A Ban If It's Law, A Ban If It's Not

In answer to a parliamentary question tabled by Liz Saville-Roberts of Plaid Cymru yesterday, the government's Home Office spokesperson, Victoria Atkins, gave us a small glimpse into how the choices of staff and the public are treated with contempt by the elites, and how they really only have themselves to blame for some of the abuse they receive.

Saville-Roberts asked which Home Office premises do not operate a no-smoking policy. It turns out that not only is the answer none, but that the Home Office has been massively gold-plating restrictions demanded by the smoking ban.

Victoria Atkins The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Minister for Women 

The Home Office supports the right to work in a smoke-free environment. The Health Act 2006 and similar laws in Scotland and Wales ban workplace smoking. 

Home Office staff must not smoke or use e-cigarettes anywhere on Home Office premises including: 

• buildings, vehicles and land – this includes all walkways, access areas and car parks
• outside entrances and exits of buildings
• private vehicles parked on Home Office premises

I really don't know where to start with a policy as hideous and daft in equal measure as this.

Why Atkins bothers to cite the Health Act 2006 is baffling because that merely bans smoking in any building that is more than 50% enclosed, it has absolutely no bearing on all the extra restrictions she seems proud to boast about. The justification given in that Act was that there was {cough} scientific 'evidence' that passive smoking harms bystanders in enclosed public places, otherwise politicians would have never dreamed of removing the right to use legal products, oh no! It was merely to protect those poor bar workers. They had no choice, see?

So where did the idea that bans outside in "walkways, access areas and car parks" should be included come from? Where is the {cough} scientific 'evidence' for banning smoking "outside entrances and exits of buildings"? And how does banning an employee smoking in their own parked car, alone, "support the right to work in a smoke-free environment"? Surely, to borrow from one of the most clichéd anti-smoking tropes of all time, the Home Office's right to protect an employee from their own secondhand smoke ends at the door of their own fucking vehicle.

It's not really about health, is it?

What's more, how is also banning the use of e-cigs in all of those places conducive to a "smoke-free environment" when they don't emit any smoke? In the past year or two we have seen Public Health England advocating for vapers being afforded somewhere in the workplace to vape, the government's Tobacco Control Plan clearly stating that vaping "should not be included in policies which ban smoking", and the Science and Technology Committee recommending that "rules around e-cigarettes should be relaxed so they can be more widely used and accepted in society".

It's scary that a policy so devoid of common sense has been written by a department which is tasked with our security, because its terms mean that although soldiers can face live firing on Salisbury Plain, they'd better not even think about having a smoke or a vape while they're there or they could face disciplinary action. Utterly absurd.

It's like different departments of the government don't even talk to each other anymore. How can you take politicians seriously when, on the one hand, you have health departments giving out guidance and a Home Office Minister trumpeting on Hansard about how they are proud to be completely ignoring it?

It also tells us that the smoking ban was a quite hideous piece of legislation which lifted up a rock and let every belly-crawling prohibitionist maggot slither out and run riot. I am pretty sure that prior to 2006 the Home Office wouldn't allow smoking in its offices, but the green light the Health Act gave to civil service regulators desperate to regulate something - anything - has led us into this situation where smoking is banned even if you are sitting at nose level with a car's exhaust pipe, and every weapons-grade bigot with an axe to grind about other people's choices is encouraged to chip in their personal gripe and a policy will be drafted to ban it. It's becoming the national sport.

Whether there is a law against it, whether there isn't, and even when the very government itself would prefer the opposite.

There has been a lot of talk today about how politicians are receiving abuse on social media and how it's very, very bad. But those are just words. Politicians and the system they have administered - badly - in recent years are attacking the public like no other time in history. Their ratchet has gone only one way for the past decade or so, if they want to gain a bit of respect, perhaps they might consider recommending a relaxation of pointless and draconian bans and restrictions instead of forever dreaming up new ways to beat the public about the head for simply wanting to use legal products.

Where is the cabinet minister who will stand up and declare that, you know, the public is there to be served. Not a target to attack and be moulded into something they'd rather not be? And maybe that the public might appreciate not being told what to do. Every. Fucking. Day!

Further reading along the same lines today here: "This will leave the Government in the absurd position of officially advising people to drink pure orange juice as one of their five a day while banning adverts for it because it is junk."

None Of Your Business Either

I'm afraid content has been incredibly sparse here of late due to real life getting solidly in the way.

There are huge changes afoot both business-wise at Puddlecote Inc and personally at Puddlecote Towers. Some good, some not so good but I've never been so short of time to write recreationally which - as you may have noticed over the years - is a beloved hobby of mine. I'd like to say that will change in the foreseeable future but I can't.

