We should just make alcohol illegal. Then people wouldn’t drink, crime would decrease, everyone would be more productive and there wouldn’t be any alcohol-related medical problems.
Right. Just like when we had prohibition. Crime was at a mimimum and everyone was more productive. And I’m sure there weren’t any alcohol-realted medical problems back in the prohibition days either.
youngin’…I’m sure the planet you live on is lovely.
But history (prohibition) tells us that your dream probably won’t work in this society. And in 2011, we are FAR less inhibited than they were in the 1930’s.
The biggest boon from making alcohol illegal would be to our legal system – double the current count of law enforcement, lawyers, judges, jails. Oh, but how would we pay for that since the alcohol taxes would gone?
Saw a MADD speaker at a service club meeting 20+ years ago. She made the comment ” we are starting to go after drunk drivers personally now but it doesn’t do much good because many don’t have insurance”. The logic was lost on me. Do they want to go after the drivers or are they looking for insurance money? Never forgot that.
Let’s be honest, people are tired of all the cigarette non-smoking ads and the use of tobacco is on the decline. So now they can target all the drinkers.
I wonder how much money was spent on a survey tht no one wil want to make any changes on?
Agree to all, worked in my father’s beer distributorship before getting into the insurance biz. Tobacco and alcohol are by far the most persecuted industries in this country. Probably used the federal excise tax on alcohol to fund the study!
“Tobacco and alcohol are by far the most persecuted industries in this country.”
Forgive me for vomiting all over your post. Oh those poor poor tobacco and alcohol companies, persecuted by the big mean U.S. government.
Phillip Morris posted a whopping $4.8 Billion profit…just in the last quarter alone, which was an 11.2% increase over its profit from the saame quarter a year ago.
Just because they make billions of dollars (as you say), that doesn’t mean that they aren’t persecuted.
Tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise on TV or billboards because “oh the poor children might see and want to light up”, but the anti tobacco group has free reign on advertising, and if they fudge numbers on “this is how many people were killed due to smoking”, the tobacco companies can not defend themselves. They were also FORCED to place the health warnings on the case of every pack of smokes because, you know, the only reason why people still smoke is because they must not know how bad it is for you. I hear there are talks that they might force tobacco companies to change their packs to make them have symbolisms of death on them. Sounds pretty facists to me. “We don’t like you/your product, so we are going to do everything we can to force you out of business, even thou people should have the freedom to choose what they put into their bodies”.
It’s not “as I say,” it’s what they report on their quarterly statements to the SEC.
I wish my company were “persecuted” so badly that we made a profit $4.8 Billion a quarter.
Don’t confuse regulation with persecution.
And for all the parade of horribles you describe about how tobacco companies and alcohol companies are “persecuted,” those companies seem to be weathering the storm quite nicely.
Other Point of View – Sounds like your sad you don’t own any Phillp Morris – too bad.., it just happens to be my largest holding.., thank you very much.
LOL. Not at all. :) I don’t begrudge a company making a profit, but I blanche at the notion that they are “persecuted.” They’re making money hand over fist.
Read about what “persecution” means and you soon see that it involves “severe suffering,” usually for religious, ethnic, or political reasons. Think of Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jews, America’s persecution of Blacks, Roman persecution of Christians, etc…
One of the problems we have in this country is the use of inflamatory rhetoric in our political discussions. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of it. I abhor such rhetoric. Tobacco companies and alcohol companies are not persecuted. Not in the least little bit. They enjoy immense profits and are free to conduct business subject to health and safety regulations. And thsoe regulations don’t seem to be hurting business very much.
My point is both of those industries have been taxed to death…, simply because their easy targets, one which no lawmaker/politician would dare stand up for. To my point of being percecuted.
October 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm
The Other Point of View says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“My point is both of those industries have been taxed to death.”
This is a perfect example of the hyperbolic rhetoric I’m talking about. Taxed to death? Come on man! They made a $4.8 billion profit last quarter! They’re not anywhere near death! They’re not even on crutches!
My problem is that every time the booze/smoke companies get a tax hike (because it is political suicide to oppose such a tax), my personal cost of vice goes up. It’s not taxing the companies to death, it’s taxing me to death. And since i’m already drinking and smoking I’m headed that way fast anyway.
Well, how much DO they pay in taxes vs other business that make that much profit? If they are charged a substantial amount more, they they are in fact, persecued.
