Look minimum prices don’t work. I was in Portugal for my holidays and drink is cheaper than water. Portugal doesn’t have a drinking problem do they. No. It’s the culture we need to change. There’s no point raising the price what will it change? Charge so much for drink it’s too expensive to get drunk? Is that what we want?

Discovering new beers, traditional, beautiful or quirky pubs, and combining both with good company and conversation is one of my many pleasures in life. I can’t see a time when I will not drink, but I don’t see it as problematic as it doesn’t have any negative impact on my life. I enjoy it so why would I give it up unless it caused problems? There are other people who have a very different relationship with alcohol and have reasons why they rely on it. I cannot see how raising the price is going to help. It just means people like me will have to pay more for it, while those who have a serious addiction to it will do the same. Nothing changes except the price. And if the money isn’t there, they’ll beg steal or borrow to get it. You have to find the cause for their alcohol abuse and treat it, not tax the temporary and damaging solution to their problems.

Minimum pricing won’t make an bit of difference, it will just mean teenagers etc. will look for more pocket money
They will find ways to get off their face if they deem it a necessary part of the lifestyle
They might even revert to other more dangerous means, e.g. solvent abuse

Clearly the underlying root causes need to be address, not the price/availability of booze.

The proposes measures are a total joke. The only thing that’s going to change with the introduction of minimum prices is the amount of people crossing the border to buy their booze up north.

Minimum pricing is being touted by the government due to lobbying by the vintners and landlords to make it less appealing to adults to buy dink in supermarkets. Just like, thanks to the previous government being lobbied, the only way you can buy alcohol after 10pm in this country is to hand said landlords your hard earned cash.

I dont think this crackdown is gonna do anything other than upset and already annoyed public, its a cheap and easy way for the government to address the anti-social and drink culture without splashing the cash too hard and in turn fattening the state coffers and giving the lads in the VFI who are great contributors to party funds. I go out once a week and yes theres the usual donkeys pissed off there heads, but theres also people like myself who have there couple of pints, have the craic, meet with friends and go home…..could I do it sober prob, but its my choice and raising the price of beer and banning advertisements wont change mine or people i knows minds, what banning advertising will do is cripple sporting organizations, clubs, events etc. you can say banning cigarettes from F1 those years ago was fine but sponsors were easier find, does the government plan on propping up those affected til new sponsors are found, I don’t think so……..Put it another way just cos man utd wear aon insurance on there jerseys and have ads with rooney and co promoting it wont have me running to buy insurance!

The real issue here is that it’s too expensive to provide alternative solutions. Why not enforce intoxication laws in public? Too expensive, not enough Gardai.

Why not make publicans more responsible for the sale of alcohol to customers by introducing fines for heavily intoxicated people found on premises? Too much “indirect” influence from the vintners association on the Dáil will never allow this.

Why not improve services to deal with alcohol abuse, making it easily available and if necessary anonymous? Too expensive and in direct conflict with the governments budget cuts.

So, the real reason for this proposal? Control. It’s an easy tax increase, and it protects the vintners association from cheap alcohol sales in supermarkets but will be sold to the public as a health initiative. No doubt some decision makers will believe this, but did prohibition work in the US? Criminality will prosper and lead to a far worse social cesspit.

If it does happen, it will be interesting to see if the increases are across the board or if particular, socially popular drinks among certain groups are targeted for increase. Something tells me popular spirits, cider and beer will see a bigger increase than wine.

We have problem with depression that manifests itself via alcohol. The gov raise the price only to create revenue. Dealing with the real issues means offending a lot of people and to quote more than half the country “sure ya can’t do that”. Other countries sell alcohol in supermarkets a lot cheaper than we do, they have drunks too but the ratio and level of aggression is totally different.

Your right to say we should understand why we drink, and why we do so in the manner we do. Start with an answer to those questions and then look to resolve any issue arising from those answers. While so many conversations revolve around how alcohol can be so destructive, I could easily change the narrative to express that alcohol has enhanced my life immensely, and while I at times over do it on a night out myself, I bloody well have a great time and for the most part make it home safely on my automatic pilot without upsetting anyone. I think many people would feel that with alcohol on them they all contribute to a better funnier and more exciting night out. Sure there’s down sides, but there is to every thing. Driving has a down side, as does walking on roads, but as adults we make advantage/risk choices every day. Some times I get it wrong, but its my choice.

Irish people have been abusing Alcohol since before the Vikings raped and pillaged their way across the Island. Its the best way of coping with our crappy climate, we aren’t going to change any time soon.

@ Mick – your comment made me wonder about something. Picture a person who is addicted to a drug. The drug is legal, the person can afford to pay for the drug without resorting to crime, and the person is disciplined enough to order his/her life in such a way that he/she can feed his/her addiction while being able to meet his/her work and social/familial commitments. When asked, the person says that, given a choice, he/she would not choose to remove the drug from his/her life. Given all of this, does the government and/or other people have the right to offer unsolicited health advice, higher the cost of the drug, or restrict the addict’s access to the drug? Simply, do people have the right to be addicted if they choose?

It’s a simple fact, that while we rant and rave about advertising, health benefits, social ills, the demon drink and the dreaded smokes, at heart no one really cares much outside of their own tiny patch. Everyone, including our noble set of politicians, our vintners and our media are motivated by the almighty dollar.

The real question therefore, is ‘who benefits financially from an increase in the entry level price of alcohol?’ It matters not at all whether we raise the price of a bottle or a pint, spirits or ales. We the great discerning public may grumble but we’ll shell out nevertheless. The social ills remain, health is still in danger and blah blah blah blah. But revenue has increased.