I did want to touch upon something in parliament recently though, and I had originally intended to write it as a follow-up to last week's article suggesting that it is none of Boston Council's business whether market traders smoke or vape around their outdoor stalls.

This same presumed political interference cropped up during the parliamentary presentation of Norman Lamb's excellent Science and Technology report on e-cigs. It was a great report - which you can read here - but one part of it raised the hackles of ignorant anti-smoking (and therefore anti-vaping) snotgobblers everywhere. They were incensed at the very idea that vapers be allowed to vape anywhere near them, the precious souls that they are.

Personally, I don't see the problem with it but Norman Lamb was very eager to distance himself from that when he presented his report to parliament on the 6th September.

Let me now turn to the area of our report that created the biggest debate: the treatment of e-cigarettes in public spaces. Despite some suggestions to the contrary, we did not recommend that e-cigarettes should be allowed in closed public spaces or on public transport. We called for a public debate on how these products are dealt with in our public spaces. The coverage of our report has certainly kick-started a public discussion, and I really welcome that. We need such a debate because the evidence suggests no public health rationale for treating e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes as one and the same.

Maybe he didn't recommend that they should be allowed in public spaces (which they are anyway considering there is no law against it) but why not? Well, here's why.

There are, however, nuisance justifications for restricting e-cigarettes’ use in public, such as in enclosed spaces and on public transport.

"Nuisance justifications"? Is that a thing politicians think they should be getting involved in now, is it? Well ASH trustee Bob Blackman seems to think so.

There is the nuisance aspect of smelling vapour, which often has a particular scent ... Personally, I would oppose any relaxation in the use of e-cigarettes in any enclosed spaces.

Bob, you speak as if whether the subjective "nuisance" of anything is any of your business, because it's not. And also, Bob, is this the policy of ASH whom you represent, because I think we should know. ASH like to portray themselves as friend of the vaper but if they are dead set against private businesses relaxing restrictions on vaping, maybe they should come out and say it. It would be weasel-like not to, don't you think?

Lamb came back to the subject later too.

However, there is a good justification, which I totally accept, for not allowing vaping because of the nuisance—because people find it invasive.

Nuisance is not a reason for politicians to intervene in behaviour unless it physically harms others (see J S Mill) so really has sod all to do with them. All politicians should note that if they come out with a sentence like that, they should really suffix it with "but that is none of our business".

If, however, politicians are now in the business of recommending action on "nuisance", maybe they can do something about some of what I find irritating. Here are some policy ideas they might like to consider, I suspect you could add more.

- On the spot £100 fines for people who stop in doorways
- A ban on kids in pubs (£2,500 fine for premises allowing it)
- Restrictions on boy bands on TV after 9pm
- The showing of holiday pictures to friends and colleagues to be reportable to the police unless explicit permission is given
- Immediately prohibit production of the Nissan Micra
- A ban on flying for people who stand up the moment a plane lands
- The name Keith to be prohibited
- Cous cous, just no!

Why on earth do we have politicians actually talking about "nuisance" as a reason for restrictions and bans? It is absolutely nothing to do with them, it is solely up to the owners of the property or business.

We went from a 30 year battle by anti-smoking fanatics to 'prove' with junk science that smoking was harming people around them, to now talking about how restrictions are justified because of "nuisance" which varies from one individual to another. Jesus effing Christ, when did this country's establishment lose all perspective about endorsing liberty?

I suppose if you can con the public that a whiff of smoke is going to kill them - and you fund a Goliath of a 'public health' industry to throw up scare stories for the good of their own bank accounts - the world is your oyster. 

The Grey Miserable World of 'Public Health'

Life still exceptionally busy with Puddlecote Inc, I'm afraid, but I see that the 'public health' bandwagon is still accelerating down the slippery slope they claim doesn't exist.

I find this kind of thing quite staggering.

Cadbury, Chewits and Squashies sweets have become the first companies to have online adverts banned under new rules targeting junk food ads for children. 

The Advertising Standards Authority said the companies did not do enough to prevent under-16s seeing the content.

Now, if you were around in the 80s or 90s, did you ever think we would be in a position where kids are not allowed to see adverts for things that they like to eat, and have for decades? All based on a fantasy panic whipped up by repulsive self-enriching tax thieves?

The Telegraph carried an article which is equally astounding.

The Easter Bunny cannot be used to market chocolate to children, the ASA has ruled after finding against Cadbury. 

The chocolate company marketed a storybook, featuring eggs and the Easter Bunny, on its website, which broke the rules against promoting food that is high in fat, salt or sugar to children under the age of 16. 

