Fancy a relaxed boozy holiday? Keep well away from Great Britain The UK is the second least free country in the European Union, according to the latest Nanny State Index rankings from the European Policy Information Centre. This septic isle is only surpassed by Finland when it comes to bans, restrictions and taxes on everyday relaxation activities. The UK scores 37.4 out of a maximum of 100 …
If they're going to include the taxation, availability etc. of some of the traditional sins, and in the interests of allowing comparisons with Nevada and other places known for "sin", shouldn't the legality and availability of other "leisure activities" be included on the list as well?
Taxing other sins, that's an interesting idea. Like racism, say, £5 per n-word. Or telling lies in public office - when you get caught, that's OK, there's no punishment as such (just like now), but you do incur an £80 tax liability. There is mileage in this.
This post has been deleted by its author
They're a venerable freemarket thinktank, me old commie boot-lick. Both individually and collectively, a good deal smarter than you, I'd care to wager. Now, enough snide sniping comrade, and get back to doing nothing much of any economic importance, before the boss notices and fires your whining over-paid and -entitled carcass.
... if your post was supposed to be sarcasm or not...
but for the avoidance of doubt - the IEA is funded by British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, and Japan Tobacco International. Of course they don't like to publicise this...
In my mind, that doesn't make them a "venerable freemarket thinktank", it makes them corporate shills.
"the IEA is funded by British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, and Japan Tobacco International."Australian Labor Party Treasurer, Wayne Swan told us that each Australian smoker funds two hospital beds through the tobacco excise. I imagine if that the tobacco industry were to cease operation there would be even fewer hospital beds for the sick.
....there would be even fewer hospital beds for the sick.
Does your imagination extend to imagining the reduction in lung cancer and other smoking related illnesses that would accompany the tobacco companies ceasing operation?
Sadly we are where we are. We know where we want to be. Betwixt these two is 50 years of damage from past smoking to deal with. I say ban it but no government will forgo the tax take, not if they want to be reelected. Then of course there is the slight problem of the efficacy and results of a ban. Prohibition worked out so well and as for the war on drugs ...
"Does your imagination extend to imagining the reduction in lung cancer and other smoking related illnesses that would accompany the tobacco companies ceasing operation?"Does your imagination extend to a hospital system already underfunded? The anti-smoking campaign has been quite successful with the knock-on effect of reducing government income. And here's the result:
Facebook image of 95 year old woman on hospital floor in Hobart
The solution of additional taxation for non-smokers to compensate is wildly unpopular of course. The do gooderesses want to eliminate sources of government revenue and demand more government-funded services. It's a crazy world.
@dedmonst: "the IEA is funded by British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, and Japan Tobacco International."
I've always wondered what the business model is for a "think tank." They have all these apparently eminent and highly-qualified people working for them, but surely they can't be paying all their wages just from selling copies of their "analysis." The market for such publications can't be very big.
It's much clearer how they make money if they're really just advertising agencies.
This is how it starts.
When government starts to think you can't think for yourself they start to legislate so you don't have to or don't have a choice.
It's a long slippery slope to the complete nanny state or as I fondly call it "The Totalitarian Regime"
Lets see how long it is before we hit 100.
Especially since the government & advertisers know for a fact that people pretty much cannot think for themselves.
This is the whole advertising game, you don't waste time & effort trying to convince people to buy smokes/drinks, you merely show images of people enjoying whatever poison you peddle (literally: poison) and let "freely thinking" people do the work for you.
Next thing you know, the addicts are doing the recruiting. For free!
Two nasty things about big tobacco, from top-of-head:
1. You can sue them for damages, and you can win billion$ or hundreds of million$ in damages, but they will never pay you. They will appeal and appeal and appeal until the day you die.
2. They advertise the hell out of the third world. They advertise the hell out of third world children. They go wherever the regulations are not - they have to, in order to survive.
Just because it's legalized, doesn't mean it isn't pure evil in its heart, and that's not bombast, that's a sober true fact (ha ha, "sober").
Elbow's up, lads! That's an order :)
Nice post btw and I do agree but what you are saying is that we don't have free will because we are at the mercy of people that will manipulate us to do what they want and that the government needs to come to our rescue.
I think the problem is being looked at from the wrong end, maybe if people were educated to understand how advertising manipulation works then that would be more useful than banning tobacco advertising unless of course the same manipulation needs to be used for other things like election campaigns.
I don't need to think. My watch tells me everything I need to know. Like how much I can eat. And when I hit the sweet spot with physical activity. Then when I am well rested. Otherwise when I should stand up and - oops typing just got more difficult and I am bumping into things - walk around. And ..ohh hang on... I have to stop looking at the screen, like, now ...
@ breakfast
"The interesting question is what will happen once they can't just blame the big bad EU for everything that is unpopular?"
Probably look to our government to lead and vote for better governments than we keep getting. Although probably laughing at the stupid things the EU does and saying 'good job we got out when we had the chance'.
"Advertising bans restrict competition and stifle innovation" - oh yes, I clearly remember the days when blanket fag ads did so much to encourage the tobacco companies to develop innovative products that didn't give you cancer.
"Smoking bans damage pubs and clubs" - yep, making them pleasant places to breathe has totally ruined them for me.
