@ Brian.. No point in I posting up a comment.. you’ve said it all .. so true..

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
P. J. O’Rourke

A load of bollox! You can buy Wine in Spain for 40 cent a bottle, a can of beer for 30cent, yet I’ve never heard of them having huge alcohol related issues! Making drink more expensive in supermarkets is all about Fine Gael/Labour helping out their wealthy publican pals!

@ Stephanie – slight less than € 20 – for a bottle of vodka is not cheap! Looking at the issue from an European perspective, the supposedly “cheap” alcohol that is doing the damage is in fact tremendously overpriced. Alcohol is much cheaper on the continent, so surely they would have a larger amount of alcohol-related problems? But no, they don’t. The logic of increasing prices so limiting access and therefore limiting the problem breaks down as the opposite doesn’t hold; lower prices lead to more access, but this doesn’t lead to more alcohol-related problems in Germany, France, the Netherlands. Etc. So are the Irish somehow unique. Our culture revolves around alcohol-fuelled celebrations as social interaction, but you’d be hard-pressed to find a European culture that does not have alcohol as an important element of celebrating and socially interacting. So price is not the issue, a tradition of alcohol as social lubricant is not unique to Ireland, the roots of the problem, and do an effective solution, must lie elsewhere.

The minimum price is to prevent the retailers to sell cheap drink below their costs as they do now. The author loves his Tesco special offer drinks – he’s already paying for them via his bills for other groceries.

In my opinnion this is just another ploy by the government to raise more needed cash.
If you are an addict or problem drinker you will find the means of getting your next alcohol fix. (no matter what the price).
A good start would be to ban alcohol adds.
An intense awareness campaign etc.

Brian your contributions are excellent. If the government has its way then only the wealthy will be able to afford to smoke and drink! Then what will the rest of us do?

This is just another mechanism for them to bring in more revenue. Because they know that no matter what SOME will do to get the money THEY will do it. We know that robberies and housebreakins are on the increase as a conseqence of the recession. If the price of tobacco and alcohol are increased then lawlessness will rise.
What the government are planning to do is nothing more than taking the easy way out. The problem of substance abuse/misuse will not go away until we know and understand WHY poeple do it. But then thats the hard road to take its easier just to jack up the price and say you’re dealing with the problem.

Brian I am afraid that you are exactly the sort of person that I was referring to in my comment above. Don’ get me wrong, I agree with most of what you are saying especially the part about the cost of non-alcoholic beer. I the Government were truly committed to a more effective dink policy they would reduce the price of these products but then again that would be losing them revenue and we wouldn’t want that.

You say “The State may be coming across as Big Brother only because it represents the interests of all of us” A little bit ironic that as in George Orwell’s book 1984 that is the distorted message that he was trying to get across. The State keeps beating you down and taking more and more from you while at the same time telling you that it for your own good and the good of the people.

You further say ” if you really are a moderate drinker, you probably won’t be drinking enough alcohol to notice much of an increase in tax levied against it.” This could be a line straight from the Ministry of Truth, sorry, The Government Press Office. The inference is that only the “bad people” will notice the increase’s while the “good citizen’s” won’t. What will actually happen is that people with alcohol problems will keep on buying regardless of price while the majority who drink responsibly will pay extra and actually thank the Government for increasing the price!! It’s like getting robbed at an ATM and thanking the robber for relieving you of your cash as you felt you had too much money anyway.

100% agree on the comment about the price of NA beers. I drink NA a lot when I go out and it does get frustrating that it’s charged at almost the same price as alcoholic drinks. Theres no duty on them so really it just pure profit for the landlord. Mind you, if you check the price in supermarkets, it’s quite close to the alcoholic drinks prices there too. If you are thinking of cutting back on drinking, it’s a great way to go. Eirdinger blue actually tastes quite good, you don’t feel left out, it’s not as acidic as soft drinks and you wake up with no hangover.

“The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection.
Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; …
In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.”
Lysander Spooner, The Noble Highwayman, 1867

And in relation to the above comment about this move not addressing the Irish attitude towards alcohol – who is addressing the issue? How? What do we do about it? Especially when you can’t say a word about moderate drinking here without first presenting your credentials as a seasoned drinker. Whenever someone talked to us about alcohol when I was kid they never used the realities of alcohol. We were cynical and any adult talking to us acted like not a drop passed their lips til they were 18. They told us bad made up stories about teenagers puking after taking a shot of brandy from their parents stash. It was insincere nonsense.

