Federal health agency proposes ban on discount booze.

[Drawnnite]

to start with. im not saying i agree with either side.
just pointing out that i hope the author of the dont tax it aint a lawyer, as you would be going straight to jail, not passing go, and certainly not collecting $200.
im not saying they should tax it. they should find better alternatives to it.

The fundamental difference between smoking and alcohol is there is no safe dose/consumption of a cigarette when used as the manufacturer intends.

but this case study isnt about safe consumption, its about the people that go out and get blitzed on shall we say "GOON"

Yes it is optional and indeed could be considered a luxury item. Why does that mean it should be taxed? Who are you/govco/whatever to say when people should or shouldn't drink? (aside from things such as drink drive etc)

it shouldnt be taxed. but the side of the arguement from the No to Taxing hasnt really used any strong points, more so their points are directly negative to their point in question

Then why tax it? Govco misuses enough of our money as it is!

because obviously they want to Misuse More of it =P
(sarcasm if people cannot read that)

Enjoyment & well being. There are a significant number of studies that suggest that moderate consumption of red wine is significantly beneficial to ones health.

not denying that, but again, its not moderate consumption people have the issue with, its those binge and people who drink until they collapse
and seriously. who would go out and buy a nice grange red when they can buy a $10 cask wine and get blitzed off that?

Yours or theirs?

Everybodies (including yours) =P



in the end its about peoples self control.
many people do not have this form of self control when they do drink.
and thats the people they are targetting.

if they wanted to be smart about it they would only target the el cheapo stuff otherwise known as "GOON"
obviously you being a bit older havent been to these young peoples parties of late and seen how people bring them in because they want to get smashed
(and yes im having a dig at you =P)

to end.
i have never said they should tax it.
but i doubt thats the full story only the little bits and pieces that make people want to respond.
until the full story is out then its kinda pointless to know what they actually want to do.
again, they have never said about taxing your top of the line moet. just your el cheapo stuff people get blitzed on. which i highly doubt a man of your caliber would actually drink =P

 

[MorganVZ]

Have never drunk cask wine(cheap) and i've only ever been been around a couple of deadshits who were drinking one once. Won't change ****, A for effort i spose.

 

[Julie]

I can't see it solving any problems, just like the failed alcopops tax but to be honest I don't give a toss if they introduce this, as a non drinker care factor about this = zero.

 

[Ed]

so long as the don't increase canadian club anymore I couldn't care less

 

[showbags]

Ima build me a still an make me some moonshine.

 

[hi_ryder]

I've been offered crack for cheap, Doesn't mean I did it. I really hate people sometimes.

Cheers
Mat

i took one puff and bought 3 vp's... anyway...

i dont even drink but this nanny crap is going a bit over the top. i need a vacation where i can do some speeding with my radar detector, drink gallons of cheap malt liquor, while indiscriminately discharging an unnecessary assortment of semi auto legal firearms out the window... (browsing airfare to texas as we speak)...

 

[ivabiggen]

only need to ban booze for bongs.

 

[DAKSTER]

wtf how will i get hot girls to go home with me now?

They will respond better when you spend $20 on a bottle of wine rather than $10 on a cask of vinegar. Same as they will respond better to a diamond ring instead of a ring around the bathtub...

lets put it like this. drinking is the same as smoking.
it is legal, but you don't have to partake in it.


even in your quoted text it goes "one of lifes affordable luxuries"
not saying people should have to miss out on all luxuries, but its not something you have to do. and may actually make people drink only on special occasions or rethink their drinking patterns

No it wont.

and it wont really change a thing.

Make up your mind !!! :axe:

same as using "but i was drunk when i stabbed my wife 3 times and killed her" that shouldnt be an excuse, it should make it the same because it was your damned fault for being in an intoxicated state in the first place.

That's exactly the way the law sees it. In days of old, being drunk was an excuse. Now its an aggravating circumstance.

The fundamental difference between smoking and alcohol is there is no safe dose/consumption of a cigarette when used as the manufacturer intends.

Whilst I agree in principle, the fact is that most* 'problem drinkers' drink the cheap stuff, and most* people who don't have a problem choose to spend more on their poison of choice. Ergo, most* people who buy cask wine are indeed exceeding the 'recommended' consumption of alcohol, and have in fact bought it with the specific intention of getting plastered.

Manufacturers intentions.. well that's a whole different story lol..



Personally, I smoke but I don't drink. They are both unnecessary and either harmful or potentially harmful. When I smoke, I do it where my fumes affect no-one. When people get drunk, they neither know or care who they are affecting.

Tax them both or neither would be my opinion. Make them both illegal would be even better, the negative effects of both substances are well proven. Unfortunately prohibition of anything doesn't work, it creates a black market.

Casks only exist to allow people to get drunk cheaply. There are no positive aspects to being drunk. Ban them. Drink less, drink better quality, if you feel you must drink at all.

 

[Sabbath']

only need to ban booze for bongs.

Say Wha?

 

[Sabbath']

Where am i meant to get cheap pillows from then?