|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 3 Jul 11:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Tue 3 Jul 13:05
They are all the same...take away your rights incrementally because people don't really notice.
Ironic given the amount of overweight politicians that'll help push it through whilst enjoying a subsidised 3 course meal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onlytakes
Date: Tue 3 Jul 15:13
wettingabout whilst we have the highest number of drugs deaths in Europe. Twice as high as the UK average.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 3 Jul 16:02
Should government stand back and take no action whilst food manufacturers and retailers slowly kill us with their products and pollute the atmosphere with their packaging?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 3 Jul 16:49
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 3 Jul 16:54
Prohibition doesn't work for anything though so banning things that are bad for us won't work either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 3 Jul 17:25
Stevie, you seem a bit confused. Your thread title refers to the SNP who have nothing to do with tax on tobacco as far as I am aware. However, the Scottish Government (not specifically the SNP) has introduced legislation to discourage smoking and make the environment for non-smokers healthier, rather than promote smoking which you seem to be implying.
To say governments want people to die to save pensions is incredible. What about the cost of treating people for smoking-related diseases and the loss of tax from people dying early?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'folk like you'. If you mean folk who care about the future of mankind and of the planet then I'm guilty. The general point I was making was that sometimes governments have to intervene to try and change behaviour because market forces don't always give the best outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onlytakes
Date: Tue 3 Jul 18:48
Strangely, health spending isn't increasing at the same rate as it has in England despite Scotland receiving more per head. There's been cuts in health promotion across the country. But it's all okay because we now drink Irn Bru filled with artificial sweeteners and a bottle of booze has gone up a quid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 3 Jul 19:33
Quote:
WORST, Tue 3 Jul 16:49
Eck, reference my point about cigs and even booze.
If you/they are going to make moral stances about what's good for us then why not start with banning those highly addictive killers first.
They won't though as they hypocritically want the revenue they continually bump up year after year, and of course they also get the additional bonus of folks dying younger due to these addictive products which saves them paying out pensions etc.
It's shear hypocrisy, and folks like you refuse to see it.
Cannabis, proven to medically help people, so they won't allow it. Fags, proven to kill people, so they allow it and charge those poor addicts a fortune in tax for it.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was a case of them seeing that someone could eat two or more meals worth of food, but they only get tax coin for one meals worth. You just watch them backing down from banning scran all you can, and pumping the tax up on it.
The SNP Gov make absolutely no money from tax revenue on cigarettes or alcohol so I don't know what your point is there?
UK reserved.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Tue 3 Jul 21:11
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 3 Jul 16:02
Should government stand back and take no action whilst food manufacturers and retailers slowly kill us with their products and pollute the atmosphere with their packaging?
They let them in in the first place lowering food standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard
Date: Tue 3 Jul 21:20
Quote:
AdamAntsParsStripe, Tue 3 Jul 19:33
Quote:
WORST, Tue 3 Jul 16:49
Eck, reference my point about cigs and even booze.
If you/they are going to make moral stances about what's good for us then why not start with banning those highly addictive killers first.
They won't though as they hypocritically want the revenue they continually bump up year after year, and of course they also get the additional bonus of folks dying younger due to these addictive products which saves them paying out pensions etc.
It's shear hypocrisy, and folks like you refuse to see it.
Cannabis, proven to medically help people, so they won't allow it. Fags, proven to kill people, so they allow it and charge those poor addicts a fortune in tax for it.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this was a case of them seeing that someone could eat two or more meals worth of food, but they only get tax coin for one meals worth. You just watch them backing down from banning scran all you can, and pumping the tax up on it.
The SNP Gov make absolutely no money from tax revenue on cigarettes or alcohol so I don't know what your point is there?
UK reserved.
The OP hasn't clue what his point is either !
He'd be better keeping quiet on things he's not got a scooby about and perhaps nobody would notice he's half chackit !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 3 Jul 22:24
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Tue 3 Jul 22:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MikeyLeonard
Date: Tue 3 Jul 22:46
Quote:
WORST, Tue 3 Jul 22:35
(Mikey, I wonder what they do with the extra tax they take off the alcohol addicts per unit?)
I haven't got a clue, but the difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 3 Jul 22:47
Can't really.be bothered correcting you on your inaccurate assumptiion regarding revenues generated by the minimum price per alcohol unit.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 3 Jul 22:54
I don't know where to start. No one's trying to ban food so why draw an analogy with banning cigarettes? How effective would a ban on cigarettes be anyway? Look what happened in the States in the 1920s when they introduced Prohibition.
With regard to the increase in alcohol prices I'm sure the government gets nothing out of it as it's not a tax. It's the retailers who benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 3 Jul 23:23
Probably the worst, Worst comments on here to date just to have a pop at the SNP.
Every one of his points picked apart as he keeps thinking the Scottish government make profits from these taxes when they never have.
