Should the government prohibit spending public funds towards alcoholic beverages other than for medical purposes, especially seeing how some of us taxpayers choose not to drink ourselves precisely to not burden our health care system in future?
Should we ban taxpayer funding for alcohol?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
BBC News - Government spends £17,500 on wine
No,
you would think millions would be spent on liquor but that is not the case and wine does tend to be a good investment as it increases in value with age.
If Government wanted to save on expense than I would recommend cutting all jobs that amount to the government being a relief agency.
.
No,
you would think millions would be spent on liquor but that is not the case and wine does tend to be a good investment as it increases in value with age.
If Government wanted to save on expense than I would recommend cutting all jobs that amount to the government being a relief agency.
.
I sincerely do not believe diplomats are so shallow as to mke decisions based on how much alcohol we give them.
I don't get it. You don't want the government to buy alcohol because you don't want to burden the health care system by drinking? I don't see how that's connected.
If we were real concerned about the healthcare system than we would pass a law prohibiting aging!
Alcholism doesn't stress the healthcare system that much. Someone drinks a lot and ruins their liver? What happens then? They are cut off alcohol and have to take pills to treat their liquor.
A tad different from afflictions that relate to smoking (cancer), aging and even obesity, which amount to being the biggest costs for healthcare.
Alcholism doesn't stress the healthcare system that much. Someone drinks a lot and ruins their liver? What happens then? They are cut off alcohol and have to take pills to treat their liquor.
A tad different from afflictions that relate to smoking (cancer), aging and even obesity, which amount to being the biggest costs for healthcare.
I don't like kippers. Therefore, I think we should ban any public money being spent on kippers and other smoked fish products.
Are you insane?
Maybe you can convince Machjo to get involved here... I'm thinking of asking him to lobby against yellow paint 'casue I don't like it and the yellow-paint shouldn't be subsidized by people that don't like yellow paint.
That's not why you don't drink. You don't drink because you are a square.
Don't like kippers? I love'em.
I do however cook them on the BBQ for obvious reasons.;-)
Some people have used his kind of argument in regards to paying taxation,
usually it doesn't work so well unless you want your arsehole to go from o to O in Federal Prison.
Umm....while I think you are correct in your assessment I don't think a dude with your namesake can comment without bias.
Now get back to the still and make us some swill.:lol:
What do you mean you don't like kippers? They are a particular favourite of mine, especially toasted on a bagel with old cheddar. You should be banned lest some innocent child is lead astray by your disfunctional taste buds.
No and imposing a ban on it under the guise of encouraging a healthier lifestyle is a load of crap.
First off, the vast majority of the price of any alcoholic product is TAX. The cost of the actual product is miniscule compared to the amount of tax levied on these items. A 40 oz bottle of liquor costs about $ 2-3 to make, package and transport to the shelves... the rest of the price is tax and mark up... and liquor is a competitive business, enough so that the mark ups aren't any higher than other grocery items.
Second, some studies have shown that there can be health benefits to modest consumption of some beverages, in some people. There have been published medical studies showing the positive effects of red wine on circulatory systems in patients with things like heavy plaque build up in the arteries. Some (mostly German) physicians also on occasion prescribe beer in low volumes to address nutritional defficiencies in some pregnancies. Now this doesn't apply to everyone, and it is on the order of one glass of wine or beer per day but to white wash the entire subject by saying all alcohol consumption is bad is ignorance of the worst kind.
Third, while consumption of alcohol is a lifestyle choice, it is something heavily influenced by different cultures. To many Europeans, a formal dinner without wine is unheard of. Something to remember is that it is not forced on anyone but offered to them, from host to guest. Especially in a diplomatic setting, there is a high degree of importance on maintaining polite civility, positive impressions and even some small measures to encourage a sense of possible indebtedness. Even if both parties in a negotiation have firm positions that appear to be incompatible, a positive atmosphere and attitude toward each other may help encourage extra effort to find a compromise. We can say that it would only be professional to do so, but anyone who has dealt with others knows that in some cases interpersonal attitudes and relationships can open some extra doors that mere professionalism may not.
Now I don't believe that governmental functions should be excuses for lavish drunken binges, or that alcohol has any place in most work settings, but alcoholic consumption does have a place in some settings and should not be discarded because of some over zealous health and/or religious obsessions by some members of society.
First off, the vast majority of the price of any alcoholic product is TAX. The cost of the actual product is miniscule compared to the amount of tax levied on these items. A 40 oz bottle of liquor costs about $ 2-3 to make, package and transport to the shelves... the rest of the price is tax and mark up... and liquor is a competitive business, enough so that the mark ups aren't any higher than other grocery items.
Second, some studies have shown that there can be health benefits to modest consumption of some beverages, in some people. There have been published medical studies showing the positive effects of red wine on circulatory systems in patients with things like heavy plaque build up in the arteries. Some (mostly German) physicians also on occasion prescribe beer in low volumes to address nutritional defficiencies in some pregnancies. Now this doesn't apply to everyone, and it is on the order of one glass of wine or beer per day but to white wash the entire subject by saying all alcohol consumption is bad is ignorance of the worst kind.
Third, while consumption of alcohol is a lifestyle choice, it is something heavily influenced by different cultures. To many Europeans, a formal dinner without wine is unheard of. Something to remember is that it is not forced on anyone but offered to them, from host to guest. Especially in a diplomatic setting, there is a high degree of importance on maintaining polite civility, positive impressions and even some small measures to encourage a sense of possible indebtedness. Even if both parties in a negotiation have firm positions that appear to be incompatible, a positive atmosphere and attitude toward each other may help encourage extra effort to find a compromise. We can say that it would only be professional to do so, but anyone who has dealt with others knows that in some cases interpersonal attitudes and relationships can open some extra doors that mere professionalism may not.
Now I don't believe that governmental functions should be excuses for lavish drunken binges, or that alcohol has any place in most work settings, but alcoholic consumption does have a place in some settings and should not be discarded because of some over zealous health and/or religious obsessions by some members of society.
I worked for a business for a few years, the founder was a teetotaller. When you travelled on company business, you were not permitted to have alchohol on your expenses, for example, a glass of wine with a meal. It got to the point where we were actually told that they did not want anyone who had a company car to even buy alcohol and take it home in a company car.
I don't believe that all the employees followed those rules, but we were told that.
I don't believe that all the employees followed those rules, but we were told that.
Please,
there should be enough professionalism in politics to prevent diplomats from having to become party animals. You would think in 2010 we would have moved beyond behind closed door (drinking sessions) and deciding the fate of entire nations based on how bitter the beer we happen to be drinking at the precise moment.
I'm tired of fat politicians and diplomats
there should be enough professionalism in politics to prevent diplomats from having to become party animals. You would think in 2010 we would have moved beyond behind closed door (drinking sessions) and deciding the fate of entire nations based on how bitter the beer we happen to be drinking at the precise moment.
I'm tired of fat politicians and diplomats