Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Reputable Rog

Just stopped off in the Centra near work this morning, they had "wow €1.50" stickers on bottles of Heineken and Brahma. Clearly there's no justification for MUP.

Garibaldi?

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

ohnonotgmail

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

It is very easy to know what is right. this bill was introduced to support publicans. It was in the FG manifesto saying exactly that. anybody who tells you differently is lying.

KrustyUCC

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

Doubtful

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. "

http://michaelpidgeon.com/manifestos/docs/fg/Fine%20Gael%20GE%202011.pdf

Politicians and supporters of the bill are peddling lies 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 yet every single Irish person who purchases a can will be hit with the increases

This bill has never been about health. It's all about trying to get people back to the pubs

Hotblack Desiato

Garibaldi? wrote: »

It really is difficult to know what's right here. A long time ago when seat-belts were made law someone on tv actually said "ah it'll never catch on really" When smoking on the bus was banned some people said they would rather walk and smoke than bus it and abstain. There was much resistance to the major smoking legislation. In a few years will be look back and wonder why people opposed the new alcohol bill?

Putting on a seat belt, or waiting to smoke until you're not forcing others to breathe it in, doesn't cost you any money.

Imagine if you had to put 50c into the seat belt holder to attach the belt every time, or else your car wouldn't start. Then you were told that the "minimum seat belt charge" was for your own good, when the money was going straight to the car manufacturers.

earlytobed

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Putting on a seat belt, or waiting to smoke until you're not forcing others to breathe it in, doesn't cost you any money.

Imagine if you had to put 50c into the seat belt holder to attach the belt every time, or else your car wouldn't start. Then you were told that the "minimum seat belt charge" was for your own good, when the money was going straight to the car manufacturers.

I think a better analogy would be the time extra duty was put on cider because "the young people were going mad on cider".

Leroy42

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Putting on a seat belt, or waiting to smoke until you're not forcing others to breathe it in, doesn't cost you any money.

Imagine if you had to put 50c into the seat belt holder to attach the belt every time, or else your car wouldn't start. Then you were told that the "minimum seat belt charge" was for your own good, when the money was going straight to the car manufacturers.

Well, look at the plastic bag tax. There were cried from retailers, what were the pensioners going to do, what if I just popped into a shop.

That this was effectively another tax and no point since China polluted way more and sure the fumes from your car caused more damage and didn't the products have wrapping on them anyway so the entire problem isn't being solved.

Here we are a few years later and you don't see many people claiming their lives have been drastically changed.

McMurphy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, look at the plastic bag tax. There were cried from retailers, what were the pensioners going to do, what if I just popped into a shop.

That this was effectively another tax and no point since China polluted way more and sure the fumes from your car caused more damage and didn't the products have wrapping on them anyway so the entire problem isn't being solved.

Here we are a few years later and you don't see many people claiming their lives have been drastically changed.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

"Cheap" supermarket bottle of budweiser @ 1.65€ a bottle = bad for ones health.
5€ bottle of budweiser in VFI members premises = will put hairs on yer chest.

Leroy42

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

"Cheap" supermarket bottle of budweiser @ 1.65€ a bottle = bad for ones health.
5€ bottle of budweiser in VFI members premises = will put hairs on yer chest.

No, I'm not ignored it, I was simply making a counter point to a particular argument.

What will be interesting is consumers actions if this goes through. There is no doubt that this is beneficial primarily to the big names (Diageo etc) and secondly to the Vintners (Although I am skeptical as to the extent of that).

In the former, this will give them back a portion of the market that was taken from them by pricing, the likes of Lidl and Aldi beer etc. As there will be a minimum then most people will opt for the beer they know.

The most powerful weapon consumers have is buying, or more accurately not buying. So the best way to counteract this is simply to stop buying. Refuse to buy the products until the law is changed back. Would people be prepared to do that? I really doubt it in which case it makes sense for the likes of Diageo and the vintners to try it as there is no downside but plenty of potential upside

The Rape of Lucretia

Leroy42 wrote: »

The most powerful weapon consumers have is buying, or more accurately not buying. So the best way to counteract this is simply to stop buying.

This is why the minimum pricing is a great thing. Whether it doesnt affect pubs or not, whether the discounters lose sales, or whether more profit is channelled to the producers. The bottom line is average higher price. Producing reduced consumption. An unalloyed good thing. Nobody can seriously be against this initiative.

oceanman

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is why the minimum pricing is a great thing. Whether it doesnt affect pubs or not, whether the discounters lose sales, or whether more profit is channelled to the producers. The bottom line is average higher price. Producing reduced consumption. An unalloyed good thing. Nobody can seriously be against this initiative.

plenty of people are against it..