They also have no authority to ban cigarettes or alcohol under UK laws.
You would think he'd be better turning his fake wrath on the UK Government but then he can't have his customary pop at the SNP instead.....
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 4 Jul 04:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Wed 4 Jul 06:39
Not one of you has attempted to answer his question....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onlytakes
Date: Wed 4 Jul 06:42
The SNP Government have cut funding to the smoking cessation service in recent years. They cover it up by funding the Quit Your Way but the number of staff has reduced dramatically with fewer sessions and more pressure being put on pharmacy staff to act as stop smoking professionals. There is no way they have the time to work with an individual to work out the best plan of an individual.
Saves a few quid and they get sweet FA of the taxes so they don't care.
As mentioned (and duly ignored) the SNP Government have failed to invest at the same level as their English counterparts over the past 10 years despite receiving more funding. Where has this money gone?
Will also point out that all the figures for A&E being better in Scotland are down to staff working over their allocated hours. This isn't a one-off thing - it's every single week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 4 Jul 06:52
They potentially (it's still a review at the moment) want to ban cheap access to junk food. They aren't banning junk food.
In trying to raise the cost of junk food, it's the same idea as using excise duty to increase the cost of tobacco to make it less appealing. The way to get the price to increase would be different but using price to make the product less appealing is the same theory.
It would be an attempt to moderate, not ban, consumption of junk food.
The cost to the NHS to treat diabetes and obesity is increasing year on year not to mention it's bad for tubsters like me to be in this shape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 4 Jul 07:02
To the point of funding of the NHS in Scotland it's got to be looked at in the context of overall budgets.
Scotland already spent more per head on the NHS than rUK so rUK are playing catch up. Scotland's overall budget in real terms has been cut so whilst spending on the NHS in England has increased and Scotland has received it's increased Barnet consequential relative to the increase, the SNP have obviously decided that some of that money needs to be used to protect other areas of Govenrment spending.
In an ideal world the money would have also been spent on the NHS in Scotland but what areas of spending would you cut to do that?
It's all part of the faux austerity drive the SNP have consistently fought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 4 Jul 07:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 4 Jul 07:12
Except I've just pointed out why your point is actually completely wrong.
There would be no ban on junk food and is no ban on tobacco. Price is used to put people off tobacco and price might be used to put people of junk food.
Edited to add: the difference being the UK Government collect excise duty on tobacco the Scottish Government won't collect tax on the junk food promo ban cost.
I'll also reiterate my earlier post that prohibition doesn't work.
Post Edited (Wed 04 Jul 07:15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 4 Jul 07:15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 4 Jul 07:19
Yeah ban price promos not junk food completely.
Post Edited (Wed 04 Jul 07:20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Wed 4 Jul 10:42
Obesity must be tackled. It is costing the NHS a fortune. If people can't ration their own food (alcohol, cigarettes) what other choice is there?
I am sick of people lambasting the NHS and it's failings and yet making excuses for lifestyle choices that are making the service hellish for the rest of us who can enjoy life without binging on fast food, alcohol or cigarettes.
It is about time the government stepped in. Companies are making a fortune out of effectively killing us.
I would put 50% tax on fast food, sweets, and other sugar items and if that didn't work I would up it to 75% and tax the bottom off the suppliers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Wed 4 Jul 10:57
"Cannabis, proven to medically help people"
Yes but that is not what most people mean when they talk about making it legal.
Medicinal Cannabis is the use of a prescribed dosage of a certain type of the drug under medical supervision.
In actual fact the NHS does not say it is safe for everyone or that it should be legalised.
"Cannabis: the facts
Cannabis (also known as marijuana, weed, pot, dope or grass) is the most widely used illegal drug in the UK.
The effects of cannabis vary from person to person:
you may feel chilled out, relaxed and happy
some people get the giggles or become more talkative
hunger pangs ("the munchies") are common
colours may look more intense and music may sound better
time may feel like it's slowing down
Cannabis can have other effects too:
if you're not used to it, you may feel faint or sick
it can make you sleepy and lethargic
it can affect your memory
it makes some people feel confused, anxious or paranoid, and some experience panic attacks and hallucinations – this is more common with stronger forms of cannabis like skunk or sinsemilla
it interferes with your ability to drive safely
If you use cannabis regularly, it can make you demotivated and uninterested in other things going on in your life, such as education or work.
Long-term use can affect your ability to learn and concentrate.
Can you get addicted to cannabis?
Research shows that 10% of regular cannabis users become dependent on it. Your risk of getting addicted is higher if you start using it in your teens or use it every day.
As with other addictive drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, you can develop a tolerance to cannabis. This means you need more to get the same effect.
If you stop using it, you may get withdrawal symptoms, such as cravings, difficulty sleeping, mood swings, irritability and restlessness.