I'm not sure you can measure the nanny state nature of a country by the amount it taxes cigarettes and alcohol when you'd then need to take into account whether or not said country has free healthcare that gets smashed by the use/abuse of said items. I believe the UK is high on the nanny state index but I don't think taxation on "bad for your health shit that affects others and loads up the NHS" (alcohol through violence and smokes through passive factors) is a good metric.
go to the good old USofA
Need to be 21 to drink
Some states will put you on the sex offenders registed if you are a man and have a jimmy riddle in public
Need to show ID to but booze even if you are clearly over 60 (Wallyworld, CA)
Have to go to separate stores to buy beer and wine in some states.
Some states spirits are only available from state shops
Illegal even to have a closed but opened bottle (i.e. a bit has been drunk) in a car even if it is in the trunk.
Easier to get guns in some states then Scotch.
There are still some 'dry' counties.
Retail firearms? Who pays those prices? You can get the exact same product on the used market for under half price, in most cases. Esoterics excepted, of course (my Barrett, for example).
And trust me, the folks producing the booze fill out more than enough federal paperwork to cover all the purchasers of same. Excise tax paperwork is a bitch.
Seriously? You're going to bring up excise tax paperwork by producers. You are aware that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also applies excise taxes on firearms and ammunition (PDF).
Besides, if you want to get into a paperwork pile proportions pissing contest I don't see booze makers being bothered by things like ITAR which among other things determines who they can hire. Literally anyone who can reach can pitch yeast but that's not quite true of the person who cuts a chamber on a tube with spiral grooves on the inside. When it comes to the U.S. Government, I think we can all agree that there is more than enough paperwork to go around and the odds of it increasing are much greater than those of it decreasing any time soon.
AC, I was being sarcastic. I've been making & selling beer & wine for quite a while, and am now trying to get into the distillation business. The paperwork is pretty bad, thus my comment.
I'm not exporting booze or firearms, so things like ITAR are meaningless to me.
I have, however, manufactured a couple firearms. They are personal use only. The feds haven't bothered me over them, less so than actually purchasing one at a retail level.
jake, I get that but as a former barrel maker I found that such a simple task as cutting the chamber made the difference between going through the entire ITAR B.S. regardless of whether you import or export and making blanks, which isn't regulated by ITAR, to be not worth the hassle of cutting the chamber. Don't get me wrong, I can sell the cutter with the barrel but there's a whole pile of paperwork that makes the difference between spinning one hunk of metal against another which allows some miscellaneous brass cartridge to fit into the newly formed breech. While I don't do revolver cylinders, I have to imagine that a reasonably precise drill bit would make all the difference. Oh, note that black powder arms don't need a "chamber" so no worries and it's not a firearm. Go figure, it's bizarre, I tell you. :P
Meanwhile, you can make a shotgun from parts you buy at Home Depot and ITAR doesn't apply but certain bits of software code the State Dep't determines qualifies as munitions? Oops! It's all nuts, cheers.
It is, indeed, all nuts. I don't make the rules, I just work within them.
I've never had to do anything with ITAR. I am not manufacturing firearms for sale or distribution and as I understand it, I am not required to be a licensed manufacturer, so no ITAR.
Note that the only thing the feds care about is the receiver. And in my case, it seems they don't even care about that. I did register the receivers I made with the feds; they seemed surprised that I bothered, given the circumstances. As always when it comes to such things, consult a local attorney familiar with the rules in your neck of the woods before starting the manufacturing process.
I don't make guns anymore. It was a "can I do it?" phase I went through. The only pieces I still use regularly are one based on a Winchester 1894 carbine in .357 Herritt (a varminter, coyote mostly), and a 10 gauge flintlock that I use for duck and turkey on the rare occasion that I hunt. This last one is a replica of the one made by my Great-Great-Grandfather.
Well there's a difference between ATF and State and it's clear one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. It's tripped up a number of gunsmiths I know who thought that they only had to comply with ATF rules. The worst part is the State Department makes the ITAR rules and is free to change them on a whim. If you're interested I believe this PDF is the latest word but it is nearly a year old so who knows how or if the wind will change under Trump.
Ted, I got the Barrett in partial trade for services rendered. The guy said he paid $15,000 for it. It was a M82A1 in .50BMG, fired 50 times before he decided he had no use for it. I put another 350 rounds through it, and then traded it for the exact same unit, but in .416 Barrett, This was back when California decided that the .50 was too scary for mere civilians to own. The .416 was new at the time, the coming ban on .50s made the "exchange rate" quite favorable for me. You can purchase the exact same configuration I have for yourself, brand new from the factory, for about $14,000.
I use it for long distance target shooting. It's a meditation thing for me.
Amen. There's not much like the near dead silent pause between the instant BOOM and the distant CLANG some time later. I imagine my ancient .38-55 has nowhere near the range nor recoil of a .416 but at not quite a half mile the anticipation is most cathartic on the stresses of the week.
Ahh.hadn't heard the .50. calibre was banned in california..
Yep,ldt shooting can be relaxing..
Hard to explain to folk why though,folk here in uk thought me a looney when trying to explain it's just using and keeping a natural talent I have/had honed..
Only "little" 7.62 NATO,but far cheaper and hard work to find a range for a Barrett over here as well as impossible to licence a .50 as a civvy in uk..
.308/7.62 more than enough for deer culls..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
