Betting company sponsorship - Replaced tobacco?
Discussion
Whilst watching the snooker last night, they showed some vintage snooker from the 80's when Embassy was a huge sponsor in snooker. Fast forward to today and last nights game at The Masters, it's Now Betfred gambling..
The question is - Is sponsorship by gambling companies now any better than tobacco company sponsorship of yesteryear?
Everyone knows the damage done by smoking, but gambling is possibly less obvious........
The question is - Is sponsorship by gambling companies now any better than tobacco company sponsorship of yesteryear?
Everyone knows the damage done by smoking, but gambling is possibly less obvious........
I don't think the numbers of people with a gambling habit really stacks up against the colossal health impact of smoking (not to mention the other aspects such as litter, smell, people setting fire to stuff etc).
By this same logic people should want to be banning alcohol (although there will be more than a few holier-than-thou PHers who'd be rubbing their hands at that) because of it's addictive effects on a minority of people, load on police/nhs etc etc
By this same logic people should want to be banning alcohol (although there will be more than a few holier-than-thou PHers who'd be rubbing their hands at that) because of it's addictive effects on a minority of people, load on police/nhs etc etc
I believe people should be allowed to gamble, drink, smoke, eat unhealthy food, and I also believe certain drugs should be legalised (and taxed) as we are completely wasting our time and money trying to stop them.
But, there is no way these things should be advertised, promoted, or encouraged in any way. There is simply no need for it. If people want to gamble, drink or smoke, they will find these things without any help required.
I do think we should ban alcohol and gambling/betting advertising. There is no need for it. Betting firms make absolutely obscene profits, and the profits are of course coming straight from the pockets of ordinary individuals and families. Anything that can be done to put a dent in this is a good thing.
A proportion of the public will always become addicted to something, or have serious issues relating to it, but I can't see us ever banning alcohol, gambling or cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is in terminal decline anyway. Now only 14% of adults smoke, and this figure continues to fall every year. You could argue that the ban on adverts and sponsorship has contributed to this decline. Alcohol consumption has also been in decline since around the year 2000, and many young people are simply not as interested in drinking as older generations.
More controversially:
I believe unhealthy food and drink should be taxed quite firmly. Yes, we should allow them to be available, but they financially they should be a less attractive option than eating and drinking healthily.
There was a 'shock horror' moment on the Covid Vaccine thread where it was mentioned by the government just how many people in this country have Type 2 diabetes, and therefore needed to be vaccinated as a priority. The figure was around 5 million people.
Ready meals filled with sugar and salt, Takeaways, McDonalds, KFC, Fish & Chips etc, all these things should be notable more extensive to buy than healthier food options.
Obesity and diabetes are on the rise because people the above foods are cheap, easy and tasty, and the 'cheap' bit needs to end. Sometimes hitting people firmly in the wallet is the only way to stop them.
By all means allow these things, but drinking, betting, smoking and unhealthy foods should be heavily taxed, so that at least the government can afford to treat those who suffer the effects.
I drink alcohol regularly, and I like the occasional takeaway, so these taxes would no doubt cost me more, but I'm prepared to pay my fair share.
But, there is no way these things should be advertised, promoted, or encouraged in any way. There is simply no need for it. If people want to gamble, drink or smoke, they will find these things without any help required.
I do think we should ban alcohol and gambling/betting advertising. There is no need for it. Betting firms make absolutely obscene profits, and the profits are of course coming straight from the pockets of ordinary individuals and families. Anything that can be done to put a dent in this is a good thing.
A proportion of the public will always become addicted to something, or have serious issues relating to it, but I can't see us ever banning alcohol, gambling or cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is in terminal decline anyway. Now only 14% of adults smoke, and this figure continues to fall every year. You could argue that the ban on adverts and sponsorship has contributed to this decline. Alcohol consumption has also been in decline since around the year 2000, and many young people are simply not as interested in drinking as older generations.
More controversially:
I believe unhealthy food and drink should be taxed quite firmly. Yes, we should allow them to be available, but they financially they should be a less attractive option than eating and drinking healthily.
There was a 'shock horror' moment on the Covid Vaccine thread where it was mentioned by the government just how many people in this country have Type 2 diabetes, and therefore needed to be vaccinated as a priority. The figure was around 5 million people.
Ready meals filled with sugar and salt, Takeaways, McDonalds, KFC, Fish & Chips etc, all these things should be notable more extensive to buy than healthier food options.
Obesity and diabetes are on the rise because people the above foods are cheap, easy and tasty, and the 'cheap' bit needs to end. Sometimes hitting people firmly in the wallet is the only way to stop them.
By all means allow these things, but drinking, betting, smoking and unhealthy foods should be heavily taxed, so that at least the government can afford to treat those who suffer the effects.