Great! Can we add an additional tax to these just like Michelle O’bs hope to do so on all fast food?
And can we create an entire government committe and pay with Barack’s next stimulus package to structure and monitor alcohol consumption?
“Can we add an additional tax to these just like Michelle O’bs hope to do so on all fast food?”
Where do you get your information from? Since when does encouraging people to stop eating junk food and start eating helathy (a very worthy sentiment) turn into “she wants to tax all fast food?
I swear, the stuff you hear and read boggles the mind. How people’s words and actions gets twisted is so frustrating because people then repeat it and repeat it until people start to believe it.
You can do a Google search on the things the Obama’s plan on doing with their “sin tax”, or other taxes/penalties, which will primarily going to be dumped on fast food and soda companies. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/i_dont_like_being_outdoors.html
This is one of the older examples. I did a Google search and there are LOADS of examples of Mrs. Obama stating we need to either tax the fast food industry or at the very least, remove their tax breaks if they are receiving any currently.
Fast Food isn’t the problem, the same way Alcohol isn’t the problem. Accountability is the word for today. If you eat a dozen twinkies each day, you WILL get fat. If you have 10 shots of Whiskey per day, you will likely die from Liver issues at some point. I don’t think my tax dollars should help be spent helping someone that didn’t want to help his/her self to begin with.
You should read the article that you hyperlinked. I did. It says “Tax-breaks for purveyors of fast food and junk food also need to be eliminated, as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has proposed.”
Last time I checked, Dennis Kucinich was not the First Lady. Nowhere does the article say that Michelle Obama suggested or proposed a tax on fast food.
We should just make alcohol illegal. Then people wouldn’t drink, crime would decrease, everyone would be more productive and there wouldn’t be any alcohol-related medical problems.
Right. Just like when we had prohibition. Crime was at a mimimum and everyone was more productive. And I’m sure there weren’t any alcohol-realted medical problems back in the prohibition days either.
That would be a good one, except for the fact, during prohibition, alcohol consumption actually went UP in the US.
I know, Mike.
youngin’…I’m sure the planet you live on is lovely.
But history (prohibition) tells us that your dream probably won’t work in this society. And in 2011, we are FAR less inhibited than they were in the 1930’s.
The biggest boon from making alcohol illegal would be to our legal system – double the current count of law enforcement, lawyers, judges, jails. Oh, but how would we pay for that since the alcohol taxes would gone?
Am I the only one who feels pretty sure you’re talking tongue-in-cheek? People are so gullible!
That was the impression I got, not fooled.
I think this youngin likes to rattle peoples cages.
CDC is another group the neo-prohibitionist MADD cronies and cooks have now infiltrated. How much money was wasted funding this truly unbiased study?
Saw a MADD speaker at a service club meeting 20+ years ago. She made the comment ” we are starting to go after drunk drivers personally now but it doesn’t do much good because many don’t have insurance”. The logic was lost on me. Do they want to go after the drivers or are they looking for insurance money? Never forgot that.
Let’s be honest, people are tired of all the cigarette non-smoking ads and the use of tobacco is on the decline. So now they can target all the drinkers.
I wonder how much money was spent on a survey tht no one wil want to make any changes on?
I think $2 per drink extra is a fair price.
From roughly 4-7pm nationwide drinks are discounted, then they go up $2 per drink. I guess you just have to know when to do it.
Agree to all, worked in my father’s beer distributorship before getting into the insurance biz. Tobacco and alcohol are by far the most persecuted industries in this country. Probably used the federal excise tax on alcohol to fund the study!
“Tobacco and alcohol are by far the most persecuted industries in this country.”
Forgive me for vomiting all over your post. Oh those poor poor tobacco and alcohol companies, persecuted by the big mean U.S. government.
Phillip Morris posted a whopping $4.8 Billion profit…just in the last quarter alone, which was an 11.2% increase over its profit from the saame quarter a year ago.
Persecuted? Cry me a river.
Just because they make billions of dollars (as you say), that doesn’t mean that they aren’t persecuted.
Tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise on TV or billboards because “oh the poor children might see and want to light up”, but the anti tobacco group has free reign on advertising, and if they fudge numbers on “this is how many people were killed due to smoking”, the tobacco companies can not defend themselves. They were also FORCED to place the health warnings on the case of every pack of smokes because, you know, the only reason why people still smoke is because they must not know how bad it is for you. I hear there are talks that they might force tobacco companies to change their packs to make them have symbolisms of death on them. Sounds pretty facists to me. “We don’t like you/your product, so we are going to do everything we can to force you out of business, even thou people should have the freedom to choose what they put into their bodies”.
