Well, i came here with no skin in the game, to find a range of views, and i haven't been disappointed. I can see how and why this could be a headline grabbing, popular policy - until you scratch the surface.
It's a slippery slope, isn't it, state controlled definitions of the things that are deemed to be luxury items, or harmful to health? If we have the means of restricting items like this, then it's not that much of a stretch to see the list being extended - which foods are they allowed to buy? Which subscriptions are they allowed to have? What transport must they use? Before you know it, you've created an underclass of underclass. Only the poweful get to decide how the underclass can spend money, and only they get to decide what is harmful to those who can't afford it.
I don't think you can introduce systems like this without tackling the root causes of long term unemployment and addiction. And i certainly can't see the Conservatives doing much of that. I'd love to say they'd redirect the money to more 'deserving' causes, or spend it on improving outcomes in other ways for society - such as investment in mental health services, or prevention services. But they won't. Because while the working and middle classes have a common enemy (however small that enemy actually is), they can continue to pretend that everyone has the same life opportunities.
Honestly? I don't smoke and don't drink much. I'm reasonably affluent, I spend my money as I like. I don't particularly like the thought of others engaging in habits that are bad for their health, at my expense. But I'm not the Government, and I believe that Government policies need to go beyond quick fixes and sensationalist headlines to enable sustainable, long term societal change and health outcomes.