Compare
this The aim of alcohol duty is to raise revenue and not to tackle harmful drinking.
to
thisHealth Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said: "These findings confirm that minimum pricing can be a key weapon in the battle against alcohol misuse.
or
this Under the "nuclear option" plan for increasing duty – designed to appease the health lobby and show that ministers are serious about tackling the problems caused by binge drinking – the cost of a bottle of spirits would rocket, along with the cost of spirit-based alcopops favoured by young drinkers.
So which is it? Revenue or 'health'?
Posts
9 comments:
Lies are all they have. I'm not really sure if they know themselves from day to day what is the truth and what is not.
They just don't like booze.
I suspect that they don't like people. It gives them great satisfaction to see as much suffering as possible. It shows they have power over us.
Theoretically it would also show they had power if they could make all our lives better but that is hard to do. Much easier to make everyone suffer.
DP: O yes they do. Don't forget the MPs and the Lords get it subsidised - by us - at the HoC / HoL bars.
It's revenue.
The 'health' part is an excuse to crank up the revenue. And the control aspect gives them a cheap thrill too.
It's going to be a long hard slog. Of course the industry will just lay there and take it, and probably ask for more, instead of getting of it's arse and doing something. I keep thinking I ought to get involved, but nobody cares at the moment.
I'm pretty sure that it's really revenue - the health thing is just an excuse.
In fact, I've been musing recently that in the last decade, much of the focus of the law has changed from 'protecting society' to 'raising revenue to the state'.
One of the consequences of this is that naturally, non payment of fines is punished much more harshly than for example - mere assault. See the Nick Hogan case for an obvious example.
It's neither health nor wealth - it's all about control.
All the laws are about telling you what you can't do any more. Things there were part of everyday life suddenly become crimes. There's often a little stormtrooper in a Hi-Viz jacket to enforce state control as well.
The rest is incidental, it's the control that counts.
Eddie86 - you mean something like this? I think that any organisation needs to be large ot have influence but once you become large then too many opinions are introduced into the mix. I've no answers (which is why I've not commented on your post yet).
I think the 'health' argument is bollocks and is used to create an environment where people will accept the taxation rise (you surely can't be in favour of bad health can you?) which is the control aspect that JohnR mentions. And yes, adwelly, the change from protecting the people to protecting the state is an idea I can agree with.
Surely people who drink at levels that really are harmful (not the Gov levels) will either just steal more to fund their habit or spend less on their kids, wives, etc.
Either that, or they could just claim the alcoholics allowance from the social.
I jest not.
Post a Comment