Smoking ban?

[Mailman]

Smokes that dont contain Y1 are no where near as addictive as smokes that contain Y1.

Interesting doco a while ago tabacce companies had the opportunity to produce the "palladium catalyst cigarette" [and get them to market in 1970] that gave the same sensation as normal smokes BUT contained no nicotine.

This idea was shot down on the understanding that if the companies started to promote these so called safe smokes they would open themselves up for legal action by saying their previous products were not safe to smoke.

So it was much easier to maintain the status quo, produce more "effective" tabaco that meant new smokers were hooked faster than to actually do the right thing and produce a product that was safe to use (AND did not create an addiction).

Mailman

[Denny]

Smokes that dont contain Y1 are no where near as addictive as smokes that contain Y1.

Interesting doco a while ago tabacce companies had the opportunity to produce the "palladium catalyst cigarette" [and get them to market in 1970] that gave the same sensation as normal smokes BUT contained no nicotine.

This idea was shot down on the understanding that if the companies started to promote these so called safe smokes they would open themselves up for legal action by saying their previous products were not safe to smoke.

So it was much easier to maintain the status quo, produce more "effective" tabaco that meant new smokers were hooked faster than to actually do the right thing and produce a product that was safe to use (AND did not create an addiction).

Mailman

When we buy our smokes can we sign an opt out 'addiction friendly' contract with the newsagent and get Bauer and Cotteral to look it over before we part with our fiver?

[threaded]

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

Mailman

Is that the Tim what didn't 'satisfy' the Paymaster General sufficiently, allegedly?

[Denny]

Smokes that dont contain Y1 are no where near as addictive as smokes that contain Y1.

Interesting doco a while ago tabacce companies had the opportunity to produce the "palladium catalyst cigarette" [and get them to market in 1970] that gave the same sensation as normal smokes BUT contained no nicotine.

This idea was shot down on the understanding that if the companies started to promote these so called safe smokes they would open themselves up for legal action by saying their previous products were not safe to smoke.

So it was much easier to maintain the status quo, produce more "effective" tabaco that meant new smokers were hooked faster than to actually do the right thing and produce a product that was safe to use (AND did not create an addiction).

Mailman

Did you ever see the film 'The Insider?'

[BobTheCrate]

Did you ever see the film 'The Insider?

Would that be the film I alluded to in my first post on this thread - with Russell Crowe ?

I think there is a danger that some films which purport to be based on fact are not as factual as the term implies.

Having said that I am of the opinion that tobaccco companies do engineer the nicotine in their cigarettes to some degree. It does seem odd though in the face of such strong anti-smoking lobbies in both the US and UK, that they haven't discontinued this practice to presumably make the cigarettes less addictive. Or that Government legislation hasn't forced them to.

Or maybe the respective Governments are complicit in this regard ?

[bogeyman]

Would that be the film I alluded to in my first post on this thread - with Russell Crowe ?

I think there is a danger that some films which purport to be based on fact are not as factual as the term implies.

Having said that I am of the opinion that tobaccco companies do engineer the nicotine in their cigarettes to some degree. It does seem odd though in the face of such strong anti-smoking lobbies in both the US and UK, that they haven't discontinued this practice to presumably make the cigarettes less addictive. Or that Government legislation hasn't forced them to.

Or maybe the respective Governments are complicit in this regard ?

Interesting points Bob.

There is a school of medical though that says everything you enjoy, or do out of habit, is 'addictive' to the brain.

It all works on the basis of "because I like it" (i.e. it causes your brain and glands to release endorphins and/or adrenaline).

Why do you watch football?
Why do you eat rare fillet steaks?
Why do you drink Chateauneuf du Pape?

What is an addiction?
Old dogs and new tricks?
The old familar path?

Everything is an addiction if you do it often enough.

[shaunbhoy]

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

This piece of tripe keeps rearing its ugly head, so I thought I'd put it to bed for those of you that have not really thought about it.
When the ban is finally introduced, smokers will be left with two choices. Continue smoking, albeit not in public places, and continue to give cash to the Treasury. Give up smoking, and be left with a pot of hitherto unavailable disposable cash. The only way the argument about "lost tax revenue" stacks up would be if this cash simply disappeared underneath tens of thousands of mattresses. However, we must reflect upon the fact that this wonga is going to be available to the type of person that has been stupid enough to take up smoking in the first place. It is an inescapable certainty that this money will simply end up back in circulation being blown on other luxuries, and as a consequence will become subject to Corporation Tax, VAT etc. etc.
Consider just how few ways there are of spending this lolly without the lion's share of it ending up in the Treasury by some devious means or another, and the whole "lost tax revenue" argument ends up being blown into the weeds. And we have not even factored in the NHS savings that will occur due to the millions that pack this disgusting addiction in!

Here endeth the lesson!

[DodgyAgent]

This piece of tripe keeps rearing its ugly head, so I thought I'd put it to bed for those of you that have not really thought about it.
When the ban is finally introduced, smokers will be left with two choices. Continue smoking, albeit not in public places, and continue to give cash to the Treasury. Give up smoking, and be left with a pot of hitherto unavailable disposable cash. The only way the argument about "lost tax revenue" stacks up would be if this cash simply disappeared underneath tens of thousands of mattresses. However, we must reflect upon the fact that this wonga is going to be available to the type of person that has been stupid enough to take up smoking in the first place. It is an inescapable certainty that this money will simply end up back in circulation being blown on other luxuries, and as a consequence will become subject to Corporation Tax, VAT etc. etc.
Consider just how few ways there are of spending this lolly without the lion's share of it ending up in the Treasury by some devious means or another, and the whole "lost tax revenue" argument ends up being blown into the weeds. And we have not even factored in the NHS savings that will occur due to the millions that pack this disgusting addiction in!

Here endeth the lesson!

When did you give up(smoking that is not tolerance)?

[Francko]

However, we must reflect upon the fact that this wonga is going to be available to the type of person that has been stupid enough to take up smoking in the first place.

Thanks Shaun for replacing Chico as the ultimate judge of people's sins and misery. Thanks for replacing Threaded to enlighten us with your wisdom. Thanks for replacing AtW as an expert in economics matters.

[bogeyman]

Thanks Shaun for replacing Chico as the ultimate judge of people's sins and misery. Thanks for replacing Threaded to enlighten us with your wisdom. Thanks for replacing AtW as an expert in economics matters.

Ha ha brilliant!

Go Francko!