I drink alcohol regularly, and I like the occasional takeaway, so these taxes would no doubt cost me more, but I'm prepared to pay my fair share.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th January 09:59
Lord Marylebone said:
I drink alcohol regularly, and I like the occasional takeaway, so these taxes would no doubt cost me more, but I'm prepared to pay my fair share.
That’s the problem with your position though - you’re telling poor people what to do with your taxes, rather than feeling any pain yourself. I’d agree that fast food is popular because it is tasty and cheap, but more importantly than both of those, it is convenient. To be honest, I only visit burger places when I’m completely pissed, so I have no idea how much they cost, but anything other than a 200% tax on them would have no impact on me whatsoever. However to people with little money, or no interest in preparing food, they are a fairly important source of sustenance. Edited by Lord Marylebone on Tuesday 19th January 09:59
It’s a bit like minimum alcohol pricing. Alcoholics pay more for their White Lightning. No one else notices. Alcoholics just spend more of their salary/nick more to pay for their habit.
IMO society needs to decide whether something is lawful or not. If it is not lawful, ban it. If it is lawful, allow it to happen. Taxes at a level other than truly punitive only raise money on something like this. I doubt a single alcoholic has looked at their bottle of white lightning and thought “you know what, this is 50p more than it used to be, I’d better pack it in”.
Lord Marylebone said:
By all means allow these things, but drinking, betting, smoking and unhealthy foods should be heavily taxed, so that at least the government can afford to treat those who suffer the effects.
I drink alcohol regularly, and I like the occasional takeaway, so these taxes would no doubt cost me more, but I'm prepared to pay my fair share.
So it's ok for you to eat and drink rubbish because you can afford it, but people on low income should be priced out of it I drink alcohol regularly, and I like the occasional takeaway, so these taxes would no doubt cost me more, but I'm prepared to pay my fair share.
Edited by Lord Marylebone on Tuesday 19th January 09:59
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Millions of people gamble and drink responsibly, get a lot of enjoyment out of it and suffer no ill effects as a result. That's not the case with cigarettes, where partaking in any quantity was harmful to you and those around you.
Just to confirm that point. Many of the young lads at work seem to bet on football and, as far as I am aware, none of them have a gambling problem. It is more just a few quid every weekend on the matches. Lord Marylebone said:
Ready meals filled with sugar and salt, Takeaways, McDonalds, KFC, Fish & Chips etc, all these things should be notable more extensive to buy than healthier food options.
Obesity and diabetes are on the rise because people the above foods are cheap, easy and tasty, and the 'cheap' bit needs to end. Sometimes hitting people firmly in the wallet is the only way to stop them.
Fallacy. Fresh food IS cheap, fast food, KFC and burger king isn't. The problem isn't cost, it's lazyness and people lacking the skills to be able to cook. Hitting people in the wallet with no further measures smacks of an ' I'm alright Jack ' mentality. Obesity and diabetes are on the rise because people the above foods are cheap, easy and tasty, and the 'cheap' bit needs to end. Sometimes hitting people firmly in the wallet is the only way to stop them.
Edited by Lord Marylebone on Tuesday 19th January 09:59
rxe said:
Lord Marylebone said:
I drink alcohol regularly, and I like the occasional takeaway, so these taxes would no doubt cost me more, but I'm prepared to pay my fair share.
That’s the problem with your position though - you’re telling poor people what to do with your taxes, rather than feeling any pain yourself. I’d agree that fast food is popular because it is tasty and cheap, but more importantly than both of those, it is convenient. To be honest, I only visit burger places when I’m completely pissed, so I have no idea how much they cost, but anything other than a 200% tax on them would have no impact on me whatsoever. However to people with little money, or no interest in preparing food, they are a fairly important source of sustenance. It’s a bit like minimum alcohol pricing. Alcoholics pay more for their White Lightning. No one else notices. Alcoholics just spend more of their salary/nick more to pay for their habit.
IMO society needs to decide whether something is lawful or not. If it is not lawful, ban it. If it is lawful, allow it to happen. Taxes at a level other than truly punitive only raise money on something like this. I doubt a single alcoholic has looked at their bottle of white lightning and thought “you know what, this is 50p more than it used to be, I’d better pack it in”.
With regards to the point about higher prices not helping reduce consumption: There are numerous EU/UK studies available that show how raising tax on cigarettes noticeably reduced smoking, especially amongst poorer people as they were least likely to be afford to smoke at the levels they would like to, so ultimately they stop.
It should also be noted that the majority of smokers in the UK fall into the 'lower income' categories, and therefore as the studies show, if you raise tobacco prices even further, you stop even more people smoking.
The minimum alcohol pricing did have an impact in Scotland. Consumption of cider, as you mentioned, actually fell by a whopping 18.6%, Spirits fell by 3.8%, wine by 3% and beer by 1.1%.
