Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Just heard on the radio...
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 6 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
sanshee
sanshee
1080 posts

Edited Sep 28, 2009, 14:21
Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 14:15
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8278312.stm

Hehe

BTW death to the SNP and soon, whose hair brained very unjoined up thinking reckons it would be good to charge alcohol 'by the unit', for peace keeping purposes.

Don't these muppetheads realise that it's the lower alcohol, sugary bright coloured stuff that sends the neds daft?

That and lower alcohol cider or fizzy gut busting beer?

They can't drink 'real alcohol' (ie proper strength spirits)to save themselves, they'd be sick, bless em.

I never thought I'd say this, but if it was ever a choice between the Tories and Salmond and co, I'd say bring on The Tories.

Also, the 'charge more for it' school of thought does nothing but place the onus on the 'less well off' as usual, or maybe they're not the be 'as trusted'.

:-(

x
Lawrence
9547 posts

Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 15:51
LOL! That's hilarious...
handofdave
handofdave
3515 posts

Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 16:06
I don't know, Shanshee... do you think that keeping alcohol cheap is doing anyone any favors? Russia has just increased the price of beer to help curb their high rates of alcoholism. It's the least drastic way of dealing with the issue.

I'm not opposed to taxation of 'sins'... I think we all need to pay a price for the privilege of being able to purchase a product that costs society millions in health problems, crime, property damage, and death. Who pays those costs? It should be paid by the people who supply and use the stuff.

My wife is a tobacco user... she's OK with the high 'sin tax' placed on it because she knows she doesn't NEED it... it's a personal choice she makes to use it and she understands that it costs society a price healthwise. Likewise, I don't NEED to drink ale, and if it got too expensive for me to enjoy regularly I'd simply cut back. Which I need to do anyway.

For some people who are chronic users, perhaps making their drug of choice less affordable is the only thing that will make them quit. I guess you could call that a 'nanny state' tactic, but if it helps to reduce binging...
sanshee
sanshee
1080 posts

Edited Sep 28, 2009, 16:26
Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 16:19
handofdave wrote:

For some people who are chronic users, perhaps making their drug of choice less affordable is the only thing that will make them quit.


If you want to talk about addicts, well, chronic users deep in the pool of anything will get by best they can regardless of the cost, usually to the detriment of others. Heroin addicts arenlt really put off by the price, are they?

Anyway, what I say about 'cheap and nasty' alcohol being the culprit of anti social stuff as opposed to yer high volume spirits is 100% true coz I see it with my own eyes. Boys and girls who sway along the streets spewing up displaying their bottle of brite blue 5% vodkamix thinking they're grown up haven't got the constitution for proper alcohol.That's what makes the 'charge per unit' idea completely stupid. If something's done to target that cutlure, fair enough.

There used to be a mystification of alcohol and drugs, only for the brave of heart, then along come things like 'legal highs' and alcopops and all the unperpared and incapable a-holes of the day join in.

And, as I say, it does discriminate against the less well off whatever you think.
How is everyone taking collective responsibility if those with better wages aren't really paying the same (proportionally) as those less well off?

Sorry, the whole idea stinks. No different from the defence made for responsible v unresponsible drug users when it comes to blaming drugs for society's ills.

x



x
handofdave
handofdave
3515 posts

Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 16:37
Oh, I don't know. Wasn't cheap gin the scourge of London once?

I'm with you on the marketing of alcohol to young people... at my local place, they've got these little eight-packs of test tubes filled with brightly colored alcohol and fruity artwork on the package.

I asked if every small child who walks in with their parents is attracted to this product. Oh yes indeed. Talk about cynical merchandising.

I'm a little confused, tho. You seem to be saying that cheap alcohol is a social problem, but we shouldn't make it more expensive because it impacts the wallets of those least able to pay... are you suggesting that we make more hi-powered stuff cheaper since the kiddies aren't gonna drink it? You never heard of mixed drinks? My first really bad experience with booze was mixing orange juice and vodka. I got very drunk very fast... and ended up sick as a dog.
sanshee
sanshee
1080 posts

Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 16:52
handofdave wrote:


I'm a little confused, tho. You seem to be saying that cheap alcohol is a social problem, but we shouldn't make it more expensive because it impacts the wallets of those least able to pay... are you suggesting that we make more hi-powered stuff cheaper since the kiddies aren't gonna drink it?



No, I'm not saying cheap alcohol in itself is the probelm, and ironically neither is this shitty Scottish Parliamaent of ours, but the fools don't eve realise it. They want to increase the price of the more expensive high volume stuff, charging by unit, so fuzzy is their logic.

What I am saying I suppose is that they have made alcohol very palitable to those who otherwise couldn't stand the taste of the stuff by adding sugar and all sorts, nothing at all like the results produced at home.

It's a moral crusade with this lot, and other sinister things are afoot.

x
Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest
8761 posts

Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 16:52
Great! Let's charge more for food to bring down obesity!
handofdave
handofdave
3515 posts

Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 17:04
Squid Tempest wrote:
Great! Let's charge more for food to bring down obesity!


I'm not against raising prices on high fat, high salt junk food. It's been proposed here that the crap that's most responsible for obesity be taxed.

Thing is, the food industry profits from selling non-nutritive, cheap corn-based sugary offal, but the results are that we've got an epidemic of bad health problems that further enrich the pharmaceutical industry, for example, as diabetes cases rise. It's a vicious cycle, and it's not a big stretch to call it a conspiracy, either.

High fat, high sugar, low-quality food also makes people stupid and lethargic. Not a trend that ought to be encouraged.
FOMouse
FOMouse
228 posts

Edited Sep 28, 2009, 17:07
Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 17:06
handofdave wrote:

High fat, high sugar, low-quality food also makes people stupid and lethargic. Not a trend that ought to be encouraged.


Speak for yerself! I chow on tons of the stuff and I'm a genius mega-being. You could learn from me!
Squid Tempest
Squid Tempest
8761 posts

Edited Sep 28, 2009, 17:15
Re: Just heard on the radio...
Sep 28, 2009, 17:15
handofdave wrote:
Squid Tempest wrote:
Great! Let's charge more for food to bring down obesity!


I'm not against raising prices on high fat, high salt junk food. It's been proposed here that the crap that's most responsible for obesity be taxed.

Thing is, the food industry profits from selling non-nutritive, cheap corn-based sugary offal, but the results are that we've got an epidemic of bad health problems that further enrich the pharmaceutical industry, for example, as diabetes cases rise. It's a vicious cycle, and it's not a big stretch to call it a conspiracy, either.

High fat, high sugar, low-quality food also makes people stupid and lethargic. Not a trend that ought to be encouraged.


Sorry Dave, I wasn't being entirely serious. I'm just not a fan of what you call "sin tax". Who determines what is a sin? Besides, the money raised doesn't always go to the appropriate places, but instead just fills the government coffers where they've spent too much on other stuff I don't agree with like frinstance the war machine.

In other words I don't think these sort of taxes are really designed to reduce "sin" rather than screw more cash out of the populace, usually most affecting the poorer parts of society in the process.
Pages: 6 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index