Cadbury was banned from marketing The Tale Of The Great Easter Bunny, written by pop singer Frankie Bridge, on its website, after the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), decided it was aimed at children.

The Easter Bunny? This is a character that parents have thrilled their young kids with for hundreds of years, but in the new joyless, grey, miserable world that 'public health' have planned for us, this is now illegal.

The hold that 'public health' has over politicians is astonishing, but then it's because politicians are weak, cowardly, and ultimately incredibly stupid, as I have mentioned before.

Chocolate Oranges are one of life's little treats. The overwhelming majority of the public like them. Indeed, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't like chocolate. 

Yet here we are with two leading politicians arrogantly competing to be the one who appears toughest on making that treat more difficult to enjoy. This isn't a mind-altering drug we're talking about here - legal or otherwise - merely a fucking Chocolate Orange!

But back to today. The trouser-stuffing tax spongers were elated, of course.

Obesity Health Alliance lead Caroline Cerny said: "Whilst today's rulings should be celebrated, the complaints demonstrate the blatant ways in which the food and drink industry attempts to exploit loopholes in the rules."

They are 'celebrating' another little bit of joy being eradicated from children's' lives just so they can keep their snouts in the trough. There is little more vile than that.

And who, pray, was it who complained anyway? What disgusting type of person is so miserable as to be driven to complain about something kids like? Well, fortunately, the rulings are on the ASA website. Here is the one ruling against Cadbury.

The Obesity Health Alliance challenged whether the ads were for products that were high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS product ads) that were directed at children.

In other words, no-one at all cared about the ad except the Obesity Health Alliance themselves, a collection of mostly state-funded organisations who would be out of work if they didn't continually promote scares to keep their funding stream.

The complaint about Chewits is much the same.

The Children’s Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether ads (a), (b), (c) and (d) were ads for products that were high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS product ads) that were directed at children.

Sustain is a taxpayer-funded parasite which is also, strangely enough, a member of the Obesity Health Alliance.

And who complained about Squashies? You guessed it.

The Children’s Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the Squashies World advergame was an ad for products that were high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS products) that was directed at children.

In each case, there was only one complainant, and it was from people who fabricated the moral panic in the first place and took government money to lobby the government to come up with rules to take as much joy out of children's lives as possible.

It is surely about time politicians woke up and realised the destruction these self-centred bastards are doing to society. They are draining the joy out of kids lives for financial gain and are entirely unrepresentative of public opinion.

Where is this bonfire of the quangoes we were promised? It's the least that should happen because some of these obnoxious parasites deserve to burn for eternity.  

Scotland Plans To Gold-Plate The TPD And Further Restrict E-Cig Advertising

Yesterday I wrote about the tobacco control industry's habit of cherry-picking evidence and - more recently - disbelieving real life evidence because it doesn't agree with their wild, junk science-led fantasies of how the world works.

Today sees a new low, though, as the Scottish Government released its Tobacco Control Plan. Snowdon has highlighted some of the blinkingly barmy aspects of it, so do go read his piece.

He said that he had only skimmed it and that there is bound to be more crazy in there, and he's correct. There is. For example, how much does this send your hypocrisy detector buzzing?

In the ministerial foreword, Minister for Public Health and Sport Aileen Campbell boasts about NHS services and how "there are new, more effective medications and our services are now more e-cigarette friendly", while further down the document it states:

On the basis of current evidence vaping e-cigarettes is definitely less harmful than smoking cigarettes. So, e-cigarette use as a means to quit should be seen by health professionals as a tool which some smokers will want to use. 

It also says about "smokers in mental health settings":

Raising awareness of the need to take a new approach in these settings and particularly about the possibilities which e-cigarettes being made available in appropriate non-NHS prescribed ways could have a big impact on the physical health of these patients.

So what are they going to do about these products which they have obviously recognised as being something which smokers are choosing to use and which have led to smoking prevalence tumbling?

Well, they're going to ensure that almost no-one knows about them, of course.

Providing protection through regulations and restrictions 

We will consult on the detail of restricting domestic advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes in law.

The key word there is 'domestic' because the EU's article 20 of the TPD specifically banned cross border advertising, therefore broadcast and online media. Domestic advertising such as posters, leaflets, direct mail, cinema and ads on buses are not covered by EU law.

So, the Scottish government is consulting with a view to gold-plate the EU regulations by placing further restrictions on 'domestic' advertising; that very e-cigarette advertising which is currently not burdened by the ignorant, lobbyist-led stupidity of Brussels.

With the UK's advertising regulator recently having given evidence to the UK government's Science and Technology Committee that they are looking at allowing e-cig vendors to make truthful claims about the safer nature of vaping - as in, relaxing the regulations - the Scottish government is planning to go the other way and make sure as few people know about vaping as possible.

The Calvinist puritanism being displayed in Scotland right now is jaw-dropping, but this takes the biscuit. We have a tobacco control plan for England committing to "maximise the availability of safer alternatives to smoking", at the same time that Scotland has decided it only wants safer alternatives available via state-run channels. If they can't control it, they'd prefer you don't even try.

There are also sinister hints that they intend to go even further down the rabbit hole of anti-vaping moral panic.

Over the course of this action plan it is likely that the markets for e-cigarettes and novel heated tobacco products will develop further. This could mean that the current focus of tobacco control enforcement changes over time to take account of these newer markets. For example if there were changes to the law on restricting the sales of non-nicotine containing e-liquid for e-cigarettes this would have implications for enforcement.

If markets for e-cigs and heat not burn increase, that is a good thing! But not for Scotland, it seems. There is also a hint there that there might be more regulations on the horizon for nicotine free e-liquid, again not covered by the EU TPD.

Have I got your attention yet, Scottish vape reviewers? Yep, that could be the end of short fills.

There may also need to be programmed initiatives on ensuring e-liquids are authorised products ...

Well, considering the TPD created a new category for e-cigs so they are already kinda "authorised", could they mean yet another gold plate layer on top of EU regulations? Or maybe they just mean the whole hog and enforced medicinal licensing. We shall have to see.

... and perhaps even on whether these age-restricted products are being marketed in a way which primarily appeals to young people. 

They've really swallowed the anti-vaping Kool Aid in bucket loads, haven't they?

And as for this ...

During the summer of 2018 we will work with health boards and integration boards to try to reach a consensus on whether vaping should or should not be allowed on hospital grounds through a consistent, national approach.

It's not illegal, it's not dangerous, the same document talks about smokers using e-cigs to quit. Where is the debate?

I reckon the best take I can offer to you is that if you are Scottish and a vaper, remember that ASH Scotland - who will have advised the government in detail on production of this plan - is not your friend. Neither, I would suggest, is the SNP. Worth remembering next time some politician asks for your vote.

Like Snowdon, I have only skimmed the document and - like him - I think "these people are off their heads". I'll leave it there for now, though, but I'm sure I'll be coming back to this utter insanity, maybe tomorrow. Watch this space. 

Going Places

If you follow me on Twitter, you'll have noticed that I've been doing some travelling of late.

This weekend me and my 16 year old boy flew to Rome for the England 6 Nations rugby match at the Stadio Olimpico. It was a whistle stop affair, arriving late Saturday and leaving early Monday, and considering my son had never been there before it was an effort fitting sightseeing in before the 4pm kick off on the Sunday. A fantastic weekend but incredibly draining.

Now, the reason I'm writing about this is that, yet again, being in another country was very revealing as to the amount of freedom we have lost in the UK. I have spoken about it before with regards to Prague, but the state-imposed shackles fell away with every minute spent in Rome too.

For example, on the Saturday night we arrived at the hotel and went to the bar. It was a pretty sparse affair (booking hotels for a 6 Nations matchday is a nightmare, so I took what I could get) and so we decided to get some snacks and drinks and enjoy them in the room where I could vape without a care. Looking at the bar prices I could see my Euros would not last long except for the price of wine. It was just £11 a bottle! So I ordered one and, with the boy next to me, the barmaid asked "with two glasses?". Just like that. No suspicious look at him, nothing. I said no just the one and off we went.

What's more, there was a similar experience next day at the match. The Stadio Olimpico has a chaotic queuing system for drinks. You have to queue in long lines to buy beer vouchers, then join another long queue to exchange the vouchers for drinks. I couldn't be arsed with that so we decided just to go in and find our seats. As we reached our section, there was a bar with almost no-one at it, but it was clear that wouldn't last long so I ordered two beers expecting some kind of comment about age or ID for the boy. Nope, not a word. Just served them up with a smile. Now, on more than one occasion at sports venues here I have had to explain to the person serving me that the boy has his own Powerade in his bag when they tell me they can't serve him because he's too young. None of that in Italy. None of it in the Carrefour supermarket later on either when we'd bussed it back from the match. Buying crisps and a bottle of wine, the cashier didn't even raise an eyebrow when I put them in the boy's backpack.

Oh yeah, and the (very palatable) wine was €1.55 because - as The Nanny State Index points out - there is no duty on wine in Italy.

The experience at the stadium was a revelation too. You see - as I've written before - thanks to the loathsome cheesedicks at Healthy Stadia feeding scaremongering bullshit to sports organisations, you are not allowed to smoke or vape in any ground in the Aviva Premiership and football Premiership either. And that includes outside, on the concourse, in the open air. Not so at the Stadio Olimpico.

There I was, stealth vaping in my seat but it wasn't till half time that I noticed there were smoking areas. Not outside, but within view of the pitch. Complete with comfy chairs and tables. It was such a lovely sight I took a picture of it, but as I did - stood at the top of a staircase - I also noticed that people were smoking there too. Not clandestinely either, they were smoking while talking to the stewards! And you know what? No-one cared.

No-one cared in Brussels either when Chris Snowdon and I visited a pub in the city centre in 2016 which boasted a smoking room. A fully enclosed smoking room so smokers could drink their beer and enjoy their tobacco in the warm.

Now, contrast all that with the barked orders that greet you as you walk outside the terminal building at Glasgow airport, where I went the previous weekend for the Glasgow School of Vape.

Click to enlarge

Yep, no smoking or vaping outdoors anywhere except a shed in the central reservation where the buses pick up. You know, buses that spew out diesel fumes. It was strictly enforced too, with a large guy in a hi-viz jacket booming "Hey! You cannae do that here!" in a thick Scottish accent to anyone who trangressed their stupid and pointless rule.

It's not just Czech Republic, Belgium and Italy, most other countries are far more liberal than the UK where we have now developed into a nasty officious society where one just assumes things are not allowed - because they mostly aren't - and vile jobsworths have been encouraged to wag their finger at you in every place the public gathers, as sadly happened to me at an event in London on the Monday night when I was spotted using an e-cig which gives off almost no vapour whatsoever. Apparently, he said, it would set off the smoke alarm ... which he pointed to on the ceiling about 10 metres above our heads. The idea that a modicum of common sense might be employed is an alien one these days, the whole country has become vindictive, petty and indoctrinated.

We are constantly ripped off in this country by government taxes - on the premise that our behaviour must be controlled - but at the same time we are herded, prodded, cajoled and badgered for just wanting to enjoy the products we pay over the odds to consume. The British are now in a new age of intolerance. Now, I'm sure the anti-fun brigade abroad will be lobbying their own governments for the same kind of panopticon conditions we are fated to suffer over here, but even if they get their rules in place I expect they will be either enforced lightly or ignored (like in Greece).

The UK has experienced, as Brenda O'Neill observed last year:

A shift from a politics concerned with improving people’s living conditions to a politics obsessed with policing people’s behaviour. ‘The politics of behaviour’, as New Labour scarily but aptly called it. It speaks most strikingly to a redefinition of what it means to be left or progressive. Once, that meant ensuring the less well-off had more opportunities, more comfort, more pleasure. Now, as made clear by the mad leftist cheering of the [smoking] ban and other nanny-state initiatives, it means saving people from themselves. It means depriving people of pleasure for their own good. It means using the law to socially re-engineer the masses so that they’re more like ‘us’: fitter, slimmer, smokefree.

It's vile. And the people who have moulded a country which fought so hard for freedom into one of the most restrictive in the world when it comes to lifestyle choices should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. 

There Should Be More Smoking On TV, Not Less

I'm afraid pages here have been barren for a while recently. Puddlecote Inc has grown considerably in the past two years so pressure of work is limiting my time, especially since - like most companies - we've had a spike in staff turnover in the new year. This means as well as the regular tasks involved in running a business of this size, there has been staff recruitment to deal with in order to keep our vehicles rolling. Added to this, I have two interesting foreign trips coming up which have required some planning, I'll be sure to let you know about those in due course.

I also have some other things in mind to write about, it's just finding the time to write them. However, I noticed something in the Irish Sunday Times today that might amuse/infuriate you. It seems some purse-lipped misery guts is getting arsey about smoking on TV. 

An anti-tobacco lobby group has criticised RTE’s drama series Striking Out for its portrayal of smoking. 

Ash Ireland has written to RTE director general Dee Forbes to complain about the “normalising” of cigarettes through showing smoking on screen. It has also contacted the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, the industry regulator.

I struggle to see how TV can "normalise smoking", for the simple reason that smoking is normal. TV reflects real life and so it - naturally - will sometimes feature characters who smoke. In fact, I'd say that daft prudish morality has meant that TV shows recently under-represent smoking.

Striking Out producer Yvonne Donohoe said smoking was a daily reality and the device was used to make the drama as credible as possible. 

Well, exactly. Considering around 20% of Irish adults smoke - and the percentage of TV characters who are smokers is now pretty meagre due to politically-correct programme makers - I'd say there should be far more smoking on screen to reflect real life, not less. 

Ash chairman Patrick Doorley said: “We would be concerned that kids can see programmes now at any time of the day, and they are influenced by what they see on screens. They get the subconscious impression that this is normal behaviour and maybe associate it with growing up and being an adult."

I've got news for you sunshine, smoking is "normal behaviour" and has been for a very long time. You can try to pretend it's not if it suits your wanky little anti-smoking fetish, but let me educate you. Kids see people smoking every single day, often because tedious prohibitionist societal drains like you stopped them smoking in places where kids usually aren't. 

"That is the difficulty. The less children are exposed to seeing smoking, be it in the home or on the street or on the screen, the less likely they are to smoke.”

Relax the smoking ban then, get smokers back indoors in an adult environment. There you go, job done, thank me later. 

On another note, it's vitally important that hideous prodnoses like Doorley are resisted when they build mountains out of molehills like this, because give them any credence and before you know it the alcohol wowsers will be wanting the same, as will the anti-sugar cranks. It'll be nothing but tea (not coffee, too much caffeine) in The Rovers Return and Mars Bars being hidden from cameras in Rita's Kabin. 

Appeasement will never work with the likes of Doorley, because interfering in other people's lives is their drug of choice; they are addicted to it. The only way to encourage them to break their addiction - seeing as we can't bag them up with concrete blocks and fire them into the sea from a massive cannon - is to stop paying them to do it. Defund the lot, give taxpayers a fucking break, and let us all watch TV without the pathetic whining.  

Drafting A Sheffield Council 'Smokefree' Consultation Response

It seems that another daft council is proposing to waste taxpayer cash on illiberal, incoherent, unenforceable and pointless outdoor smoking bans, this time it's Sheffield.

Council chiefs are considering whether to ban lighting up outside hospitals and other NHS buildings, universities, council offices and leisure centres – and they are seeking the public’s views on the proposal.

Seeking the public's views, did they say? That sounds right up our street, I reckon.

The consultation can be found here and only consists of six questions, so let's have a bash at it, eh?

1. Tobacco is an addiction that takes hold in childhood. It is estimated that 5 children start smoking every day in Sheffield. We want to work with all secondary schools in the city to equip children with the skills to resist starting to smoke. Are you in favour of us doing more work in schools to prevent children from starting to smoke, and funding this work by moving some money out of stop smoking services?

Do you know, I can actually agree with this. I'd disagree that it's an addiction rather than a habit, and that it always "takes hold in childhood", but who could disagree that children should be educated as to the risks of any substance, not just tobacco. They are, of course, likely to be taught all kinds of alarmist bullshit, but the basic premise is sound.

Especially since the proposal is to take money away from stop smoking services, with which I can heartily agree. As I've mentioned before, they shouldn't exist at all, and not only because they are an abject failure.

Consider also that demand for stop smoking services has plummeted by around half since 2010 and there is simply no need for them now. So yes, remove that funding and spend it elsewhere. If you needed any further justification, ASH's Debs Arnott says education doesn't work (which is bollocks) and that only handing her and her pals more cash does, which speaks volumes about her seeing as she has strenuously tried to obstruct e-cigarettes at every step of their evolution so far.

It would be preferable if Sheffield didn't spend any money on such things, but taking it away from stop smoking services - which are used in certain situations as a tool to shame or bully smokers into quitting - and funding non-coercive education of children instead is a step forward.

2. We know that children learn the smoking habit from observing their parents and others, so we want to reduce the number of public places where people are visibly smoking so that children don’t think it is normal and copy this harmful behaviour. Are you in favour of us doing more work to increase the number of Smokefree outdoor sites in the city (e.g. outside NHS buildings, hospitals, universities, Councils, leisure centres, at events such as Skyride/Sheffield half marathon/Christmas light switch on) and funding this work by moving some money from Stop Smoking Services?

Erm, didn't we just get told that kids start smoking because of the glitzy packets? I wish they'd make their minds up.

This is an absurd suggestion. Yes, peer pressure is a factor in starting smoking, but the council has no business playing parent and getting involved, it is simply none of their business. Smoking is a legal activity and doing so outdoors has no harmful effect on bystanders whatsoever, nothing should be spent on preventing people from consuming lawful products where they can harm no-one else. It's a silly idea, is entirely unenforceable and would be a waste of taxpayer funds if so much as a quid is spent on signage, even if it's just a scribble on a post-it note.

3. Evidence suggests a very effective way of motivating smokers to quit is by developing mass media campaigns that smokers can relate to, using targeted messages about the reasons to quit. Certain groups smoke more than others, are more heavily addicted, and find it harder to quit. These groups are more at risk of poor health outcomes. We need to ensure that we successfully motivate these groups to quit smoking. Are you in favour of us funding more work on mass media campaigns; targeting those who find it the most difficult to quit smoking and who are the most addicted and funding this by moving some money from stop smoking services?

Why does Sheffield Council believe it is their job to "motivate smokers to quit"? Personal choices should be of no concern to them. While it's encouraging that this is the third question in a row which suggests taking money away from stop smoking services, wouldn't it be better to spend it instead on things that people actually expect their council to do properly? You know, fixing potholes, looking after the elderly, keeping the streets clean and picking up bins? Maybe even funding libraries better considering people are quite fond of them and yet Sheffield seem to have no cash for stuff like that.

Mass media campaigns? Do behave! If they can't fund books, why the blithering fuck are they even considering such a waste of taxes as this?

4. Since 2003 we have had a stop smoking service that anyone can access and we have supported around 3000 smokers a year to quit. From 2010 local demand for stop smoking support has reduced. This has happened alongside increasing popularity and use of e-cigarettes. More people are also choosing to quit on their own. Since 2015 councils across the country have faced significant budget cuts to public health grant funding. This means there is less money to fully fund a stop smoking service that meets the needs of everyone. We are therefore proposing to spend the most on those who find it hardest to quit. For those smokers who are able to quit alone we will direct them to online advice and support. Are you in favour of us supporting only the most addicted groups who find it very difficult to quit smoking, rather than having a universal service that anyone can access?

The reason those budgets are being cut is, hopefully, because politicians are starting to realise that the country can't afford such frivolities anymore, especially since it is none of their business if people smoke or not.

It's encouraging, too, that Sheffield have recognised that e-cigarettes are a good thing and are attracting quitters without need of state intervention. Funny, then, that the recent Freedom to Vape report on council policies revealed that Sheffield City Council treats vaping in exactly the same way as smoking; that is, you can't use an e-cig on any council property whatsoever, indoors or out. This is because, and I quote from their policy:

ii) Whilst they do not produce smoke, electronic cigarettes produce a vapour that could provide an annoyance to other employees.
iii) There is currently no reliable information about what substances and quantities are given off in the vapour from e-cigarettes and therefore no reliable indication of whether or not the vapour poses any risk to health to those in the vicinity of the user.

Now, just a thought, but if Sheffield want to be taken seriously about this new 'smokefree' drive, and recognise the promise of e-cigs, wouldn't it be worth their while changing that ignorant lunacy pretty damn sharpish - as in, now - before they start implementing something new? Motes and beams and all that. 

5. Due to the significant budget cuts to public health grant funding made by Central Government we are consulting the public on their opinion on funding stop smoking medication (such as patches) for the groups of smokers who smoke the most , who find it hardest to quit, and who are the most addicted. Are you in favour of us funding stop smoking medication (e.g patches, gum etc) for the groups of smokers who smoke the most, are the most addicted and find it hardest to quit?

Well this is simple, of course we agree disagree. Pharmaceutical products are utterly useless and ridiculously expensive. Save cash and just hand out a map to the local vape shop, it'll cost pennies. Just have a few handouts in reception and save Sheffield residents the grief of paying fat salaries for the council to employ people to hand taxpayer cash to huge pharmaceutical interests.

6. E-cigarettes have become popular amongst smokers. Public Health England recommends that all smokers should stop in the first instance, however those who cannot or will not stop smoking should swop to using an e-cigarette. There is evidence to suggest they are less harmful to a smoker as they contain significantly less toxic chemicals than mainstream cigarettes, and so encouraging smokers to switch to e-cigarettes will reduce the overall harms from tobacco. Are you in favour of promoting vaping to current smokers as a harm reduction method?

Erm, it's "significantly fewer toxic chemicals", for God's sake. But pedantry aside, see previous response, it's a no-brainer that the council should be promoting e-cigs which smokers buy for themselves rather than hugely expensive and massively useless pharmaceutical products. Spend the savings on a new lawnmower to cut some grass verges.

The consultation is open for a month but don't leave it too late. As usual, how you respond to the questions is up you (above are just a few thoughts) but I do always enjoy seeing what you've written and this consultation is another where they will send you a PDF if you include an email, so if you take part please do feel free to ping me yours.

You can take part in the consultation by clicking here. Enjoy.

Jeremy Hunt And The Bourgeois Pudding Police

I'm sure Jeremy Hunt might think this a clever political move to appease the insatiable health fascists instead of bowing to demands for "fat taxes", but I don't think I've ever seen anything more evil and sinister from the UK government as this. Ever.