It would appear that hitting smoking and drinking with higher taxes causes consumption to fall, especially amongst poorer people, who are the ones more likely to suffer from poor health in the first place.
The same applies to cheap and convenient food. If you remove or reduce the 'cheap' element, then ultimately people are forced to stop buying it in such quantities, and they are then faced with a choice of sit there hungry, or prepare a basic meal from very basic ingredients that is both cheap and healthier.
There are a surprising amount of families who eat out at somewhere like McDonalds at least once every week, because as we say, it is cheap, easy and tasty. It would cost you around £20 for a family of 4. For your £20 you can each stuff yourselves with a meal containing almost 1800 calories in one sitting, which is frankly terrifying.
Irrespective of what we think, the government are going to do all this anyway. Obesity and unhealthy eating is out of control, and actually banning certain foods and drinks will be seen as onerous, difficult to implement, and oppressive, so the only way to do it is via tax. It has been proven to work on tobacco and alcohol.
We already have the 'sugar tax', so we best prepare ourselves for an onslaught of price hikes on unhealthy foods and drinks, and also possibly on betting/gambling.
dandarez said:
You've just contradicted your own very argument!
Not really. I eat a healthy diet on a daily basis, I am not overweight, and I generally only drink what is within the overly-cautious NHS recommended weekly alcohol limit. Some weeks more, some weeks less. We don't eat ready meals as my wife hates them, and she dislikes unhealthy food in general.
I get a takeaway probably once or twice a month, if that. I don't smoke or take drugs.
My point was that in my own small way, I'm trying to do my bit to keep healthy for my own sake, and as a result this hopefully prevents me requiring the NHS for 'lifestyle' or obesity reasons, and on the occasions I do eat and drink unhealthily, or eat out, it will cost me more, like it will cost every one more, and that money will go towards the government/NHS.
If I was to start smoking, drinking a lot more, and eating takeaways and ready meals on a regular basis, I would expect my weight to balloon and my health to decline, and I would class it as reasonable to be smashed hard in the wallet for that via tax because to put it simply, my NHS treatment further down the line needs to be paid for somehow.
Vickers_VC10 said:
Lord Marylebone said:
Ready meals filled with sugar and salt, Takeaways, McDonalds, KFC, Fish & Chips etc, all these things should be notable more extensive to buy than healthier food options.
Obesity and diabetes are on the rise because people the above foods are cheap, easy and tasty, and the 'cheap' bit needs to end. Sometimes hitting people firmly in the wallet is the only way to stop them.
Fallacy. Fresh food IS cheap, fast food, KFC and burger king isn't. The problem isn't cost, it's lazyness and people lacking the skills to be able to cook. Hitting people in the wallet with no further measures smacks of an ' I'm alright Jack ' mentality. Obesity and diabetes are on the rise because people the above foods are cheap, easy and tasty, and the 'cheap' bit needs to end. Sometimes hitting people firmly in the wallet is the only way to stop them.
Edited by Lord Marylebone on Tuesday 19th January 09:59
Which wouldn't be a bad thing, sometimes taxation can drive innovation...
Of course you raise taxes too much on things like booze and fags you just encourage the black market...
Lord Marylebone said:
My position is that I feel the pain the same as everyone else. When I drink and eat unhealthy food, I pay more like everyone else. If I decide to take up smoking, I will pay the higher financial cost like everyone else.
With regards to the point about higher prices not helping reduce consumption: There are numerous EU/UK studies available that show how raising tax on cigarettes noticeably reduced smoking, especially amongst poorer people as they were least likely to be afford to smoke at the levels they would like to, so ultimately they stop.
It should also be noted that the majority of smokers in the UK fall into the 'lower income' categories, and therefore as the studies show, if you raise tobacco prices even further, you stop even more people smoking.
The minimum alcohol pricing did have an impact in Scotland. Consumption of cider, as you mentioned, actually fell by a whopping 18.6%, Spirits fell by 3.8%, wine by 3% and beer by 1.1%.
It would appear that hitting smoking and drinking with higher taxes causes consumption to fall, especially amongst poorer people, who are the ones more likely to suffer from poor health in the first place.
The same applies to cheap and convenient food. If you remove or reduce the 'cheap' element, then ultimately people are forced to stop buying it in such quantities, and they are then faced with a choice of sit there hungry, or prepare a basic meal from very basic ingredients that is both cheap and healthier.
There are a surprising amount of families who eat out at somewhere like McDonalds at least once every week, because as we say, it is cheap, easy and tasty. It would cost you around £20 for a family of 4. For your £20 you can each stuff yourselves with a meal containing almost 1800 calories in one sitting, which is frankly terrifying.
