Friday 28 October 2011

Relief as drug that killed Amy Winehouse proves to have been fully taxable


There was relief among the public yesterday after it emerged that the overdose which killed Amy Winehouse was from one of those drugs which provides significant  tax revenue for the government.

The inquest found that Winehouse died after ingesting a large quantity of drugs that she would have been able to buy completely unchallenged at her local supermarket.

The coroner said, “Can you imagine the uproar if she’d died from a drug the government doesn’t make money on? I’m relieved to be honest.”

“Hopefully the family can take comfort in the fact that she died a perfectly legal death, and one that made a suitable financial contribution to the government’s coffers.”

“You have to remember that dying from a drug overdose like this is much better than dying from a drug overdose from those nasty drugs that don’t raise any tax revenue whatsoever.”

Amy Winehouse Inquest

Health economists have welcomed the inquests findings, insisting it proves the government’s strategy of making money from drugs that people actually want is good for the country.

One told us, “About half of the money she spent on that booze will have ended up in the pockets of the government – and yet people still say that drugs are costing the country money.  It’s crazy.”

“People will say that this makes the government a ‘drug dealer’ who is profiting from the deaths of addicts, but you have to remember they are very choosy about which drugs they legalise and tax.”

“Only those drugs backed by enormous multinationals and with significant lobbying resources and fundraising powers get to be peddled on our high streets.”

“Just because a drug might cause fewer deaths per year than alcohol or tobacco doesn’t mean it should be legalised – you have to show how the government is going to get its cut too.”

There are currently witterings below - why not add your own?

Previous post:

Next post: