Comments on: Budget commentary

By: lth

lth — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:37:00 +0000

I’ll give you that. To be fair, though, when in a position of economic hardship one may not be ‘forced’ to work in a bar, but it may be the only kind of work available. Surely in cases like these, exposure to smoke is hardly voluntary? (wasn’t that what the New York authorities decided when they banned smoking in bars?)

Now, alcohol – it’s damaging to my wallet to pay for all the hospitalizations caused by people drinking themselves sick! Drunk young men also make town centres very unpleasant places to be at night on the weekends (or indeed every night of the week in places like Doncaster). They probably smash bus shelters and leave litter everywhere, and get into fights with people that require more hospitalization. Does the alcohol duty pay for all these things? It probably doesn’t (directly, at least). But it should, imho.

By: john b

john b — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:16:00 +0000

Indoor air quality != the environment. And unless the government forced you to take a job as a bar person or forgo benefit (does anyone know whether this happens? I’m strongly opposed to it if so), you don’t have to breathe the crap.

By: lth

lth — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:07:00 +0000

Um… surely cigarrettes do damage to the environment (fag ends, indoor air quality), and to non-consenting third-parties’ health (mine, having to breathe the crap)?