Irrespective of what we think, the government are going to do all this anyway. Obesity and unhealthy eating is out of control, and actually banning certain foods and drinks will be seen as onerous, difficult to implement, and oppressive, so the only way to do it is via tax. It has been proven to work on tobacco and alcohol.
We already have the 'sugar tax', so we best prepare ourselves for an onslaught of price hikes on unhealthy foods and drinks, and also possibly on betting/gambling.
Full article here:With regards to the point about higher prices not helping reduce consumption: There are numerous EU/UK studies available that show how raising tax on cigarettes noticeably reduced smoking, especially amongst poorer people as they were least likely to be afford to smoke at the levels they would like to, so ultimately they stop.
It should also be noted that the majority of smokers in the UK fall into the 'lower income' categories, and therefore as the studies show, if you raise tobacco prices even further, you stop even more people smoking.
The minimum alcohol pricing did have an impact in Scotland. Consumption of cider, as you mentioned, actually fell by a whopping 18.6%, Spirits fell by 3.8%, wine by 3% and beer by 1.1%.
It would appear that hitting smoking and drinking with higher taxes causes consumption to fall, especially amongst poorer people, who are the ones more likely to suffer from poor health in the first place.
The same applies to cheap and convenient food. If you remove or reduce the 'cheap' element, then ultimately people are forced to stop buying it in such quantities, and they are then faced with a choice of sit there hungry, or prepare a basic meal from very basic ingredients that is both cheap and healthier.
There are a surprising amount of families who eat out at somewhere like McDonalds at least once every week, because as we say, it is cheap, easy and tasty. It would cost you around £20 for a family of 4. For your £20 you can each stuff yourselves with a meal containing almost 1800 calories in one sitting, which is frankly terrifying.
Irrespective of what we think, the government are going to do all this anyway. Obesity and unhealthy eating is out of control, and actually banning certain foods and drinks will be seen as onerous, difficult to implement, and oppressive, so the only way to do it is via tax. It has been proven to work on tobacco and alcohol.
We already have the 'sugar tax', so we best prepare ourselves for an onslaught of price hikes on unhealthy foods and drinks, and also possibly on betting/gambling.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51269004
Yes, sales of items impacted fell in Scotland - but rose south of the border. How much was Scots picking up a load on the way home is not clear. It’s pissing in the sea though when you read:
The reduction in pure alcohol sold was the equivalent of 26 units annually per person - about 12 pints of average strength beer.
Despite the reduction, the sales equate to every adult in Scotland drinking about 27 bottles of vodka a year.
I'm amazed that gambling advertising is still legal. The worst to my mind are the ads on daytime TV which seem to be targeting at stay-at-home mothers, for "bingo", but I'm sure which push other higher-stakes games and slots etc.
Evanivitch said:
After a quick Google, I was surprised how rare tobacco sponsorship of football clubs was.
Possibly football supporters were less likely to switch tobacco brands than those of other sports, so the money was better spent elsewhere?Edited by Gareth79 on Tuesday 19th January 11:35
rxe said:
Full article here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51269004
Yes, sales of items impacted fell in Scotland - but rose south of the border. How much was Scots picking up a load on the way home is not clear. It’s pissing in the sea though when you read:
The reduction in pure alcohol sold was the equivalent of 26 units annually per person - about 12 pints of average strength beer.
Despite the reduction, the sales equate to every adult in Scotland drinking about 27 bottles of vodka a year.
Ultimately, alcohol consumption in Scotland fell after minimum pricing was introduced. As you correctly state, it did not fall by a lot, but it did fall, and it appeared to fall most drastically in the 'problem drinking' end of the market such as the poorest people drinking lots of the cheapest/strongest alcohol.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51269004
Yes, sales of items impacted fell in Scotland - but rose south of the border. How much was Scots picking up a load on the way home is not clear. It’s pissing in the sea though when you read:
The reduction in pure alcohol sold was the equivalent of 26 units annually per person - about 12 pints of average strength beer.
Despite the reduction, the sales equate to every adult in Scotland drinking about 27 bottles of vodka a year.
Now that the government have got a taste for reducing the consumption of unhealthy food, tobacco, and alcohol via taxes, and they have proved (in a small way) that it works, you can guarantee they will go for it in a big way.
As I said, us debating it isn't really going to matter either way. My guess is that taxation on sugar/fat/salt etc will rise rapidly in these coming years, in both Scotland and the rest of the UK.
It is obvious that 'something' has to be done as unhealthy eating is out of control, and it would appear that the governments have decided on taxation as the stick to beat us all with.
Smoking declined largely due to the draconian and punishing taxes that were levied against cigarettes, making it completely unaffordable for many people to keep up a '40 a day' habit (£22 per day or an eye watering £8030 a year).
Tax increases on unhealthy foods will potentially have a similar effect? I'm guessing we will find out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff