Ban Alcohol

[Gibbon]

almost exclusively does not constitute certainty. Whereas someone kicked to death by a person drunk on alcohol or high on drugs is a certainty

So people only kick someone to death whilst intoxicated????

And does the death certificate say 'kicked to death by smack'

[The Lone Gunman]

I agree that it should be left as a matter of choice, the only issue I have is the resources shortage that this causes<snip>

We have done this one.
The revenue raised from smokers more than pays for their NHS treatment.
They actualy pay more than non smokers and would therefore be justified in queue jumping.
If you are going to refuse smokers treatment then you are going to struggle to justify the the amount of duty added to ciggies.

[EternalOptimist]

Most of the countries that ban alcohol are mad terrorist dysfunctional pariah states. This must by an agents vision of paradise.

As you have said so often Dodgy my friend, if you dont like it, why dont you **** off to Iraq or somewhere else

[Let-Me-In]

We have done this one.
The revenue raised from smokers more than pays for their NHS treatment.
They actualy pay more than non smokers and would therefore be justified in queue jumping.
If you are going to refuse smokers treatment then you are going to struggle to justify the the amount of duty added to ciggies.

The amount of duty paid is a difficult one to calculate as it is on a purchase. What if you had smokers that paid duty on ciggies but did not drive and non smokers who drive thousands of miles a week and therefor pay lots of duty on fuel, who would go to the front of the queue?

[The Lone Gunman]

The amount of duty paid is a difficult one to calculate as it is on a purchase. What if you had smokers that paid duty on ciggies but did not drive and non smokers who drive thousands of miles a week and therefor pay lots of duty on fuel, who would go to the front of the queue?

Don't start! You linked smokers to the NHS so let us leave it there eh.
The revenue raised from smokers far exceeds that spent on smokers. Therefore they are entitled to the resources they have paid for.
Fuel duty is not linked to the NHS in the same way. The tax on ciggies has been justified and directly linked to health issues and associated costs by numerous Chancellors.

I am not arguing this point, just making it.

[Let-Me-In]

Don't start! You linked smokers to the NHS so let us leave it there eh.
The revenue raised from smokers far exceeds that spent on smokers. Therefore they are entitled to the resources they have paid for.
Fuel duty is not linked to the NHS in the same way. The tax on ciggies has been justified and directly linked to health issues and associated costs by numerous Chancellors.

I am not arguing this point, just making it.

Calm down dude!!!

How is fuel duty diffferent from duty on ciggies? It is just a duty after all and there is no way we can say that duty on ciggies goes to NHS and duty on fuel goes to road maintenance....

The NHS has only been used as a way to justify the duty on ciggies. I do not believe that any chancellor has said that ALL of the duty on ciggies goes to NHS and NHS alone and that the NHS does not get cash raised as duty on anything else.

[The Lone Gunman]

Calm down dude!!!

How is fuel duty diffferent from duty on ciggies? It is just a duty after all and there is no way we can say that duty on ciggies goes to NHS and duty on fuel goes to road maintenance....

The NHS has only been used as a way to justify the duty on ciggies. I do not believe that any chancellor has said that ALL of the duty on ciggies goes to NHS and NHS alone and that the NHS does not get cash raised as duty on anything else.

By the very justicifaction that duty is for health reasons it is fair to assume that it should be spent on the NHS (I would argue fuel to roads too) with a little extra cost to discourage smoking.
If it is not being spent in such a way then it is unfair that smokers (and drivers) are being taxed more to subsidise those who dont.
How else do you justify duty?

Damn, I wasn't going to argue on this thread.

[Let-Me-In]

By the very justicifaction that duty is for health reasons it is fair to assume that it should be spent on the NHS (I would argue fuel to roads too) with a little extra cost to discourage smoking.
If it is not being spent in such a way then it is unfair that smokers (and drivers) are being taxed more to subsidise those who dont.
How else do you justify duty?

Damn, I wasn't going to argue on this thread.

I agree that it should be but I don't agree that is how the chancellor divis up the cash so to speak...

[Buffoon]

Banning smoking doesn’t make economic sense. Not only because of the revenue that it brings in but mainly due the expenditure that it prevents.

If people live longer by not smoking then they will be a greater burden on the pensions system and will require other forms health care for longer. Banning drinking is madness for the same reasons.

If it wasn’t for smoking and drinking, the government would have to find another way to cull the population towards the end of their working lives.

[Mr Crosby]

Banning smoking doesn’t make economic sense. Not only because of the revenue that it brings in but mainly due the expenditure that it prevents.

If people live longer by not smoking then they will be a greater burden on the pensions system and will require other forms health care for longer. Banning drinking is madness for the same reasons.

If it wasn’t for smoking and drinking, the government would have to find another way to cull the population towards the end of their working lives.

Up corporation tax