It’s not “as I say,” it’s what they report on their quarterly statements to the SEC.
I wish my company were “persecuted” so badly that we made a profit $4.8 Billion a quarter.
Don’t confuse regulation with persecution.
And for all the parade of horribles you describe about how tobacco companies and alcohol companies are “persecuted,” those companies seem to be weathering the storm quite nicely.
Other Point of View – Sounds like your sad you don’t own any Phillp Morris – too bad.., it just happens to be my largest holding.., thank you very much.
LOL. Not at all. :) I don’t begrudge a company making a profit, but I blanche at the notion that they are “persecuted.” They’re making money hand over fist.
Read about what “persecution” means and you soon see that it involves “severe suffering,” usually for religious, ethnic, or political reasons. Think of Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jews, America’s persecution of Blacks, Roman persecution of Christians, etc…
One of the problems we have in this country is the use of inflamatory rhetoric in our political discussions. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of it. I abhor such rhetoric. Tobacco companies and alcohol companies are not persecuted. Not in the least little bit. They enjoy immense profits and are free to conduct business subject to health and safety regulations. And thsoe regulations don’t seem to be hurting business very much.
My point is both of those industries have been taxed to death…, simply because their easy targets, one which no lawmaker/politician would dare stand up for. To my point of being percecuted.
“My point is both of those industries have been taxed to death.”
This is a perfect example of the hyperbolic rhetoric I’m talking about. Taxed to death? Come on man! They made a $4.8 billion profit last quarter! They’re not anywhere near death! They’re not even on crutches!
My problem is that every time the booze/smoke companies get a tax hike (because it is political suicide to oppose such a tax), my personal cost of vice goes up. It’s not taxing the companies to death, it’s taxing me to death. And since i’m already drinking and smoking I’m headed that way fast anyway.
Well, how much DO they pay in taxes vs other business that make that much profit? If they are charged a substantial amount more, they they are in fact, persecued.
If excessive drinking is costing us $2 a drink, I have a solution that’ll save all that money …
.
.
.
Drink at home!
Great! Can we add an additional tax to these just like Michelle O’bs hope to do so on all fast food?
And can we create an entire government committe and pay with Barack’s next stimulus package to structure and monitor alcohol consumption?
“Can we add an additional tax to these just like Michelle O’bs hope to do so on all fast food?”
Where do you get your information from? Since when does encouraging people to stop eating junk food and start eating helathy (a very worthy sentiment) turn into “she wants to tax all fast food?
I swear, the stuff you hear and read boggles the mind. How people’s words and actions gets twisted is so frustrating because people then repeat it and repeat it until people start to believe it.
You can do a Google search on the things the Obama’s plan on doing with their “sin tax”, or other taxes/penalties, which will primarily going to be dumped on fast food and soda companies. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/i_dont_like_being_outdoors.html
This is one of the older examples. I did a Google search and there are LOADS of examples of Mrs. Obama stating we need to either tax the fast food industry or at the very least, remove their tax breaks if they are receiving any currently.
Fast Food isn’t the problem, the same way Alcohol isn’t the problem. Accountability is the word for today. If you eat a dozen twinkies each day, you WILL get fat. If you have 10 shots of Whiskey per day, you will likely die from Liver issues at some point. I don’t think my tax dollars should help be spent helping someone that didn’t want to help his/her self to begin with.
You should read the article that you hyperlinked. I did. It says “Tax-breaks for purveyors of fast food and junk food also need to be eliminated, as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has proposed.”
Last time I checked, Dennis Kucinich was not the First Lady. Nowhere does the article say that Michelle Obama suggested or proposed a tax on fast food.
Stop spreading lies.
Of course people are going to drink excessively if you’re only charging $2 per drink. Charge more and people will drink less. Simple math people.
I think you need to read the article again.
Again?? You mean for the first time???
I read the headlines and the comments. That’s all I have time for in my busy day.
We REALLY need a sarcasm font.
I agree.
If we can eliminate smoking, drinking, and sedentary living, we can eliminate the deficit!
I come to this board to get away from the day for a minute or so and spend 10 reading all of these comments……
I bet this was paid for by Stimulus 1 money. How is that working out for you……. Barry.
Nanny government at its worst.