FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[What's Burning?]

Hookers and blow!

[CookinFlat6]

Cant advertise either of those on the side of an F1 car

Problem is that so many people are in a hurry to b!tch and moan about things affecting them without realizing that there has been a massive war between those that say 'blow, hookers and drink make me happy, and I can handle them, so why cant every 15/16 year old - just get them some decent parents, and let them worry about it' etc etc

Well there are a bunch of people who used a calculator to work out that for every single melon here who can handle it without problems, there are another 10 who will cost the welfare state money down the line, so we need to remove these pleasures from them BEFORE they even know about them

Hence the ban on advertising of hookers, blow drink etc

I just dont get why people put energy in futile directions when they could be applying the same effort towards changing things they can benefit from

Its the useful idiot concept all over again

[stonemonkey]

You got the figures on how much revenue is taken from alcohol in the uk and how much alcohol costs the state?

[CookinFlat6]

Exceptionally impressive question - You are on the main path for resisting those that won the war and as a result we have no alcohol advertising even though the state lose money from tax at point of sales. So I commend you for bringing logic instead of the pure emotive 'it doesnt affect me so I must be right genuiuses'

Anyway, the point here is that I dont have to bring any numbers, the war is done, dont really matter if the numbers were wrong and we can suddenly discover that its all been a big mistake, no one is gonna be reversing the smoking ban in public, or the minimum age to go in pubs, or the ban on advertising or the ban on advertising drink on tv, or start smoking in movies, or allow alcohol to be advertised n the side of F1 cars

Thats what I mean, I am not arguing about the if's, I am pointing out the is's. I can happily agree with you that the numbers are flawed - that the government should allow drink to be sold to 5yr olds and that the extra tax income should cover the extra hospital bills. But I suspect the treasury and the health ministries already had this ding dong and they get paid for it, apart from fiddling their expenses

So anyone can see which way its going, alcohol, cigs, drugs, hookers etc are easy targets for legislations. My point is that its not some moral decison because thats not how it works, lets be fair, so I have tried to illustrate the financial aspect. However it doesnt matter, the reality is in the 70s we would see Walker drink, players cigarretes and now we dont

Why waste time working out if the past war was a mistake, when we are facing F1 losing the last of its free flow sponsors

[CookinFlat6]

I couldnt resist, I had to get your numbers

Alcohol is 45% more affordable than it was in 1980
Alcohol misuse costs England approximately £21bn per year in healthcare, crime and lost productivity costs
Average alcohol consumption has gradually fallen in many OECD countries between 1980 and 2009 with an average overall decrease of 9%. The United Kingdom however, has seen an increase of over 9% in these three decades
It is estimated that 2.6 million children in the UK are living with parents who are drinking hazardously and 705,000 living with dependent drinkers

In the tax year 2009 to 2010 the UK government generated £9 billion in receipts from alcohol duties, around 2% of the government’s total revenue from taxation. Receipts are fairly evenly split between beer (£3.2 billion), wine (£2.9 billion) and spirits (£2.6 billion). Cider has traditionally been a small component of total duty receipts (£300 million).

Dear Mr Walker,

Thank you for your recent email to the Department of Health about the
revenue generated from tobacco sales. I have been asked to reply.

It is very difficult to establish an exact figure on what smoking related
ill-health costs the NHS. However, smoking is the largest single cause of
preventable illness and premature death in the UK. It kills 106,000
people every year and costs the British taxpayer more than -L-1.7billion a
year in treatment bills alone. It causes 84 per cent of deaths from lung
cancer and 83 per cent of deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease,
including bronchitis.

The revenue generated from tobacco products is a matter for HM Treasury.
However, it should be noted that the Government, as a whole, has made the
decision to reduce smoking rates in England. In 2004, the Government
agreed an overarching target to reduce smoking substantially from 25 per
cent in 2004 to 21 per cent or less by 2010 and to reduce smoking among
routine and manual groups to 26 per cent or less. The Government expects
that reducing smoking rates will lead to a loss of revenue to the
Exchequer. However, any loss to the Exchequer is balanced by the fact
that thousands of lives are saved through the Government's tobacco control
strategy.
Should you wish to contact HM Treasury about the revenue generated from
tobacco products, their email address is:
[1][email address]

I hope this reply is helpful,

Yours sincerely,

Cameron Gordon
Customer Service Centre

And to the usual moaners and b!tches, please know that this is merely a response to Stoners request for numbers, its not an excuse to divert and and starts b!tching about how they dont smoke and drink or have never been in hospital and therefore the argument is flawed because parents could simply bring up their kids better

Only sensible responses to the original post about the ban of alcohol advertising in F1, and not a personal life story of how 1 melon resisted the lure of alcohol despite watching F1 and therefore Alcohol sponsorship and advertising must be brought back by the Abu Double race

[Jabberwocky]

K

This is the sponsors Bernie thinks teams should have

[overboost]

Mmmmmm Werthers! I wonder if they have those with a dark rum flavour also?


