Archive for May, 2007
up in smoke
From someone gasping for air:
Now that, at last, common sense has prevailed and smoking will be banned in enclosed public spaces in England, we hear that NHS will provide treatment to help smokers quit. Is it common sense to provide the drugs on the NHS, instead of asking the smokers, who possibly spend £5 on their habit a day, to pay the fiull cost for it ?
4 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “up in smoke”
Provide common sense...
Nasal hair and cocaine wastage
A slightly tangential thinker asks
Do cocaine users have to carefully trim (or indeed shave) their nasal hair to minimise drug wastage? Do you think there is a niche market here for a specialist nasal hair remover? It could prevent drug users blowing cocaine onto their hankies thus saving a considerable amount of money.
3 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “Nasal hair and cocaine wastage”
-
Consultant K Says:
May 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pmhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Remington-NEDH2700C-Hygienic-Nasal-Clipper/dp/B000H8VH70
Surely if this is a problem there is no need for a special junky nose trimmer. Just get a standard one and do your ear hair at the same time
-
May 9th, 2007 at 7:10 amA small quantity of nasal hair is required to stop snot constantly falling out of your nose. Drug users may prioritise cocaine wastage over snot drippage therefore may require a product to remove all nasal hair, rather than just trim. Perhaps there is a market for such a product? Prepare a business plan with all haste.
-
May 9th, 2007 at 11:35 amLet’s admit it - cocaine users cannot have much common sense anyway.
Provide common sense...
Scottish Elections
the leader of a Party Asks
I have just “won” an election yet do not know if I will be first minister and also am slightly worried that other parties may get together and spoil my victory. Can you help?
2 lacklustre pieces of inspiration on “Scottish Elections”
-
May 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pmI’d suggest just being as smug and righteous as you possibly can. Act as if it is your divine right to lead the country, speak eloquently and powerfully and the others will shrug their shoulders in intimidation.
-
May 9th, 2007 at 11:33 amI’m not necessarily sure that following the example set by the previous administration as a cover for their subservience to the UK government in Westminster is the best way forward. The important thing though is to stick to what you said you would do, and not give in to the demands of others. Altering main policies will disenfranchise those who have supported you. At the same time though, remember that you were elected for other policies too, and try not to be distracted by the talk in the media that your only policy is independence - all you said was a referendum.
So, in summary, let the others squabble away while you strengthen your position. As long as you deliver, and produce sensible policies, you will not need a coalition. The state we are in may be a true reflection of democracy where no one party can be assured that it can push through dumb policies simply through a majority.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
NO! These are the afflicted. We do not ask drug addict or alcoholics to pay for help so in the same way we should help them. Just think, if you are happy that they cannot pollute you when you are in a pub and then they give up then you will also not be polluted outside the pub!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Interesting one, and I am not sure it can be answered by common sense alone. Common sense means that you would not start smoking in the first place. Likewise, you would not start drinking to excess, or abuse the other drugs that are illegal. We do not expect car drivers to pay for their treatment following car crashes that they have caused through neglect, so why smokers too ?
This is an issue of money and, assuming that no one doubts that treatment for lung cancer, heart disease etc that are also caused by smoking will be available through the NHS, then it makes economic sense to provide any treatment that helps folk stop smoking if it is cheaper than these treatments.
Of course, the issue comes when this treatment is funded, but drugs that would treat other diseases that are not self inflicted (e.g. Alzheimer’s) are not.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I have to disagree with G just on this. He states that drivers do not pay for treatment following an accident. They do in two ways. one is through insurance (which the UK NHS now claims money from when a car crash occurs) and the other is through National Insurance payments. Smokers pay NI also and so are paying for their treatment. On the other hand when you use emotive comparisons with Alzheimer’s this does not help as there is an entire department within the NHS doing cost benefit analysis of drugs. Sadly it does all come down to money. We would love a road or rail system that was accident free but this would cost too much therefore we accept that some folk will die each year.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I do not think we are disagreeing on most of this. Clearly in the UK those who are in a position to contribute to the NHS do so, and so I would assume it was clear that I was referring to additional charges. And we both agree that it does indeed all come down to money. There will never exist a system through which every singe treatment will be available to everyone for free – that is simply a fantasy, so of course we have to rationalise and be pragmatic.
Where I would disagree is that mentioning other conditions is emotive. Any illness that you or someone you know suffers from is the most important one to get treatment for at that time – it is just a personal thing. Whether it is induced by smoking, or inherited, it is still important. This is why common sense falls down.