol i developped countries can be hoped for.
The small breweries, distillaries, vinyards may be the first to go, as the global giants will fight on with disinformation and legal might.
But we shouldnt cry for them - smart smaller companies should be planning their move out of the industry already. The big ones will move their effort to more vulnerable prey in economically improving 3rd world countries.

listermint

Ireland has seen one of the biggest falls in drinking in the youth. Which concurs with all studies that drops in consumption is on going year on year since 2010.

Tastes and attitudes have changed. Publicans their supporters and the Zealots in here have not.

Clueless with the facts and wasting public time and money on this nonsense is ridiculous when we have bigger fist to fry ones that have facts to show they are a significant problem

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1044932276684017664

xckjoo

VinLieger wrote: »

No as they would be left to only be able to compete with the Likes of Diageo with no realistic overseas market expansion being viable unless they want to bear the cost of having 2 different labels which for small breweries is not a small cost especially when it comes along with a risky new market. They are effectively marooned in the Irish Market stuck with the biggest and lets be honest aggressively monopolistic player in the game.

Most of them I'm aware of are only producing for the home market. They might never be planning on going beyond that.

Where's the large cost coming from for having more than one label? The label cost would be cheap. I can't see the process of attaching them being more complicated than switching the paper in the machine (less so if they're being hand done) and that would be part of the general logistics of producing bottles for export. I'd imagine the labeling process is probably the cheapest part of production.

Correct me if I'm wrong about the labeling. I'm not intimately familiar with the costings of craft alcohol production.

listermint

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not the case. It is known that any alcohol at all is bad.
There is no safe limit. People keep deluding themselves on this point and need to improve their knowledge of the matter.
As with smoking previously, public education if finally moving, and a huge reduction in alcohol i developped countries can be hoped for.
The small breweries, distillaries, vinyards may be the first to go, as the global giants will fight on with disinformation and legal might.
But we shouldnt cry for them - smart smaller companies should be planning their move out of the industry already. The big ones will move their effort to more vulnerable prey in economically improving 3rd world countries.

This is an example of a hilarious post. most hilarious. You would fit in with May and Johnson with this disinformation.

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

This is an example of a hilarious post. most hilarious. You would fit in with May and Johnson with this disinformation.

So what is the safe level then?

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is the safe level then?

Safe level, Its down to the individual.



Because individuals have to be responsible for individuals.

xckjoo

listermint wrote: »

This is an example of a hilarious post. most hilarious. You would fit in with May and Johnson with this disinformation.

This report came out recently. Haven't read it myself, but it broadly says that no amount of alcohol is safe:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/23/health/global-alcohol-study/index.html?no-st=1537966082

Doctor Jimbob

listermint wrote: »

Safe level, Its down to the individual.



Because individuals have to be responsible for individuals.

I don't agree with the minimum price or labeling ideas at all, I like a drink or two (or ten) myself, but it's fairly likely that any amount of alcohol is bad for you.

VinLieger

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not the case. It is known that any alcohol at all is bad.

That is nothing short of a complete and utter baldfaced lie, there is no evidence to support anything like such a statement.

odyssey06

xckjoo wrote: »

This report came out recently. Haven't read it myself, but it broadly says that no amount of alcohol is safe:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/23/health/global-alcohol-study/index.html?no-st=1537966082

There is no safe level is a meaningless statement of nothingness. It is gibberish. It is not a statement that should be afforded any serious weight whatsoever.
e.g. "There is no safe level for internet use."

This is the key takeaway. This is what a real statement looks like:
"Nothing in this study challenges the array of studies suggesting that choosing to drink moderately is associated with a decreased risk of some health issues and a lower risk of death."

Moderate drinking is good for you. Even it it wasn't, minimum alcohol pricing would still be a bad idea.

VinLieger

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't agree with the minimum price or labeling ideas at all, I like a drink or two (or ten) myself, but it's fairly likely that any amount of alcohol is bad for you.

You forgot to add "In my opinion", which would happen to be incorrect

Fr Tod Umptious

xckjoo wrote: »

Most of them I'm aware of are only producing for the home market. They might never be planning on going beyond that.

Where's the large cost coming from for having more than one label? The label cost would be cheap. I can't see the process of attaching them being more complicated than switching the paper in the machine (less so if they're being hand done) and that would be part of the general logistics of producing bottles for export. I'd imagine the labeling process is probably the cheapest part of production.

Correct me if I'm wrong about the labeling. I'm not intimately familiar with the costings of craft alcohol production.

Please stop trying to talk sense or logic.

The mental gymnastics from some posters here is far too much fun to watch.

ohnonotgmail

As with all news articles on medical studies you need to read the actual article itself and look at the figures. For instance look at Figure 5 in the report. Now it may just be my eyesight but i can see no difference between the risk at 0 units per day and 1 unit per day.

Doctor Jimbob

VinLieger wrote: »

You forgot to add "In my opinion", which would happen to be incorrect

I didn't "forget" to add anything, I'm basing it on studies, just like people who claim a pint or two is good for you are basing it on studies.

I did qualify it by saying "fairly likely" instead of putting it across as a fact proven beyond all doubt. Did you forget to add "in my opinion" when you called me incorrect?