Can you drive whilst drunk and get away with it?

tabtab13

tabtab13

Active Member
I'm guessing it would be impractical (or impossible?) that all taxes raised from the sales of alcohol and tobacco could then be used solely to treat the illnesses associated with both? Governments have always been two faced about this, they bleat on about how much a drain on NHS resources these two products cause when in reality they take the taxes and use them elsewhere.

Then there is the line of thought that no one will actually speak. Government needs people to die from alcohol and tobacco - it means less people living older who would need long term care for other illnesses, etc which can run into great expense. So, two products that raise a lot of money and also help reduce the population. A 'win-win' situation I believe the phrase is ....
 
46traveller

46traveller

Member
The trouble being is that the government in their infinite wisdom decided that smoking is bad for you and (allegedly) others in the near vicinity. They very quickly came up with a plan that would stop the non smokers having to put up with the frightening effects of this secondary smoke inhalation.
Q. Can anyone show absolute proof that anyone has died solely from secondary smoking. Please don't include Mike Yarwood, he was just a well known face used in the adverts at the time, it was never proved that secondary smoking was the sole cause of his cancer. In fact some doctors at the time strongly refuted the evidence relating his death to smoking, citing many other possible causes.
What is the outcome of this smoking ban ? Less tax for the government, and licensed premises closing wholesale up and down the country owing to the lack of custom. result, more unemployed and supermarkets taking a larger share of the alcohol trade.
I don't think there is any record of a smoker accidentally killing anyone while,or because, they were smoking a cigarette. This cannot be said about Alcohol, yet instead of cutting the licensing hours they actually extend them. Some would say this is to counteract the loss of tax on cigarettes.
Given the choice I personally would rather take a chance on the secondary smoke, rather than being mowed down by a drunk non smoker, on their way home from the Pub, especially if the drunk was on a mobility scooter and totally uninsured.
 
Last edited:
treeve

treeve

Major Contributor
My wife died from cancer of the lungs as a result of working in an environment of chain smokers.
 
46traveller

46traveller

Member
Well that's stopped this thread in its tracks, my mother didn't smoke and was run over by a drunk driver, so I guess we've both got issues that add to frustration, and I'm certainly not going to be the one that says, sorry but I don't believe that you could possibly prove that cigarette smoke alone caused the death, there are too many variables.
Sorry for your loss.
 
treeve

treeve

Major Contributor
Thank you ... not that this thread is directly linked with the tobacco and drugs industry. I am deeply sorry for your loss, in such tragic circumstances, I am not at all sure I could 'come to terms' with that; you have my empathy. I know more about such a situation than you might imagine.
 
Halfhidden

Halfhidden

Untouchable
Administrator
This is interesting 46traveller... I've been campaigning legislation on these carts for some years now. In fact I wrote an article in the Cornishman about the perils and that must have been 15 years ago... I'll try and find out the date of the piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom