monkey69 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 ban all booze and make cannabis legal, then start to tax that instead, the quality would be good and the attitude of the users is much better than drunks. plus the fast food industry would make a killing!!. alcohol related deaths and the strain on the nhs would be much reduced and they would save billions. its a win win situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Odd then that you've ranted on about clamping down on booze on every smokng thread there's been. What a troll. I think he's just attempting to make people see the hypocrisy of arguing that smoking should be banned whilst happily indulging in their own drug use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Is it not a policy that is about getting poor people out of pubs, and creating more space for people who have lots of money? I don't think this will have any effect on most people, only tramps and children who drink in the park. Setting minimum pricing this low is just a gesture and will barely affect national health outcomes, it would have to be higher than 40p. Any wine that is less than £5 a bottle is manufactured at a level of almost no profit. It does nobody any good to sell it for £3 a bottle and is basically driving small wineries out of business. As all the cost goes in transport, the glass for the bottle and tax. The problem pubs have had over the last 10 years is that alcohol has been sold by supermarkets as a loss leader. Minimum pricing is just what pubs need. But it would have to be more like 80p per unit before it really made a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Gosh, another U-turn by the Nasty Party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princess21 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Do Britain a favour, an blow up the lot of em!! Tosspots !! :banana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Ban nothing, legalise all drugs, let market forces rule prices. If people are daft enough to kill themselves let them get on with it. BUT not at public expense. no NHS or benefitsd for the feckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Odd then that you've ranted on about clamping down on booze on every smokng thread there's been. What a troll. I've used alcohol as a comparison to smoking. Both cigarettes and cannabis. This policy is the opposite of what I would like to see. I think all drugs should be sold in a sensibly control market. Sensibly, being the key word here. This policy is ludicrous!! The poor people are having their choice taken away, yet again! Just because a small section of society abuse alcohol, the rest of us have to pay the price! Educate people about alcohol, about all drugs, in fact. The wealthy are not going to be affected by this price fixing scam. They can still afford to buy the stuff. How is this going to affect the poor? Are they going to stop drinking? What about people who can only afford the odd drink every now and again? This policy is going to leave them no choice but to stop all together! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illusion Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Cameron has got to pay for is 20 grand iPads and to put his 'stamp' on number 10, and to give tax breaks to himself and his friends and relatives, somehow. You care to elaborate on this? Or are you just repeating the same rubbish other sheep say without really knowing what you are on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Ban nothing, legalise all drugs, let market forces rule prices. If people are daft enough to kill themselves let them get on with it. BUT not at public expense. no NHS or benefitsd for the feckless. Or tax each thing appropriately to cover the cost to the NHS and other services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirmisher Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 You care to elaborate on this? Or are you just repeating the same rubbish other sheep say without really knowing what you are on about? Probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.