Ps. Here is a do it yourself recipe! http://99juices.com/recipes/999/#.VGeLrvldUXs

[CigarGuy]

Political correctness is going to be the death of everything we love and cherish.

[stonemonkey]

Fair enough cookin, not sure why you keep bringing tobacco into it though. I still dont think the banning of advertising will change anything with regards to those figures.

[CookinFlat6]

I dont really know, all I am saying is we can either have a debate about the unfairness and ineptness by the governments who are all bringing in these regulations and are out to stop all promotion of toxic stimulants, or we can have a debate about the effect on F1 and the timing of this clampdown and who might have instigated it and for what purposes

Its really not topical or recent or new IMO that the policiy makers for whatever reason have long since decided that drink and smoke doesnt have any place where there is even a 0.0000whatever chance of increasing the number of users especially amongst those who are yet to start.

I think theres a lot thats new to chew on the F1 side thats more interesting than how unfair something that was decide at least a decade ago is, and how theres no link between alcohol marketing and drink problems for the welfare state

[sagi58]

IF governments were serious about reducing the consequences of alcohol or tobacco,
they would make both substances illegal. They don't. Why? It's quite simple really.
As simple as looking at the crazy amounts of money that is collected on taxes from
the sales of alchol and tobacco products.

Add to that, the crazy amounts of money being raked in by health care system in the
treatment of the abuse of these substances. There are also many corporations that
benefit from the sales of both alcohol and tobacco. Don't forget the huge population
of employees whose livelihood is tied up in various aspects of these two markets.

In banning advertising, governments are making a rather half-hearted attempt at
appeasing special interest groups.

[CookinFlat6]

Yes sagi, good points indeed, but again surely a decade out of synch. Today we have a likely clampdown on F1 on the horizon. A powerful group with clout in each of the European countries F1 races in has decided to have a closer look at F1s compliance with the same rules and guidelines every other business has had to yield to, since the winning of the 'war' by the side sometimes derided as PC or liberal or left leaning.

You have at least brought along a credible objection to the practicalities of appeasing the sensibilities of those policy makers representing swathes of the populace who would have us believe they care about kids falling prey to the schemes of highly paid and highly educated professionals in the art of getting a message to groups of citizens who might at some point buy a toxic stimulant and increase the earnings of the owners of the firms employing them.

Why not just ban alcohol tobacco etc? we know its bad, why not ban fossil fuels extraction and burning, we know thats bad as well. The answer is that there is not a person alive today who could make those decisions stick, there are too many vested interests against. The policy maker who represents a whole town where all the employment is provided by the oil company or tobbaco grower or distiller etc etc etc

So what do the effects of the policy makers action that manifest after years after he is dead have to do with his day job today - lobbying for his tobacco workers so they can go home and watch Ophra having consumed the 30 kg Chicken barrel deal - non

And what this got to do with F1 - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING

[stonemonkey]

IF governments were serious about reducing the consequences of alcohol or tobacco,
they would make both substances illegal. They don't. Why? It's quite simple really.
As simple as looking at the crazy amounts of money that is collected on taxes from
the sales of alchol and tobacco products.

Add to that, the crazy amounts of money being raked in by health care system in the
treatment of the abuse of these substances. There are also many corporations that
benefit from the sales of both alcohol and tobacco. Don't forget the huge population
of employees whose livelihood is tied up in various aspects of these two markets.

In banning advertising, governments are making a rather half-hearted attempt at
appeasing special interest groups.

That, and it would open up a huge uncontrollable black market with the money going to criminal organisations instead. And with poor quality control of the products resulting in more health problems.

[Roth]

Durex. Who doesn't like to fandango? Get the dirty little buggers who watch F1 to pop a floppy on their johnson, drive down the welfare state. Shame they are getting rid of those noses.

[sagi58]

...Why not just ban alcohol tobacco etc? we know its bad, why not ban fossil fuels extraction and burning, we know thats bad as well. The answer is that there is not a person alive today who could make those decisions stick, there are too many vested interests against. The policy maker who represents a whole town where all the employment is provided by the oil company or tobbaco grower or distiller etc etc etc...

Bravo!! That's what makes this whole situation little more than hypocritical!!