They don’t tell you what it’s like to feel drunk, they don’t tell you what it’s like to forget a night out, they don’t tell you what it’s like to regret your actions or to wake up in an a&e to be told you’ve been abusing the staff all night. They don’t tell you about waking up with injuries with no idea how you got them (how many people do you know with mystery bruises or a sprained ankle?), they don’t tell you how much it costs to puke in a taxi, they don’t tell you what it’s like to have a hangover, they don’t tell you what it’s like to tell the unvarnished truth and be completely uninhibited and possibly not remember that in the morning.

And most importantly what they don’t tell you is how easy it is to decide that you’re only going to have five drinks only for the fifth drink to impair your judgement enough for you to have another seven drinks.

@Stephanie. I was not presenting myself as a seasoned drinker. I made reference to never crawling about the place but thats not the point.

I fully agree with you that there is a problem and if i knew how to change the nations attitude I would get into politics.

As you’ve pointed out all the issues associated with drinking too much are rampant and a blight on society. The point I was making was that all of these problems are a result of “Drinking too much”.

The issue of drinking too much is a personal stupid decision and many people unfortunately make it every time they drink.

Where i disagree is pointing the blame directly at the price. Easy fix right. You say people drink twice as much when its cheap which means you may think they would drink half as much when its expensive.

Ironically they will probably drink half as often but drink for drink per night of drinking the same amount. This is because the attidude seems to be why have two drinks every day all week when i can have seven on a friday and seven on a saturday.

Im sure im not the only person in the world that thinks this.

You have rightly pointed all the maladies associated with drinking too much which i see as an attitude rather than directly price related. Im not saying fixing the price would have no effect. Im just saying it masks the real issues.

When I was growing up i was often offered a beer or two at family gatherings, i never felt like it was something i had to jump at at every opportunity. And maybe subconsciously this is why for me personally I can limit myself. European families do similar and alcohol does not seem to be as big a problem.

Im not pretending to have any answers i just feel that price fixing is a convenient way to mask a deeper seeded problem.

That’s why u put the age limit up to 21 and put in place a proper regulation authority it can’t all fall back on the guards the whole time unless they are going to start recruiting again and what else is there to do in this country for young people at night only go to the pub going to the cinema is a rip off cheaper just to get a couple of cans and drink with the rest of the lads and lassies

Well said Diarmaid, there seem to be a lot of People on here trying to justify their drinking as though it is some basic human right, I think they already have a problem.

@mick we don’t make half enough tax on drink either to cover for the health and social costs intrinsically linked to not only alcohol abuse, but just alcohol in general.

I’m confused now, we should legalize narcotics but restrict access to alcohol through price increases. So who then should have access to narcotics……thode that can afford them? When I ( and others I know) gave up smoking it was the message finally got through to me that they will destroy my health, price had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

@anthony Wouldn’t life be great if it was as simple as you believe it is. Do you think it’s advisable for a nation with such a historic problem with drink to have outlets selling alcohol for less than the equivalent measure of water? I too am an ex smoker and I agree the health implications made me stop, however, I believe and always have believed smokers should be taxed to the high heavens. If not to discourage them, to pay for the health services smokers will require in the future. Increasing the price is not the solution, I would never say it is, however increased tax is needed to cover the health, public order and general services costs. Increased revenue will also provide us with the ability to educate properly in a bid to really tackle the problem. If you and Aaron want to throw the head in the sand in order to save a few bob on a few cans fair enough, just prob better off not trying to justify it as being anything other that society loathing selfishness.

@anthony Wouldn’t life be great if it was as simple as you believe it is. Do you think it’s advisable for a nation with such a historic problem with drink to have outlets selling alcohol for less than the equivalent measure of water? I too am an ex smoker and I agree the health implications made me stop, however, I believe and always have believed smokers should be taxed to the high heavens. If not to discourage them, to pay for the health services smokers will require in the future. Increasing the price is not the solution, I would never say it is, however increased tax is needed to cover the health, public order and general services costs. Increased revenue will also provide us with the ability to educate properly in a bid to really tackle the problem. If you and Aaron want to throw the head in the sand in order to save a few bob on a few cans fair enough, just prob better off not trying to justify it as being anything other that society loathing selfishness.

