Smoking ban?

[bogeyman]

Yet for the terminally thick: natural tobacco when smoked gives off a nicotine that is very hard for the body to absorb, when used to make a cigarette this creates essentially a nicotine free smoke.

[snip]

These things are discussed in many many papers and even memos from cigarette manufacturers, such as BAT nicotine report No RD-437-R, that have come into the public domain.

Not that you'd apologise, 'cause you don't have that amount of integrity.

Well, for the terminally inexact: that's NOT the same thing as 'Adding nicotine' to cigarettes, is it?

Play with the semantics all you like - it doesn't make any odds.

[BobTheCrate]

DaveB

I don't understand why you seem to consistantly fail to acknowledge the extent to which smokers subsidise the NHS.

You propose that smokers should be denied NHS treatment, but fail to explain which illnesses that denial would cover. How do you feel about the obese (or somebody elses definition of obese) being denied treatment. This has already been banded about by some in the NHS. Or people who drink more than the state's official acceptable level of alcohol consumption. Or people who live in high risk areas or the Government's/NHS' definition of a high risk area.

Once we start off down that avenue there will be other illnesses that will be arbitrarily deemed as self inflicted and also become 'not covered'. The more expensive the treatment the more likely it would become deemed as a self inflicted illness and therefore not covered by the NHS.

Sounds like you advocate scrapping the NHS in favour of private health insurance instead. It's tantamount to the same thing.

[threaded]

Sorry, you're the one playing semantics.

Ya-boo-sucks.

[DodgyAgent]

DaveB

I don't understand why you seem to consistantly fail to acknowledge the extent to which smokers subsidise the NHS.

You propose that smokers should be denied NHS treatment, but fail to explain which illnesses that denial would cover. How do you feel about the obese (or somebody elses definition of obese) being denied treatment. This has already been banded about by some in the NHS. Or people who drink more than the state's official acceptable level of alcohol consumption. Or people who live in high risk areas or the Government's/NHS' definition of a high risk area.

Once we start off down that avenue there will be other illnesses that will be arbitrarily deemed as self inflicted and also become 'not covered'. The more expensive the treatment the more likely it would become deemed as a self inflicted illness and therefore not covered by the NHS.

Sounds like you advocate scrapping the NHS in favour of private health insurance instead. It's tantamount to the same thing.

Spot on Bob, the government are now looking at all sorts of ways of wriggling out of their commitment to supply services whilst at the same time trousering all the tax they confiscate. it all started with tax self assessment.

[Denny]

DaveB

I don't understand why you seem to consistantly fail to acknowledge the extent to which smokers subsidise the NHS.

You propose that smokers should be denied NHS treatment, but fail to explain which illnesses that denial would cover. How do you feel about the obese (or somebody elses definition of obese) being denied treatment. This has already been banded about by some in the NHS. Or people who drink more than the state's official acceptable level of alcohol consumption. Or people who live in high risk areas or the Government's/NHS' definition of a high risk area.

Once we start off down that avenue there will be other illnesses that will be arbitrarily deemed as self inflicted and also become 'not covered'. The more expensive the treatment the more likely it would become deemed as a self inflicted illness and therefore not covered by the NHS.

Sounds like you advocate scrapping the NHS in favour of private health insurance instead. It's tantamount to the same thing.

Quite agree. When does indirect and direct become separated?

What happens if someone smokes at home and accidentally drops fag ash on a sofa which then ignites causing severe burns to the occupant.

Is he refused medical treatment becuase the fire was started by a cigarette, he was therefore a smoker and it was self-inflicted damage by assocation, and not some other reason which is acceptable to the NHS as not being self-inflicted, like a kid playing with matches?

[bogeyman]

Sorry, you're the one playing semantics.

Ya-boo-sucks.

I guess that wins the argument for you then

Why don't you write an article about it on your famous weblog so you can get "0 replies" about it?

It's amazing how Google (or was it Wikipedia) can make people with no knowledge about anything much appear experts in every field

Anyway, get over to the other thread about BitLocker backdoors because I want to know more. Or is that just another load of your BS?

[DodgyAgent]

Quite agree. When does indirect and direct become separated?

What happens if someone smokes at home and accidentally drops fag ash on a sofa which then ignites causing severe burns to the occupant.

Is he refused medical treatment becuase the fire was started by a cigarette, he was therefore a smoker and it was self-inflicted damage by assocation, and not some other reason which is acceptable to the NHS as not being self-inflicted, like a kid playing with matches?

And this from a man who openly encourages the state to get involved in running our industry

[Denny]

Spot on Bob, the government are now looking at all sorts of ways of wriggling out of their commitment to supply services whilst at the same time trousering all the tax they confiscate. it all started with tax self assessment.

I thought it all started with ludicrous recruiter mark-up percentages.

[Mailman]

Pahleeeese Denny...we all know this is Tims fault!

Mailman

[eternalnomad]

Unbelievable just how uninformed or just plain thick many of you are. Guess you're just being wind up merchants. Yet for the terminally thick: natural tobacco when smoked gives off a nicotine that is very hard for the body to absorb, when used to make a cigarette this creates essentially a nicotine free smoke. The tobacco used in cigarettes though is a genetically engineered beasty, commonly known as Y-1, which produces a nicotine that is very easily absorbed. They also add various chemicals to dilate the aerioles in the lungs to aid absorption and chemicals to increase the output of this type of nicotine during the burn.

These things are discussed in many many papers and even memos from cigarette manufacturers, such as BAT nicotine report No RD-437-R, that have come into the public domain.

Not that you'd apologise, 'cause you don't have that amount of integrity.

Y-1 was created (AFAIK in the 70/80's) to enhance nicotine yield and addictiveness (as it produces the "free" form of nicotine)

To suggest that natural tobacco when smoked gives of a "nictoine free smoke" is utter nonsense. I accept it isnt anywhere near as strong as Y-1 but nicotine is still present in addictive quantities.

If you accept that nicotine is the addictive fundamental element of tobacco would you also accept that its addictiveness has been know since the 1500's (which is rather a long time before Y-1 was invented)

I will resist the temptation to sling similar insults your way about being obtuse.