Should alcohol companies pay 45% of there intake?

Question

Should alcohol companies pay 45% of there intake to the NHS or Alcoholics Anonymous to help them support alcoholics.

I mean the way things stand, Alcohol companies are only interessted in making money and don't care how many student's become alcoholics or how many families are torn apart.

I think we should demand that they pay 45% of there income (each) towards medical and mental health care for alcoholics.

Alcohol companies state they only want people to have good time and they D=don't want people to become alcoholics. I feel that they do because Alcoholics are there best customers.

So, if they really don't want alcoholics, give 45% of your intake to help these people go on courses, that will stop there need for alcohol, so them different ways to live there life and that there is more to life.

Sort of the alcohol companies saying "We never wanted this for you or your family, let us help you sort yourself out because we made the alcohol, it's our fault"

Anyone agree?

Answer 1

Yeah,Alcohol,destroys more families and has the highest death count.Alcohol causes more deaths then all other deaths combined.Long term use causes neurological and motor skill damage.Alcohol dries out brain matter and atrophies the brain tissue.Life time use your brain looks like a raisin.That hang over is your brain screaming in pain from dying cells.I call them pickle Brain(pickled in alcohol).

Answer 2

No. The problem is governments on all level never use the money for the purpose it was intended. Don't believe me? Research into how the Tobacco Settlement money is being used by the states. Or and even easier task, take a look at what Boston did with that $2 million it just got from Cartoon network. They were falling all over themselves trying to come up with new programs having nothing to do with paying police overtime for anti-terrorist work.

Nice thought, but it does not work. All you are going to accomplish is make the products 45% more expesive to buy.

-Dio

Answer 3

Absolutely not! They sell a product which is legal and has quality standards imposed by the feds. Why should their business be hampered because some people misuse their product? Should GM have to pay more taxes because some people elect to drive 100 MPH and then end up getting hurt in accidents?

Answer 4

How is it the alcohol companies' faults? They don't force people to drink, they don't force people to drink excessively, and they don't force people to become alcoholics. They simply provide a product that is demanded by the market.

Your solution is just another attempt to allow people to not have to take responsibility for their decisions.

Is Michael M. short for Michael Moore?

Answer 5

Classic liberal la-la thinking. Even if the gov't forced this on them, you would see the price of alcohol shoot up 45% the next day. (simple economics). Furthermore, it's called self restraint, personal responsiblity, etc. etc. Plenty of people drink and don't have problems with it. Why should the rest of us pay for the weak minded individuals in society. They are still going to be the last to quit, even if you raised the price of alcohol by 3000%

Answer 6

no. sorry. Warnings are printed on the packaging, and americans fought hard to end prohibition. To say you want to end it is to take personal responsibility for your actions. And alcoholics AREN"T the best customers for the industry, in fact the biggest consumers are currently those who purchase high end liquor (top shelf) and drink less.

Answer 7

To drink or not to drink that is the question ...... Or is it a choice? I choose not to drink It is not the fault of the breweries fault I choose to abuse it. Choices my friend that's the American way. Good or bad, we get to make them

Answer 8

No. I don't think so. We should spend the tax money on something good like bombs and tanks!