mkpdavies

http://www.koat.com/news/10980789/detail.html#

How long before we get to waste some taxpayers money on this kind of ****.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

Besoeker

John Carter

And how, exactly, are they going to measure whether it works or not?

SGK

By 'ask', they presumably mean 'force', especially when most bars say no because of the added cost. So when the bars and restaurants pay for it, where does the money come from? The customer. Not, strictly speaking, a tax, but as near as damn it.

Besoeker

Looking at trends in DUI offences would be one pretty simple way.

Besoeker

Well, for establishments to be forced to use these "cakes" would require some kind of legislation.
OK
Let's suppose your presumption turns out to be what actually happens and the required legislation is put in place. Sure, the establishment has to bear the costs which may be passed on to the customer.
A bit of simple arithmetic indicates that the approximate cost per customer per visit would be rather less than 2 cents.
I imagine the establishment might just be prepared to swallow that.
Either way, it is no big deal, SGK.

SGK

That wasn't the point, though, was it?

Besoeker

But it puts it in context.
Go sweat the important stuff.

SGK

:?: Why don't you? You can post to make a point but I can't? If it isn't important, why did you lower yourself to post on this thread?
I get the impression that your only purpose of posting on this forum is to raise objection and argue a point for the sake of it, perhaps it appeases your need to feel intellectually superior or something, I don't know, but either way changing the point and then claiming it isn't important anyway, presumably because you can't bring yourself to say 'fair enough' to a low-life sub-intellectual, just makes you look silly. :roll:

Besoeker

As far as I'm concerned, you can post what you like. I was neither arguing against your point nor changing it.
I was simply trying to quantify the cost regardless of who pays it or whether you see is as being near as damn it a tax or anything else.

The more important issue here is whether the initiative is shown to reduce DUI related incidents. If it does then, given the very small cost, I think it's unimportant who pays for implementing it.