Fags

[chalice]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:18
Clocker

Can I propose that bad posts be the subject of a new levy.

We could call it the syntax.

Or "The Troll Tax".

[chalice]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:25
The real difference between the Clocker scenario and ours is that the profit goes to "Indian reservations" to quote my hirsutely challenged friend.

However in the UK, the bulk of the profits goes to recognised organised crime groups. They use these profits to fund drug trafficking and various other criminal activities.

It may be cool here to speak of "a wee bit of weed" however go and speak to a heroin addict, or better still his wife and children. It's not so much of a laugh then.

I've met quite a few heroin addicts in my time, JP and not one of them has offloaded their responsiblities onto the illegal cigarettes trade. They would be less general in their origins.

This only re-enforces the idea that heavy-taxing of tobacco proliferates the black-market.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:17
Thanks for the input, but it is not analogous to billions of pounds losses to the UK exchequer.

Well I reckon wherever you are, most people would be prepared to pay for a legitimate product, provided they don't think they are getting ripped off by a company or the government.

Check out the Yes Prime Minister episode, it is very poignant to the topic.

[chalice]

Well, you were just being inordinate.

[namzuf9]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 02:25
However in the UK, the bulk of the profits goes to recognised organised crime groups. They use these profits to fund drug trafficking and various other criminal activities.

Would you care to directly quote some realible sources on this matter?

It may be cool here to speak of "a wee bit of weed" however go and speak to a heroin addict, or better still his wife and children. It's not so much of a laugh then.

I'm kinda missing the point to the above here.

[namzuf9]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+11 December 2003 - 02:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 11 December 2003 - 02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by namzuf9@11 December 2003 - 01:45
<!--QuoteBegin-Mr JP Fugley

@11 December 2003 - 02:25
However in the UK, the bulk of the profits goes to recognised organised crime groups. They use these profits to fund drug trafficking and various other criminal activities.

Would you care to directly quote some realible sources on this matter?

It may be cool here to speak of "a wee bit of weed" however go and speak to a heroin addict, or better still his wife and children. It&#39;s not so much of a laugh then.

I&#39;m kinda missing the point to the above here.

Reliable source - me

Point - self evident. [/b][/quote]
Two fantastic non explanations.
Lets pretend for a moment that I really don&#39;t understand the drugs bit. Are you trying to say that the UK&#39;s problem with illegal substances is directly related to black market tobacco?

[chalice]

I don&#39;t see it as an "ostrich approach" (though the metaphor does set the mind a&#39; bogglin&#39.

I maintain; there wouldn&#39;t be half this problem if the taxman wasn&#39;t taking the piss to Caligulan proportions.

[namzuf9]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 02:25
The real difference between the Clocker scenario and ours is that the profit goes&nbsp; to "Indian reservations" to quote my hirsutely challenged friend.

However in the UK, the bulk of the profits goes to recognised organised crime groups. They use these profits to fund drug trafficking and various other criminal activities.

What is it you are suggesting then?

[SniperInTheShadows]

Ok, I was about to go bed until I saw this thread and had to put in my two cent&#39;s&#33;

First though, here Mr JP Fugley, have a joint and a bottle of cheaply imported booze to smoke and drink whilst reading this heh

Ok, so what your saying is that peep&#39;s are wrong to buy cig&#39;s and stuff cheap, but that it&#39;s ok for the government to charge ridiculous prices for drug&#39;s they know kill peep&#39;s&#33;?

I say f*ck the government on that subject, there&#39;s no way i&#39;m going to put money in their pockets to smoke something that they know kill&#39;s alot of peep&#39;s, especially when I can&#39;t afford the price over here&#33;

The only reason they still allow cig&#39;s and booze to still be sold and haven&#39;t legalized other drugs yet is, and this is just what I believe and if i&#39;m wrong then fair enough, that cig&#39;s and booze are more accepted because they&#39;ve been around alot longer and they can make money out of it, but if they were to legalize alot of drugs and charge for it then there&#39;d be chaos in the UK due to harder drugs being less accepted&#33;

Haven&#39;t you noticed that cigar&#39;s and certain spirits/alcohol hardly go up at all, if at all some year&#39;s, yet cigs and alot of spirits/alcohol&#33;? Reason why cigars and some alcohol doesn&#39;t go up is because the ones that don&#39;t are actually smoked/drank by the peep&#39;s that actually put the prices of others up&#33;

So, aslong as I can get tobacco cheap then I will, I don&#39;t want to pay ton&#39;s of money for something that&#39;s addictive and likely will end up killing me&#33;

If my views have offended you then I appologize, but i&#39;m sure there&#39;s some thing&#39;s i&#39;ve said here that you possibly didn&#39;t consider. I do commend you on this thread though, it&#39;s definitely one of the more serious and thought provoking ones that&#39;s graced the lounge in a while

Sniper. :gunsmile: (Has got to go bed, must resist reading any other threads... oh, look at that thread, look&#39;s interesting lol)

EDIT : Removed the "U" from the F word, made what I said seem more agresive than it already was (and it wasn&#39;t supposed to sound this agresive anyway lol), and added some comic relieve to my bracketed comment at the end

[chalice]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@11 December 2003 - 01:25
It may be cool here to speak of "a wee bit of weed" however go and speak to a heroin addict, or better still his wife and children. It&#39;s not so much of a laugh then.

Just to revisit this thought...

I&#39;m really not concerned by what&#39;s "cool", by any definition.

I suppose I&#39;m concerned by matters domestic first and matters aesthetic when I get the time. Weed falls into the latter.

I would argue that the government would clear a lot of prison space, clear a lot of revenue and clear a lot of consciences in one fell swoop if they were to legalise and so regulate and tax marijuana.