Leroy42

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is why the minimum pricing is a great thing. Whether it doesnt affect pubs or not, whether the discounters lose sales, or whether more profit is channelled to the producers. The bottom line is average higher price. Producing reduced consumption. An unalloyed good thing. Nobody can seriously be against this initiative.

I think you'll find that there is a significant amount of people against this initiative.

It is based on no clear data.
It takes no account of social drinkers (ie only a few drinks a week/month).
There is no clear defined outcomes.
The money is going to the producers rather than to fund services.
It doesn't deal with the problems associated with drinkers in the pub.
It places an unfair advantage to established brands as pricing is no longer a tool.
It places no obligations on producers/sellors.
Who is going to fund the policing of this? Are we, as a state, really going to prosecute people for buying/selling bargains?

joe40

As someone who enjoys drinking, both at home and in pubs, I fully support this idea. Even with minimum pricing alcohol in supermarkets will still be significantly lower than pubs, so if your only mission is to drink as much as possible for as little as possible, the supermarket will still be an option and 10 to 20 euro will still get you hammered. This would not go far in a pub so the two will not be equivalent.

There is also no point comparing ourselves with European countries, our drinking culture is totally different. Apart from the excess that is observed I actually prefer our pub culture. I have often seen a group of European tourists share a pint of Guinness.
I like drinking but the excessive stuff is damaging to our society. Junior cert students getting hammered on cheap drink is a disgrace

odyssey06

joe40 wrote: »

I like drinking but the excessive stuff is damaging to our society. Junior cert students getting hammered on cheap drink is a disgrace

It's not cheap and it's already illegal for junior cert students to be drinking.
If the concern is about underage drinking blitz this, don't punish responsible adults too.
It's perfectly possible to not drink to excess at supermarket prices.

joe40

If you're not drinking to excess the extra price will be minimal.
Maybe I'm wrong but for arguments sake 8 x 500ml cans of beer would be a good nights drinking for me. By official standards well into excess territory but even to keep things in the real world, 8 pints (a gallon of beer) would be a good drink but common enough.
How would the minimum pricing affect this price. Currently 8 cans of lager will cost about 13 euro, how much will this go up by. (genuine question by the way, I don't know)

ohnonotgmail

joe40 wrote: »

If you're not drinking to excess the extra price will be minimal.
Maybe I'm wrong but for arguments sake 8 x 500ml cans of beer would be a good nights drinking for me. By official standards well into excess territory but even to keep things in the real world, 8 pints (a gallon of beer) would be a good drink but common enough.
How would the minimum pricing affect this price. Currently 8 cans of lager will cost about 13 euro, how much will this go up by. (genuine question by the way, I don't know)

and what actual difference will the proposed change make to the problems you highlighted? I'm not expecting an answer to that btw because there is absolutely no data to suggest it makes a difference. This change is purely to help publicans, nothing more.

Leroy42

joe40 wrote: »

If you're not drinking to excess the extra price will be minimal.
Maybe I'm wrong but for arguments sake 8 x 500ml cans of beer would be a good nights drinking for me. By official standards well into excess territory but even to keep things in the real world, 8 pints (a gallon of beer) would be a good drink but common enough.
How would the minimum pricing affect this price. Currently 8 cans of lager will cost about 13 euro, how much will this go up by. (genuine question by the way, I don't know)

But why penalise 'normal# drinkers at all? Why should I have not now pay €44 for a slab of beer, that I can drink over a number of weeks or use at a party when currently I can get it for €20.

It makes no sense why I am being asked to pay double the price I am currently paying.

joe40

I think it will have an effect on the levels of excess drinking but obviously only time will tell.
For me personally as someone who (a) likes drinking and (b) hates spending more than I need to, I still think this is something as a society is worth doing, and I'm willing to pay the extra in the supermarket.
I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption. I do understand peoples objection but for me on balance I think it is something worth doing.

RasTa

Wonder if they want to go down the Canada or Swedish route where the government control the liquor

odyssey06

joe40 wrote: »

I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption.

Why? Alcoholics won't drink less, some people drink methylated spirits ffs.

We already have some of the highest prices around for alcohol. If your theory was correct no further action would be needed.

Ace2007

odyssey06 wrote: »

Why? Alcoholics won't drink less, some people drink methylated spirits ffs.

We already have some of the highest prices around for alcohol. If your theory was correct no further action would be needed.

Why pick the extreme case?
Alcoholics wont but students who can’t afford drink wil be affected - if I see a bottle of wine is 8€ I might buy it if same bottle is 18€ I probably won’t.

Given how so many people on threads complaint about being broke cause of high rents - they won’t have money to buy drink which in turn will mean less alcoholic issues whether these are social or health wise.

ohnonotgmail

joe40 wrote: »

I think it will have an effect on the levels of excess drinking but obviously only time will tell.
For me personally as someone who (a) likes drinking and (b) hates spending more than I need to, I still think this is something as a society is worth doing, and I'm willing to pay the extra in the supermarket.
I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption. I do understand peoples objection but for me on balance I think it is something worth doing.

