Alfonso Bedoya wrote:redzebs wrote:Or even more out in the open, you can tax the fuck out of it to fund parallel campaigns, tax the smokers as an actual smoke screen for injection into the NHS,bman2 wrote:I don't know if I think performance enhancing drugs should be banned in professional sports like football. The Olympics is one thing, it's about the purity of human achievement, not entertainment. The most compelling reason to ban them for me is the likelihood that athletes' health could be permanently damaged due to the pressures of the professional game, with managers and coaches pushing the players to stick anything in their arms. And that would filter down to young lads too of course.
But the whole "drugs" discussion, from recreation to sport to health care, is full of bollocks. What makes drugs some drugs ok as part of a player's treatment for injury, but other ones to speed muscle growth are "cheating". It basically always comes down to, if a big corporation sells it, it's ok, otherwise it should be banned.
Do you think if there wasn't as much money in taxing fegs the Governent, any Government, would not straight away pump so much more into anti smoking campaigns
Or if Queen Victoria didn't like a gin and then the evolution of tax over the next years, we wouldn't be clamping down more on booze, one of the cynical reasons I believe cheap booze is being restricted is that there's no money in it, so you either move your poison of choice up a level of sophistication with the higher tax profits or you pay the same for the swill you are used too but at twice the price and pay the same tax. A lot of people will choose the nicer whatever of the two of its the same price, thereby declaring that the war on cheap booze has won another victory.
WHAT... the fuck... are you on about?
That decisions on what is or isn't permissible in the world isn't solely reliant on the recipient or public morality or health or unfair competition, but also on how much you can tax things for.
