Time to pull some funding.

Didn't work for cigarettes and those things are going for about 11 bucks a pack.

Shouldn't that be The Institute for People Who Aren't Farkers?

Not likely, but I may have to sell off the children.
It's medical experiments for the lot of ye!!!

Or increase moon shining and bathtub ginnery.

And then all those extra taxes can be used to fund hospitals fund a nice new war.

It's like the old anti-smoking argument - smokers cost the health system too much money! Then why not ban tobacco? Smokers bring too much money in taxes into the system!

Or it just drives people to cheaper drinks.

Maybe, a little, right up until you reach the point where bootlegging and/or homebrewing becomes financially attractive, and any further increases just lower the amount of *TAXED* alcohol that is consumed, not the total amount.

LegacyDL: Didn't work for cigarettes and those things are going for about 11 bucks a pack.

What do you mean it didn't work for cigarettes? Smoking rates continue to decline, and one of the reasons are higher cigarette prices.

Cigarette taxes are still an unfair 'stupidity tax' on poor people, and the arguments for the higher taxes in lieu of an outright ban are nonsense (see epoc_tnac's) post above. But directionally, higher prices have reduced smoking.

With cigs even the shiat brands are not much cheaper because you always have to buy atleast a pack, with alcohol you can spend as little as a buck fifty to get a 40. As a money maker you are just heaping more of the tax burden on people who are already being squeezed out of participating in the economy.

Joe Sixpack is still going to get his Friday night six, no matter what the price. The question then becomes, "Where is that money coming from?" I also suspect that alcohol is a Giffen Good amongst addicts. That is, the higher the price goes, the more resources they dedicate to the the procurement, and paradoxically, consume more at a higher price.

I live in a drier area of the world, my precious is more rare and expensive than anywhere I've been. I don't think cost is a factor here. We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious.

who would have thought legalizing a plant that anyone can grow in any climate would lead to some fat cat losing money, leading to a tax hike on the fools....

I used to live in Sweden that has ridiculously high alcohol taxes - people still got bombed. 12$ for a shiatty beer at the bar? Sure, just means I won't be buying food tomorrow. Even drinking at home was expensive but it still happens.

/hit the system (liquor store) on Friday night and there'd be a line out the door

I thought that if the prices were lower you'd have more curb drinking...

Well, prohibition worked like a charm and got people to quit drinking. I'm sure this will work just as well. I don't see how anything could possibly go wrong.

Why on earth would anyone want to curb drinking?

No one ever actually pays for booze. I'll just pass my increased wage demands on to my employer.

Taxing a social evil? That's exactly my position on diapers and baby formula.

Debeo Summa Credo: LegacyDL: Didn't work for cigarettes and those things are going for about 11 bucks a pack.

What do you mean it didn't work for cigarettes? Smoking rates continue to decline, and one of the reasons are higher cigarette prices.

Cigarette taxes are still an unfair 'stupidity tax' on poor people, and the arguments for the higher taxes in lieu of an outright ban are nonsense (see epoc_tnac's) post above. But directionally, higher prices have reduced smoking.

Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. The way they measure smoking is by survey, and people knowingly subverting the law by (for instance) buying black market cigarettes, or rolling their own, might not answer completely honestly. Consider this: The number of people who admit to owning guns jumped dramatically between 2010 and 2011, from 41% to 47%. Does this mean that there were 12 million new gunowners during the space of a year? I doubt it. It's just that for whatever reason, they were more comfortable reporting it. They likely owned the guns all along, they just were lying on the survey.

As far as it applies to alcohol, it's actually a different beast: It's hard to grow your own tobacco. It's a lot of work to go from seed to a cigarette manually, and you need the acreage to support that habit*. Alcohol is actually *MUCH* easier to make on a small scale: You buy some sugar (or fruit juice, or corn, or rice, or wheat, or whatever), some yeast, mix it together in water, let it ferment, and viola! Drinkable alcohol. Everything you need to do it is available at your local grocery store.

*It can be done though, as pot smokers can attest. Having said that, I believe that tobacco isn't as hardy a crop as marijuana, so it might be harder to grow your own.

Just means functioning alcoholics won't be able to provide for their families, dicks

LegacyDL: Didn't work for cigarettes and those things are going for about 11 bucks a pack.

worked for me. I've been forced to quit smoking since they're so goddamn expensive.

/it's forced me to turn to crime to pay for my habit
//haven't we heard this before, somewhere?...

I've got 25 gallons of beer fermenting, 25 gallons on tap, 5 gallons lagering, and 10 gallons kegged on deck.

I still have to buy distilled alcohol until that law is lifted, though...

/have to load up on whiskey supply in neighboring states, where it's cheaper

wroooong!

750ml of Evan Williams costs 10$ here in socal. that last me atleast a day

/10$
//some fine bathwater burbon
///drinks waay not enough

urban.derelict: I've been forced to quit smoking since they're so goddamn expensive.

Roll your own.

Here in NYS, minimum price for a carton of cigarettes is $89.18. You can buy all the materials and roll your own for an equivalent price of less than $30 per carton. Does it take some of your time? Sure. But if I were a smoker, I'd be willing to trade up to an hour's worth of work rolling my own for a savings of $60 or more, and using those machines that will make a carton of 200 cigarettes in 8 minutes is a no-brainer.

Just look how well this works for tobacco, pot, cocaine, etc. Almost no one uses these substances these days.

Isn't this basic economics? The quantity demanded for a product is based on its price.

For every 10% increase in the minimum price of an alcoholic drink, consumption of spirits and liqueurs fell by 6.8%, wine by 8.9%, alcoholic sodas and ciders by 13.9% and beer by 1.5%.

You can't get people to stop drinking beer. Zima and Hard Mike's levels plummet. Would this be a bad thing?

paswa17: Isn't this basic economics? The quantity demanded for a product is based on its price.

For every 10% increase in the minimum price of an alcoholic drink, consumption of spirits and liqueurs fell by 6.8%, wine by 8.9%, alcoholic sodas and ciders by 13.9% and beer by 1.5%.

You can't get people to stop drinking beer. Zima and Hard Mike's levels plummet. Would this be a bad thing?

That assumes, too, that the difference isn't being made up via non-accountable means. If you are tracking retail sales of taxed alcohol, it's not going to account for a corresponding increase in homebrew and/or bootleg manufacturing/consumption.

Gorbachov tried that IN THE USSR. Worked out great.

"Daddy daddy! Isn't it great? Now that the liquor prices have gone up, you won't drink as much!"
"No you dumbass, you won't eat as much".

Weird...I could have sworn selling alcohol was a business...seems to me the whole point of a business is to get people to buy your product.

And the Canadian government is in the business of selling alcohol, so it's quite obvious that the goal of any price increase is simply to increase revenue.

You were warned, alcohol drinkers. You didn't really think they were going to stop at tobacco, did you? "Unhealthy" food will be next.