But surely you should have done some study on the effects of a change before implementing it?

ohnonotgmail

Ace2007 wrote: »

Why pick the extreme case?
Alcoholics wont but students who can’t afford drink wil be affected - if I see a bottle of wine is 8€ I might buy it if same bottle is 18€ I probably won’t.

Given how so many people on threads complaint about being broke cause of high rents - they won’t have money to buy drink which in turn will mean less alcoholic issues whether these are social or health wise.

No need to pick the extreme case. For people who only drink moderately it wont affect their consumption, they will just pay more for it. The only people who benefit are retailers.

joe40

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I think it will have an effect on the levels of excess drinking but obviously only time will tell.
For me personally as someone who (a) likes drinking and (b) hates spending more than I need to, I still think this is something as a society is worth doing, and I'm willing to pay the extra in the supermarket.
I think pricing has to have an effect on excessive consumption. I do understand peoples objection but for me on balance I think it is something worth doing.

But surely you should have done some study on the effects of a change before implementing it?

Well I didn't implement the policy, but the economic rules regarding pricing and consumption are fairly well established.
Some goods are resistant to price increases but not many.

odyssey06

Ace2007 wrote: »

Why pick the extreme case?
Alcoholics wont but students who can’t afford drink wil be affected - if I see a bottle of wine is 8€ I might buy it if same bottle is 18€ I probably won’t.
Given how so many people on threads complaint about being broke cause of high rents - they won’t have money to buy drink which in turn will mean less alcoholic issues whether these are social or health wise.

If they're already broke yet finding money for drink it suggests the price of alcohol is inelastic.

There's no evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol leads to social or health issues.

So you're talking about people drinking to excess of which alcoholics must be considered.

It's not an extreme case - the laws are being brought in for the minority which abuses alcohol rather than just to annoy the responsible majority.

If someone is going out getting totally drunk then clamp down on that behaviour which already breaks multiple laws that we already have on the books and to which people have no objections.

This is the action of a weak pathetic state who is incapable of dealing with actual law breakers and instead punishes the law abiding.

odyssey06

joe40 wrote: »

Well I didn't implement the policy, but the economic rules regarding pricing and consumption are fairly well established.
Some goods are resistant to price increases but not many.

Given that alcohol already attracts a premium rate of levies, duties and taxation, this surely screams from the hilltops that it is inelastic and is resistant. Otherwise governments wouldn't rely on it as a cash cow.

listermint

odyssey06 wrote: »

If they're already broke yet finding money for drink it suggests the price of alcohol is inelastic.

There's no evidence that moderate consumption of alcohol leads to social or health issues.

So you're talking about people drinking to excess of which alcoholics must be considered.

It's not an extreme case - the laws are being brought in for the minority which abuses alcohol rather than just to annoy the responsible majority.

If someone is going out getting totally drunk then clamp down on that behaviour which already breaks multiple laws that we already have on the books and to which people have no objections.

This is the action of a weak pathetic state who is incapable of dealing with actual law breakers and instead punishes the law abiding.

Its not though, thats the flashy Terry Prone style dressing. Its solely to benefit the Vintners Association and its members.

Quite literally no other reason.

odyssey06

listermint wrote: »

Its not though, thats the flashy Terry Prone style dressing. Its solely to benefit the Vintners Association and its members.
Quite literally no other reason.

You're right of course, I'm talking about the "declared" reason not the real reason and they are using this PR stunt to attract support from the hate-anyone-having-a-good-time-brigade and the will-someone-please-think-of-the-children-brigade.

ohnonotgmail

joe40 wrote: »

Well I didn't implement the policy, but the economic rules regarding pricing and consumption are fairly well established.
Some goods are resistant to price increases but not many.

some goods are. like alcohol. Demand for alcohol is price inelastic. it is why they have been easy targets for governments when they wanted to raise extra money. This change also hits those on low incomes the hardest. The change is completely regressive. If the government thinks they can tackle demand by raising prices they should increase excise duty on alcohol. that way we all pay equally and the extra money goes to the government, not to retailers. But they wont do that because it will affect the vintner lobby, the same group of people this change protects.

facehugger99

Leroy42 wrote: »

But why penalise 'normal# drinkers at all? Why should I have not now pay €44 for a slab of beer, that I can drink over a number of weeks or use at a party when currently I can get it for €20.

It makes no sense why I am being asked to pay double the price I am currently paying.

Your problem is you've been lead to believe that €20 for a slab of beer is 'normal'.

It's not.

It's an artificially cheap price designed to get people into the supermarkets and buying their other products. It has a damaging effect on society and opens up alcohol availability to the young - very easy for a couple of 14 year old lads to scrape together €10 each.