I don't know exactly how much they increaced but that would just be inflation wouldn't it? It's taxes that should be increased where i think inflation increase is only relative to the wages we make.I read today on rte.ie "The Health Research Board, which published figures on alcohol consumption in Ireland today, says the most effective way to reduce alcohol consumption here is through taxation.
The board says there was a 17% increase in alcohol consumption between 1995 and 2006 and that alcohol related deaths doubled to 1,775 in the ten years to 2004."
But how much did alcohol prices go up between 1995 and 2004? Obviously this huge increase in prices had no affect on alcohol consumption, so why would higher taxes? Homer Simpson logic it appears.
I agree. They are powerful companies here. Not like raising the prices of nappies. So the drink companies will have a say in taxes. On telly I see lots of anti-smoking adverts but never see anti-drink only anti-drink driving. Surely alcohol doesn't only kill people in cars?It seems to me that taxation can never go far enough. Why not just ban alcohol entirely and imprison all those caught consuming or selling the drug?
I agree. They are powerful companies here. Not like raising the prices of nappies. So the drink companies will have a say in taxes. On telly I see lots of anti-smoking adverts but never see anti-drink only anti-drink driving. Surely alcohol doesn't only kill people in cars?
But if you're being serious about a "ban" i think it would be naive because drink companies would be a big part of our economy (?) and we would just import it.
I think he was implying that taxation won't make a blind bit of difference, and that if they really want to save people from themselves they should ban it altogether. Which wouldn't work anyway, history has shown this.
Personally I think all drugs should be legal and taxed according to their cost to the economy in terms of health and public order, and that people should be made aware of the dangers and benefits with non-sensationalist, non-judgemental information, but ultimately should be able to make a choice in what is a personal matter. But that's another argument.
Funnily enough, the few acquaintances I have who enjoy the odd funny cigarette (the only effect I've ever had from such indulgence is nausea so I'm inclined to stick to beer)
[broken link removed]
Just to inform, the excise duties are as follows
BEER = €19.87 per hectolitre per % of alcohol
This means 19.87 cent per litre per % of alcohol.
For a pint of stout beer, at 4.2% strength, this means a duty of 47.4c.
How would legalising drugs be good?room305 said:I think they should be legalised too but I'd question our ability to accurately implement such a complicated taxation policy
Funnily enough, the few acquaintances I have who enjoy the odd funny cigarette (the only effect I've ever had from such indulgence is nausea so I'm inclined to stick to beer)
If you're not a smoker, then it's probably the tobacco that's making you feel sick. Try a bong (without tobacco)
or just send it to me, I find it very difficult to procure.
Aha!! knew it!
Fair enough.you should really read the argument for legalising drugs before you start posting uninformed twaddle like that.
This would (only) apply to adults imo.Pique said:Just cos booze is legal doesn't mean that everyone in the country is falling down drunk 24/7, the same applies to drugs. People 'may' try something because it's legal but they will still have free will to choose whether or not it's for them. It's CHOICE, it's not to be put into their cornflakes to get them hooked !!
This would (only) apply to adults imo.
Which is where legalising is always aimed at. no-one is advocating legalising it for all...there would have to be an age limit.
The central problem with legalising drugs is that it will increase drug consumption under almost any reasonable guess as to what the legalisation regime would look like.
The effect of cutting prices (by legalising) may be negative:
1. it will dramaticallyh increase the number of users
2. possibly permanent effects
3. many aspects of society will be impacted by the drug-incapacitated persons,
So substitute alcohol for 'drugs' and what's the diff ?
- needing welfare,
- causing traffic deaths, and
- ruining marriages
- unhappy adolescents turning to drugs for security
Many drug users operate perfectly fine in society, same as many alcohol drinkers, without need for welfare
drug-driving is illegal, as is drink-driving. It's more and more socially unacceptable and no harm.
Again, alcohol by itself doesn't destroy marriages, neither does drugs. It's the excessive comsumption of same that has a contributary effect.
Unhappy adolescents ALREADY turn to drugs for security, be they socially acceptable ones such as cigarettes and alcohol or solvents, spamspamspam, E's etc... Legalising drugs is not a carte blanche for teenagers to have a pick 'n' mix whenever they have a crappy day. Education and information is the solution, not a 'war' that is not, has not, and never will be, won.
Many things could go wrong and if they do we can't bann the narcotics again.
Whaddya mean, narcotics ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcotic
It's easy to be for legalisation if you don't know anyone who has died from narcotics.
I realise this is of topic (a little). But has alcohol not always been legal? - It's harder to say anything for alcohol because if it was illegal now and always was lots of people would want it to stay that way.And again...alcohol ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?