This is no Utopia. Let’s see it for what it is. The agenda today is quite simple and obvious. The economy has been mismanaged, we’re not healthy financially, so let’s squeeze the people now in as many different and diverse ways as possible. Let’s turn every interest group against each other. Let’s get people tearing away at any perceived perks and benefits that their neighbours might have. Let’s introduce a voice that suggests everyone has it better, so that in the end no one has anything left. Let’s get the turkeys excited about Christmas as they clamour to make everything more expensive for themselves under the cynical umbrella that it’s for their own good. Let’s create the impression that all the unemployed have it so wonderful that they are living like lords off the back of the workers, that unmarried mothers are in it for free houses, that teachers are lazy, nurses are overpaid and guards and prison guards are all fat and cowardly. Let’s not even mention civil servants. When we have torn up and polarised our society, let’s fall into line for the only people that can help us, straighten us out and fix this mess. Sure everybody knows that we need need more taxes and charges. All hail Enda.

My final word is this, if someone decides to tax rainfall, which as everybody knows they do all over Europe, we’ll be in real trouble.

Some readers may be missing the point, in their rush to shoot the messenger. Growing up in the Seventies, we were never “taught” about alcohol, what it was, what it could do, the many kinds & flavours available, or the dangers of becoming too fond of it. On the continent, children are introduced to wines with food, and a ‘bottle’ of beer with a conversation in the pub or restaurant, most often in the company of parents and relatives.

According to the OECD, our drinking fell by 27% between 2001 and 2009, but Eurostat also reported that while we drank less and less often than many of our European counterparts, when we did hit the bottle, we overdid it and simply binged. What I have tried to explore and understand, is the motivation for this because I suggest that, that is the problem to be addressed, not the price of the stuff.

Rather than look to Government legislation, we all have a responsibility to look closely at our own behavior. Having a few drinks with friends is a pleasurable thing to do, unless the purpose is to get as drunk as possible, as quickly as possible. We are invited similarly to consider what we eat, what exercise we take and how we relate to our fellow man. Alcohol alone does not make a person pre-disposed to violence or anti-social behavior, though it will fuel such a thing. But, the aggressiveness is already there.

So, for me, the drink debate begins with the individual and an examination of the life they lead. After all, if we cannot be responsible for ourselves then how can we be responsible to the wider society around us ?

Safer alternatives could help and even reduce the problem…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/19/david-nutt-alcohol-cannabis-cafes

My discovery:
If you think you have a problem with alcohol, you have a problem with alcohol.

I expect no phone call from Stockholm for this, of course.

Ah come on why was my comment removed???

Is there an agenda I should be agreeing with?

“Time dedicated to your Dialysis Treatment” (enjoy depressive stimulants responsibly)

This sounds like an addict (in this case a Nicotine Addict) trying to justify his addiction/ chemical dependency.

Why do most people drink? Because people like drinking. Getting drunk is a right laugh. Sorry

Give people enough rope to hang themselves and eventually they wont take it. Restricting people from doing something they ever so dearly wish to do only furthers their desire to do it.

Lets look at Good Friday, simply because people cannot purchase booze they go in their droves of the preceding Thursday to stock up for what invariably turns out to be a great session. This day by all accounts is just another Friday on the calendar but its significance lays in what it really means to us deep down, an opportunity to give those nay-sayers the one up. The taboo surrounding alcohol is, in my opinion, largely to do with the fact that its being made such a taboo subject, perpetually fuelling itself.

Banning alcohol advertisements will only draw more attention to the bottles and cans of delicious saucy sauce when adults/teenagers/children see it sitting on the shelves of our off-licences and supermarkets.

My god, even talking about it is making me prune with thirst….F**K IT, I’m hitting up Harcourt Street!!

The question of commercial companies advertising their products and services, is an interesting point. Few companies seek to bring a new product to a new market, as this has been found to be the least successful ploy in marketing. Rather, they may bring a new product to an existing market, i.e.; Guinness Light to existing Lager drinkers, or just more existing products to an existing market. Beer and whiskey advertising is aimed at converting the existing drinker away from their usual tipple and invite them to try a competitors one. Pub promotions from a brewery tend to stay clear of the drinker of Coke, in favor of the person actually consuming a competitors beer or lager.
It is what used to known in the business as, “Two rats fighting over the same piece of cheese”.

Getting sloshed each week is not clever. Downing a bottle of chardonnay each night might make you great craic (in your own head) but can’t be good for you. This article follows the line of ‘what about us moderates’ – can’t we just be left alone!! But the per capita alcohol consumption numbers means there are a lot of people who think they are ‘moderate’ who aren’t at all!

How many of us really might have a problem but don’t end up in A&E each week? Is drinking yourself to a hangover ‘controlled’ drinking?

Our general mindset on booze needs to change in my view. A start with prices is surely better than sitting on our hands.

Is raising prices a panacea? Nope. But I don’t think it’s a bad place to start and it shouldn’t be the last step.

Proof read your articles please. It’s disrespectful to the reader to publish content littered with errors.

Reality is for those who can’t handle alcohol. And ‘it’s’ is an abbreviation of ‘it is’, not a possessive pronoun relating to a third party. I so wish you’d write correctly : (grammatically).

We should ban alcohol advertising just like we have banned cigarette advertising. Beer ads are amongst the most moronic programming on TV today.