Minimum alcohol pricing is nigh

Wow, that's a bit heavy

I just posted the link because I found the TV new piece quirky and an interesting look back on how things used to be, the RTE Archives site is good like that.

As for being anti-drink and anti-choice, I have said many times here that MUP is a poor and blunt instrument but I can see some of the reasoning behind it, and I have never mentioned anything of banning alcohol or anything like that.

I'll only say this once here because we have argued this for years here, and as I have said may times MUP is a blunt instrument and I think the advertising and visibility should be dealt with first, but here we go.

The only reasoning behind MUP is NOT to get people to drink in pubs instead of at home.

Price causes barrier to entry.

If you increase the price of a product the demand will go down.

So if you increase the price of alcohol less people will but it.

And that especially goes for younger people.

Forget about the alcoholics, they can't be saved by pricing, but people who have the potential to become alcoholics can be.

And I know the next replies are going to be "but what about drugs.."

Well I don't care because all I am doing here is countering the point made by the poster that "the only reasoning behind MUP is to get people to drink in pubs instead of at home."

COVID has already killed the pub, it was already dying because of drink driving, changing attitudes etc.

15 years ago there were 7 pubs in the town/village I live in.

In March 2020 there were 4.

Now there is barley one open.

Tow of the other three will never open again, the other might.

I assume they're talking about the current offers where it's €20 for 24 cans, rather than the 12 pack. So it is in effect a doubling of the (regular) offer price.

Speaking of the Nitrosurge a few posts up, Diageo probably ahead of the game in that regard - the comparison of nitosurge v widget cans closes massively on 1st!

it is not an "old trope". it is a fact.

If FG were beholden to the pub trade then the following would have played out during COVID.

Pubs = Safe because pubs can control the numbers in there, you can mandate mask wearing, you can configure the premises for social distancing, in other words it can be regulated after the sale.

Off-license = Unsafe, people can buy their drink and go where ever they want, packed indoor locations, no mask mandate, no social distancing, in other words it cannot be regulated after the sale.

So if FG were really beholden to the pubs don't you think they would have eased up on the pubs a bit and restricted the off-licenses a bit more and dressed it up as a public health matter?

But the opposite happened.

Yet people still harp on about an election promise form years ago as evidence that FG are all about the pubs.

During the pandemic, the government are acting on NPHET recommendations. They couldn't pull that out of the hat and get away with it, and they wouldn't have tried, because it wasn't politics as normal. They'd have been savaged in the media as it would have been so obviously out of step with NPHET and other countries. They'd never be able to pander to publicans again.

So what you've posted is a total strawman argument. Pubs are lapping up MUP, I think it is short sighted of them but that's gombeens for you. As I said, textbook rent seeking case.

This is the relevant quotation from Page 27 Fine Gael Manifesto 2011

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.  

It does not refer to MUP which was a later proposal.

It's also worth noting that when MUP legislation went through the Oireachtas it was supported by all parties.

Not one politician spoke up for the people who enjoy a drink at home. The only objection was from Senator/Professor Sean Barrett who as an economist objected to the extra being charged to the consumer going to the drinks trade.

Indeed this entire thing makes people drinking more profitable for everyone involved in selling alcohol yet its meant to reduce consumption specifically for those who are problem drinkers. Its fvcking absurd.

We all know full well how it came to pass, VFI and LVF bought it from FG who panicked when they realised their original plan was A. illegal under competition laws and B. highly bad optics wise so got the likes of AAI and the authoritarian college of physicians on board to pretend it was all about public health.

The fact that there was zero opposition to this in either house of the oireachtas is just atrocious.

The pubs are highly unlikely to be still open on 4th January and supermarkets have sold months worth of beer to customers this month, it will be all quiet on the alcohol sales front in the new year.

The image for the tweet looks like it was made in Microsoft paint and just as shoddy as their irrational cause

If there is as much stocking up going on as is reported and people travel north as they say they will then off licence sales will go down in 2022.

We can then look forward to next year's Christmas message from Alcohol Action Ireland hailing the success of MUP.

Drugs are illegal. The law magically stops people from carrying out the activity. Therefore people who die from illegal drugs dont exist in their universe.