If you smoke cannabis with tobacco, you're likely to get addicted to nicotine and risk getting tobacco-related diseases such as cancer and coronary heart disease.
If you cut down or give up, you will experience withdrawal from nicotine as well as cannabis.
See tips for stopping smoking.
Cannabis and mental health
Regular cannabis use increases your risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia. A psychotic illness is one where you have hallucinations (seeing things that aren't really there) and delusions (believing things that aren't really true).
Your risk of developing a psychotic illness is higher if:
you start using cannabis at a young age
you smoke stronger types, such as skunk
you smoke it regularly
you use it for a long time
you smoke cannabis and also have other risk factors for schizophrenia, such as a family history of the illness
Cannabis also increases the risk of a relapse in people who already have schizophrenia, and it can make psychotic symptoms worse.
Other risks of cannabis
Cannabis can be harmful to your lungs
People who smoke cannabis regularly are more likely to have bronchitis (where the lining of your lungs gets irritated and inflamed).
Like tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke contains cancer-causing chemicals, but it's not clear whether this raises your risk of cancer.
If you mix cannabis with tobacco to smoke it, you risk getting tobacco-related lung diseases, such as lung cancer and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD).
You're more likely to be injured in a road traffic accident
If you drive while under the influence of cannabis, you're more likely to be involved in an accident. This is one reason why drug driving, like drink driving, is illegal.
Cannabis may affect your fertility
Research in animals suggests that cannabis can interfere with sperm production in males and ovulation in females.
If you're pregnant, cannabis may harm your unborn baby
Research suggests that using cannabis regularly during pregnancy could affect your baby's brain development.
Regularly smoking cannabis with tobacco increases the risk of your baby being born small or premature.
Cannabis increases your risk of cardiovascular disease and stroke
If you smoke it regularly for a long time, cannabis raises your chances of developing these conditions.
Research suggests it's the cannabis smoke that increases the risk, not the active ingredients in the plant itself.
Does my age affect my risks?
Your risk of harm from cannabis, including the risk of schizophrenia, is higher if you start using it regularly in your teens.
One reason for this is that, during the teenage years, your brain is still growing and forming its connections, and cannabis interferes with this process.
Does cannabis have medicinal benefits?
Cannabis contains active ingredients called cannabinoids. Two of these – tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) – are the active ingredients of a prescription drug called Sativex. This is used to relieve the pain of muscle spasms in multiple sclerosis.
Another cannabinoid drug, called Nabilone, is sometimes used to relieve sickness in people having chemotherapy for cancer.
Trials are under way to test cannabis-based drugs for other conditions including cancer pain, the eye disease glaucoma, appetite loss in people with HIV or AIDS, and epilepsy in children.
We won't know whether these treatments are effective until the trials have finished.
Read more about clinical trials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Wed 4 Jul 13:02
Quote:
WORST, Wed 4 Jul 07:15
The article I read said "ban"
Daily Express by any chance?
As was pointed out to you, it is about prevention to long term illnesses that cost the SHNS billions year in year out.
The Scottish government cannot ban this, alcohol or cigarettes as they are UK reserved matters.
The whole premise of your opening post was that this was to make profit for the government which has been shown to be false yet again.
It's fine you hate the SNP but if you're going to post your vitriol it's best to get your facts right first.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 4 Jul 13:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Wed 4 Jul 14:46
"Eck, reference my point about cigs and even booze.
If you/they are going to make moral stances about what's good for us then why not start with banning those highly addictive killers first.
They won't though as they hypocritically want the revenue they continually bump up year after year, and of course they also get the additional bonus of folks dying younger due to these addictive products which saves them paying out pensions etc. "
So, you say they want the revenue (which they don't get)
Then you say they want people to die younger so they don't have to pay pensions!
It is the UK government who pay pensions not the Scottish one!
I say again for the third time. The Scottish government cannot ban cigarettes or alcohol by law.
Finally, isn't trying to cut out the use of junk food/minimum alcohol prices a positive thing to keep people living longer and for the NHS equally now we've established the Scottish Government make absolutely no profit from them?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:19
Quote:
WORST, Wed 4 Jul 13:31
Once again you need bog roll for yer gub, AAPS.
You talk of facts? Try reading my OP again and tell me where I mentioned tax.
I gave my own opinion on why they refuse to ban smoking a bit farther down the thread, and you are trying to make a tax issue of my opinion.
I notice you won't answer my question(s). They clearly don't fit your wee agenda here.
It's fine you hate me having a go at snp, but if you're going to post your vitriol it's best to get your facts right first.
Duh. The Scottish government has no power to stop the sale of cigs or alcohol. This is a reserved power. They have tried to mitigate the alcohol problem with minimum pricing of which they get no revenue. Within the current framework what would you like the Scottish government to do in respect of cigs and booze?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 4 Jul 15:37
I say again for the third time. The Scottish government cannot ban cigarettes or alcohol by law.