Diarmuid, judging people as society loathing selfish individuals isn’t going to do anything to help sell your opinion.

Diarmaid, you were doing oh so well until you said ” all narcotics should be legalised”! On one hand you want to increase the price of alcohol for people but on the other hand you have no problem allowing the legal sale of heroin, cocaine, GBH, Crack, methamphetamine, PCP and all the other crap that has arguably an even more devastating affect on peoples lives.

Personally I would prefer to go to a party and have a few cheap cans rather than seeing someone stick a needle in their arm and shoot up their heroin fix or watch somebody else climb the walls and chase the purple monkeys swinging off the lamp shade because of their LSD trip.

@Anthony You are probably right, I just can’t stand people being so selfish about such an issue, when drink is wreaking such havoc across this society. Ppl are happy to let anyone over 18, regardless of background, mental health, general health or genetics have access to 80c per half litre of lager, just so they can save a few euro on their own, regardless of the consequences for the rest of society or the lack of funding for treatment and education. It genuinely sickens me.

@Brian You are dead right, which is the very reason why I would legalise. I am cringing giving this link again but I feel I should explain myself: http://diarmaidtwomey.blogspot.ie/2012/07/lower-crime-and-legalise-drugs.html

Diarmaid, I drink beer, not cheap stuff, I prefer the artisan brands and I enjoy trying different types.I don’t have a huge disposable income so it’s safe to assume I don’t drink to excess. Therefore the cost of beer does not directly effect me as my consumption is small and I will probably buy it anyway. That being said I still believe that increasing the cost of the 80c can will be limited in it’s effect as the heavy drinkers of cheap brand beers will find a away to come up with the cash, possibly at the expense of something more important in their lives. I totally agree with you that their is a huge problem in society with alcohol and if the cash earned through increased taxes is directly injected into well thought out educational campaigns then I will gladly pay my share. My concern is that this will not happen, our government will increase prices and argue they are dealing with the problem, certain people will still drink to excess and we will all get used to the new status quo while alcohol abuse and misuse continues. I am a parent BTW which strengthens my belief that education is the only way to deal with this issue.

Diarmaid thanks for the link and I can see where you are coming from but I still think that there are a number of serious flaws in your argument. The first and probably most important one is do we really want to allow even more addictive substances to be released into society? Secondly will it it take the sale of drugs away from the drug gangs?

I am a great believer in personal responsibility and non-State intervention in peoples private lives but allowing the sale of heroin, crack and meth is a no brainer considering their addictivness. To counteract the inevitable need for treatment services you would have to set a price for the sale of these drugs at a very high level. As we have seen with another addictive drug (nicotine) high price levels only lead to criminals supplying the drug at a lower price by smuggling in cigarettes. By legalizing all drugs the theory is that drug gangs will just fold up their tents and move on. That ain’t going to happen.

The net effect of legalizing drugs is that we would create a huge amount of addicts that would over run treatment services that are already at breaking point. Drug dealers would have a much larger market to sell their lower price illegal drugs. The Government would make a small fortune in new taxes but as experience has shown they would not put that into the treatment services that the taxes would/should have been destined for. In a few years time the Government would acknowledge that there is a problem with these drugs and what would their solution be? Yes you guessed it, increase the minimum price for those substances, put more money into the Government coffers and completely avoid any action that might actually alleviate the problem at hand.

@Anthony I would share your concern re education and what the government would actually do with the funds, but I suppose one would have to trust / ensure those same funds are used in a proactive way. I would have to disagree with you on a fundamental point however. Those most vulnerable to abuse – alcoholics and teenagers / young adults in the majority will have limited cash and predominantly will try to make their money stretch as far as possible when purchasing alcohol. If you raise the prices you are reducing the amount of intake possible for that individual. I do agree with your last point that the main thing to stem the problem is education, however, education, treatment and health services all have to be paid for and I believe drink should be taxed more instead of having a minimum price.

@Brian Some very good points there and most I would agree with. My opinion is by no means a definite solution to the problem. I personally believe drugs should be legalised, however, I would be happy to even hear a healthy debate on the prospect. I don’t think people realise just how many addicts already exist, so while you say we’ll create more addicts, I genuinely believe that would be near on impossible. My logic of legalising is to reduce deaths in addicts moreso than create anything else.

I was thinking it was Davy Byrnes just off grafted street.