Alcohol-related auto crashes alone totals more than $51 billion annually and that's not counting the rest of the harm to society. A $1 per % of alcohol in the product will go to a common pool to pay for that damage so that we who don't drink don't have it come out of our pockets.
This would add $5-6 per can of beer, $4-20 dollars per bottle of wine, and $50 or more to whiskey, rum and others. It will also encourage the manufacturers to not make such potent, dangerous products.
If you don't agree with this then you are on the side of the drunk drivers who kill innocent people. You have their blood on your hands.
We already pay more in taxes on cigarettes than half the population pays in any kind of taxShould those that smoke pay a tax
Absolutely, and you should have to have special licenses to possess beer and carry it in public. Registration should be required, varying by state.
Jack is an idiot. Blame everyone for the few that cant take care of themselves. Lets just tax everything more. The government is known for using all of money for useful things without waste.
Yes. I must have missed something. I rarely drink, but should not have to pay 6.00 for a can of beer. What is the point I am missing
The OP is taking the gun grabbers "logic" and applying it to everyday commodities that most use in order to make a point about the ridiculous nature of the anti-gun proposals. I shouldn't have to explain this, I didn't think it was too hard to miss.
See, Modest Proposal for an explanation of this rhetorical device.
The OP is taking the gun grabbers "logic" and applying it to everyday commodities that most use in order to make a point about the ridiculous nature of the anti-gun proposals. I shouldn't have to explain this, I didn't think it was too hard to miss.
See, Modest Proposal for an explanation of this rhetorical device.