Do you think cigarette and alcohol should be made more expensive

does this actually reduce consumption of these goods decreasing?

If not what is the best solution?

Christ no, drinkers and smokers already more than pay the cost of what they impose on the NHS/Police etc.

A solution would be to educate people better, or make weed legal to stop fights on a friday night.

Reply 2

guglemugle

11

No. I don't think it would make much difference. People would still buy them.

Reply 3

Apocrypha

15

Demand for both is pretty inelastic, so its just going to annoy people more and promote more of a black market for both.

Reply 4

AriesGirl

1

At the end of the day drinking and smoking is a lifestyle choice - yes it isn't exactly good for us but everyone has the choice whether to do it or not - why should people who choose this lifestyle choice have to pay excessively for it? There have been many campaigns to stop smoking and drinking and yes this helps but for example my mother (who smokes) has told me even though its expensive she doesnt want to stop smoking and thats her choice. BTW im not a smoker and I don't drink that much :smile:

Reply 5

Moosferatu

19

I just don't get the moral police (I like to think New Labour nanny state types, but I increasingly see more Conservatives jumping on the band wagon) who think we should keep all drugs illegal and tighten cigarette and alcohol prices.

Different strokes for different folks. Some people like things to unwind. The more relaxed people get in their spare time, the better workers they'll be.

But no, let's take away their fun. Especially for (permanent, full-time) minimum wage workers, alcohol and cigarettes provide a cheap, easy source of recreation. But no, 'you're not having fun as I tell you to'!

Reply 6

the bear

20

Did you know that MPs are given free tobacco ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10224755/Perks-of-an-MP-include-free-snuff.html

:cookie:

Reply 7

russellsteapot

16

I don't see how forcing poorly-paid people to struggle even more is a helpful policy.

Reducing tobacco and alcohol intake should be a personal decision, not one forced upon the most deprived section of the population by state-controlled price rises. When it's cheaper to go to Belgium, buy tobacco and come home (with an overnight stay) than it is to buy it from your local shop, there's already something a bit wrong.

I don't think policies should ever be designed to specifically target the worst-off people (unless it's a benefits cut, which can't really do anything but that). That's what alcohol and tobacco price rises do, in terms of percentages of peoples' disposable income. Seems like a fairly wretched and nasty way to do things.

Reply 8

joker12345

19

Original post by russellsteapot

I don't see how forcing poorly-paid people to struggle even more is a helpful policy.

Reducing tobacco and alcohol intake should be a personal decision, not one forced upon the most deprived section of the population by state-controlled price rises. When it's cheaper to go to Belgium, buy tobacco and come home (with an overnight stay) than it is to buy it from your local shop, there's already something a bit wrong.

I don't think policies should ever be designed to specifically target the worst-off people (unless it's a benefits cut, which can't really do anything but that). That's what alcohol and tobacco price rises do, in terms of percentages of peoples' disposable income. Seems like a fairly wretched and nasty way to do things.

It's more targeting people who indulge in those things and in turn put a stain on the NHS. I think the point is that, if they are consumed mostly by less well off people, a price increase will make them cut down.

Reply 9

Rational Thinker

Original post by the bear

Did you know that MPs are given free tobacco ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10224755/Perks-of-an-MP-include-free-snuff.html

:cookie:

The House of commons really does need to be purged.

Reply 10

Nightowk

10

No, make it as cheap as possible. The quicker they die, the more resources we have for an ever increasing population.

Reply 11

Moosferatu

19

Original post by Nightowk

No, make it as cheap as possible. The quicker they die, the more resources we have for an ever increasing population.

A cruel solution, but a pragmatic one. If we are boiling down reality to its bare bones then Britain needs less people who won't submit/people who drain the system.

Original post by russellsteapot

I don't see how forcing poorly-paid people to struggle even more is a helpful policy.

Tory law dictates that the struggle will strengthen them. It's for their own good.

Reply 12

russellsteapot

16

Original post by joker12345

It's more targeting people who indulge in those things and in turn put a stain on the NHS. I think the point is that, if they are consumed mostly by less well off people, a price increase will make them cut down.

The prevalence of smoking and drinking is slightly higher amongst the worse-off groups, but not so high that it could reasonably be called a poor person's problem. It's a strange suggestion really, like saying Bill and Ben smoke, so we'll put the price up, now Ben can still smoke because he can afford it, but Bill can't afford it anymore so he has to stop. It's a bit absurd to deliberately engineer that based on income. The same with drink.

Smoking, and to a lesser extent drink, are also addictions. People don't just cut down a bit when the price goes up, they cut back on other things. I know people who cut back on food and clothing rather than cutting down on tobacco, because they're addicted and can't function without it. I imagine there'll be people who put tobacco before their kids' food. It really isn't something to encourage.

I don't think price changes do much anyway. I think the drop in smoking over recent years is mostly down to education and support provided, not pricing. People should be able to continue to choose freely and not have lifestyles dictated to them by the government. I think drinkers, and definitely smokers, pay a surplus in taxes beyond what they cost the NHS anyway.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 13

thunder_chunky

19

Original post by ineedtorevise127

does this actually reduce consumption of these goods decreasing?

If not what is the best solution?

No. Both are already quite expensive. Overpricing isn't going to stop people from abusing those things.

Reply 14

Plainview

2

No. We shout probably shrink the safety net of publicly funded healthcare that incentivises people to run themselves into the ground with drugs because they know they'll just be able to bounce back again afterward at everyone else's expense (not everyone does this, of course, but people should have a reason to take care of themselves).

Reply 15

Alexok

8

I wouldn't mind if it was more expensive; if the taxes accumulated would go to charity or something

Reply 16

n00

14

Original post by Plainview

publicly funded healthcare that incentivises people to run themselves into the ground with drugs because they know they'll just be able to bounce back again afterward at everyone else's expense

Getting a publicly funded stomach pump, liver transplant or lung removal doesn't strike me as much of an incentive.

Original post by Plainview

(not everyone does this, of course).

Does what? Only takes drugs because the NHS incentivises it with publicly funded lung removals? No ****, no one does this.

Reply 17

ZÃ¼rich

20

Original post by ineedtorevise127

does this actually reduce consumption of these goods decreasing?

If not what is the best solution?

I would honestly pay up to £5 for a pint in the pub without decreasing my consumption so it would simply be a tax on me. I dont drink heavily enough to cost the NHS a penny so why should I pay this much though?

Cigarettes are nearly a tenner as well so dont know exactly how much expense the NHS expect from smokers, seems a huge amount already.

Reply 18

username533239

17

Original post by Huskaris

Christ no, drinkers and smokers already more than pay the cost of what they impose on the NHS/Police etc.

A solution would be to educate people better, or make weed legal to stop fights on a friday night.

so making weed legal will stop fights [on a friday night] on a night out?

Reply 19

dendodge

9

~~No, it's one of Oasis's few really good songs. We should be encouraging more people to listen to it.~~

Cigarettes should be either more expensive or banned in public, because I don't want to be forced to let another person increase my risk of dying of lung cancer just because I want to wait at a bus stop.

Alcohol's okay, though, because as long as you're obeying the law (e.g., not drink-driving), you're not doing any harm to anyone else by drinking alcohol. Plus, I don't want my nights out to get more expensive :tongue:

(edited 10 years ago)

Do you think cigarette and alcohol should be made more expensive

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you