But the SG has legislated on the purchase and consumption of tobacco - see the age at which you can buy, the banning of advertising displays, the banning of smoking in public enclosed spaces and private cars if children are present.
They also have control over alcohol licensing laws.
Are you sure these powers are reserved?
(They also claim to have banned fracking, and claim not to have banned fracking)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 4 Jul 16:03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Wed 4 Jul 16:08
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Wed 4 Jul 15:37
I say again for the third time. The Scottish government cannot ban cigarettes or alcohol by law.
But the SG has legislated on the purchase and consumption of tobacco - see the age at which you can buy, the banning of advertising displays, the banning of smoking in public enclosed spaces and private cars if children are present.
They also have control over alcohol licensing laws.
Are you sure these powers are reserved?
(They also claim to have banned fracking, and claim not to have banned fracking)
My point to Stevie was he is making both the assumption that the SNP have the power to ban these things and also not doing so to make revenue.
Both of which are untrue.
They do have limited powers as you mentioned to try combat abuse but that's it.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Wed 4 Jul 18:05
And yet they have the power to keep medical herbs from the population.
Hmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Wed 4 Jul 18:45
Quote:
Rastapari, Wed 4 Jul 18:05
And yet they have the power to keep medical herbs from the population.
Hmmm.
I'm with you there pal and I think they will legalise the use at least medically sometime soon.
I know they're not against it and would get cross party support.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onlytakes
Date: Wed 4 Jul 22:49
Forgive my ignorance, but surely if cannabis was legalised it could be synthesized to be a particular potency and reduce some of the less pleasant side effects on some people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bertiesback
Date: Thu 5 Jul 14:33
"And yet they have the power to keep medical herbs from the population.
Hmmm."
It is not a medical herb that the "population" (you can't help yourself) want and you 'know' that fine well.
Read the NHS document (again?)
Post Edited (Thu 05 Jul 21:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Thu 5 Jul 15:56
My point to Stevie was he is making both the assumption that the SNP have the power to ban these things and also not doing so to make revenue.
Both of which are untrue.
You’re going to have to point me to where it says these things are reserved, as I can’t see it.
Surely, if the SG can legislate on who can purchase tobacco, and where it can be consumed, it can effectively ban it, by restricting purchase to those over 120, and restricting consumption to anywhere 100 miles from the nearest human?
One question is whether they should ban “these things”.
In general, I’m opposed to bans as they infringe civil liberties. People have to be able to make good choices (but to allow that, you must allow the risk of them making bad choices)
Alcohol can be harmful – should we ban it because a minority abuse it? Similarly gambling. Or hill-walking or mountaineering. What about private cars – bad for the environment, and they kill people – we could save a lot of lives if they were banned (but destroy our way of lives).
(I appreciate that these arguments could be used against the banning of firearms)
Bans can be hard or expensive to enforce, they can lead to unintended consequences (as can any regulatory change).
Years ago there was a major train incident, in which many lives were lost. This prompted the introduction of all sorts of safety measures – which meant train ticket prices went up, which meant people drove more than took the train, which (probably) led to more deaths on the roads.
I’m not a big fan of using tax as a means of implementing social policy (but it may be better than banning). Again, there can be unintended consequences. We have recently introduced minimum pricing for alcohol, because “something must be done”. This certainly punishes the responsible drinker. No doubt it will change the behaviour of some irresponsible drinkers, but at what price? Some will drink less, some will choose substitutes (e.g. from Berwick or Carlisle) and some will give up something else (like food) to fund their habit.
I’ll also state a couple more generalities:
Complex problems generally require complex solutions (and a proper understanding of the original problem);
If there was an easy solution, it would have been solved by now.
There is a modern day tendency to advocate populist (and simplistic) solutions. (You can guess where I would be going with this).
To summarise, obesity and consequent healthcare issues is a complex issue, and it will probably require a series of measures to resolve involving education, wealth generation and redistribution, prevention and potentially facilitating radical lifestyle changes.
As for the revenue angle, again, this is complex. My suspicion is that overall poorer life expectancy is more costly, as the pension savings are more than offset by the requirement for more healthcare and the reduction in productivity (but I’d need to see figures on this).
There is no current direct link between “Sin taxes” (duties on Tobacco, Alcohol and Gambling) and the Block Grant given to the SG. Scotland does raise disproportionately more per head from these however (particularly from Tobacco sales) so I guess there is an indirect link, but it is barely material – about £1bn pa is raised p.a. in Scotland from tobacco duty.
However, the future allocation of the first 10% of VAT would have an effect though – banning smoking might reduce income by £150m or so pa (back of a fag packet calculation)
Meanwhile, I think the original suggestion of “banning” all you can eat deals has been canned.
Post Edited (Thu 05 Jul 15:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
