Now no to minimum alcohol pricing.
Has the PM's guru Lynton Crosby got interests in booze, also?
Probably, but to me indicates Weak PM, changes his mind on a whim, even if it is someone else's.
Probably, but to me indicates Weak PM, changes his mind on a whim
I do hope so, perhaps this means he will change his mind about that colossal white elephant HS2. Now at £49 billion and counting!
I suppose that if we had a Prime Minister who was inflexible there would be criticisms that he/she didn't listen to others.
What is the point in having plain wrappers on cigarette packaging? I doubt for a minute that the style of the packaging sells cigarettes particularly now that they are not even allowed to be displayed for sale.
I think that the PM is spot on with his latest decision.
At least the existing packs keep the forgers printing. grin
Anyway the packs would not have been plain, they would still have health warnings on them. Consumer legislation also requires the manufactures name and address at the very least.
Taken from an article in the New York Times.
"Interdisciplinary research in pharmacology, psychology, physiology and neurobiology is just beginning to shed light on the incredible hold that tobacco has on people. Scientists have found, for instance, that nicotine is as addictive as heroin, cocaine or amphetamines, and for most people more addictive than alcohol. Its hooks go deep, involving complex physiological and psychological mechanisms that drive and maintain smoking behaviour and that even produce some ''good'' effects, such as improved performance on intellectual, computational and stressful tasks."
Yet smokers are expected to just drop their habit with out any bother whatsoever. The country spends or has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on totally ineffective treatment for dug addicts, alcoholics are given extra benefits to help with their addiction but smokers are treated like pariahs because they feed their perfectly legal addiction and do not give up the 'evil practise' on the say so of the non smokers because it is very difficult for most to do so.
I am an ex smoker who gave up, not for health reasons, though my cancer was likely caused predominantly by my smoking, no I had to give it up because on benefits I could/can not afford it. If I was still a smoker fags in a plain packet would be meaningless, provided I got the brand I paid for they could sell them in a blood stained bag for I would care.
Oh and by the way I found it incredibly difficult I had the help of that drug, Champix, but even getting that I had to jump through hoops. It was necessary to go to one of these group hug type meetings where we are told what we all ready knew and that smoking was bad for you.
This is rubbish to me and I don't mean your post AP. I mean the ideas. Putting 10 or 20p on a can of beer is not going to stop abuse. If your are going to employ that tactic then you have to make it prohibitively expensive and I can't see any government doing that. If a minimum price is applied then who gets the extra money, the shop? or the government by raising duty.
Cigarettes are very expensive but it does not stop people buying them including some that can ill afford it.
Pine Man " now that they are not even allowed to be displayed for sale." Every shop or supermarket I go in they are displayed for sale, that was just another dopey idea on a par with plain packaging.
What bright ideas next I wonder, maybe make petrol so expensive so that nobody can use their cars, wonderful an overnight solution to traffic congestion and pollution.
Chronos, I posted before having read your last thread which I think supports my point.
'Cigarettes are very expensive but it does not stop people buying them including some that can ill afford it.'
Sorry to burst your bubble but measures taken on tobacco have been very successful with smoking prevalence falling substantially.
Of course, 'Putting 10 or 20p on a can of beer is not going to stop abuse' but there is reliable evidence that an increase in minimum pricing does have an impact on consumption.
Just because a measure isn't a cure all is not a good reason for ignoring it.
The government seems to be determined to show that evidence doesn't matter. We've had the scheduling of khat, the dropping of plain packs and MUP and the Health Secretary has had private talks with Prince Charles about homeopathy.
And, in case you missed it, Labour has proposed making the supply of coffee illegal.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.