From The Times who I understand carried it on their front page.

Restaurants ordered to reduce size of puddings

Cut calories or be named and shamed, Hunt says 

Restaurants, cafés and pubs will be named and shamed unless they make food portions smaller or less sweet, the government has said. 

Chains such as Pizza Express, Starbucks, McDonald’s and Gourmet Burger Kitchen have been told to “step up” by cutting sugar from food and reducing the size of desserts, cakes and croissants. Calorie-reduction targets for fatty, savoury foods will also be set.

Ordered to reduce the size of puddings. From a Conservative party which claims to believe in free markets, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice?

Un. Fucking. Believable!

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, told a private meeting of more than 100 food companies yesterday that “going out to eat is no longer a treat” because it is so common. Takeaways and sandwich shops would therefore be expected to take the same action as supermarkets and food manufacturers in tackling Britain’s obesity problem, he said.

What Hunt failed to mention, though, is that some of the most fat-laden, sugar-encrusted, high calorie/low-health dishes, served - soaked in butter, carbs and with lashings of other delightful nasties - in Michelin star restaurants, high-end eateries, swanky hotels and niche bistros selling to the posh; the well-paid middle class snoboisie; and the perennially arrogant types who sneer at working class tastes, won't be on this 'shame' list.

Yet I wonder when was the last time Jeremy Hunt last cooked a home meal from a few simple ingredients instead of being wined and dined. How many MPs routinely eat out so that it is "no longer a treat". I'd wager far far more than those on mediocre means who eat the puddings that this fuckstick wants to shame.

It won't matter to him or his cohort, because they're not the targets. Nope, it's just you proles and your irritating habit of choosing what you like to eat for yourselves every now and then instead of bowing to the will of the revolting people who can't abide anyone of the lower castes enjoying the same choices.

The contempt just oozes out of his disgusting fans.

Just saw a guy have a glass of coke, a cappuccino, a croissant and a ham & cheese sandwich for breakfast #OurNHSistoast #worldgonemad

— Kirstie Mary Allsopp (@KirstieMAllsopp) September 28, 2016

Beating up on others has never been more fashionable, has it?

It is genuinely terrifying how many people think it's OK to consume a cappuccino, a coke, a ham & cheese sarnie & a croissant in one meal.

— Kirstie Mary Allsopp (@KirstieMAllsopp) September 29, 2016

Terrifying? No. Terrifying is that there are people who believe that a) it is now acceptable for rancid bastards to express their shameful bigotry in public and b) that the government is on their side.

Because this is actually the case, backed up by those ghastly overpaid wankstains at Public Health England.

Public Health England (PHE) has promised this will be its priority and yesterday revealed the target would apply to all the main sources of sugar for children apart from soft drinks, which will be subject to a sugar tax.

Yes. It is now a "priority" to tell you what size pudding you should be ordering. Over and above the pointless and class-based impending sugar tax.

Cereals, confectionery, yoghurts, ice cream, sweet spreads and jams, cakes, biscuits and breakfast foods such as croissants must all become less sweet or smaller, PHE told the meeting.

You, the underclass, are too stupid to enjoy the good things in life. Know your place and eat small portions of gruel. It's for your own good, after all.

We used to tackle malnourishment, but now our government is trying to destroy the signals of economic success, simply because a few state-paid prohibitionists have whipped up the prejudices of a minority of anti-social bigots who don't like seeing the average citizen enjoying the fruits of our prosperity.

I know I say that things like this are none of their business quite a lot, but this really isn't. The choices have already been made. Businesses don't offer large sizes of puddings because they are bullying people into eating more, it is is the result of competition because the public have demanded them.

Hunt is effectively saying that consumers are not entitled to make choices for themselves and businesses are not allowed to cater for those choices. Well, unless they are charging fortunes for high-end products for people who really do eat only rich food at restaurants 7 days a week ... like, erm, politicians. In which case it's fine and dandy.

I couldn't put it better than Action on Consumer Choice:

In effect, the government has now decided that we're getting too much food for our money. For our own good, it will pressure food producers, takeaway joints, restaurants and pubs to serve us less. 

This is an unwarranted attack on freedom to choose what we eat. It's quite easy to regulate how much sugar we consume. We can choose different products that contain less sugar, pick a portion size that suits us or simply not clear our plates. There is no mystery here. We should have the right to make those decisions and take responsibility for the consequences of them, too. (And that includes ignoring the wild scare stories about how what we eat is killing us.) Yet the government is insulting our intelligence by suggesting that we can't make such decisions for ourselves. 

Just a few years ago, the idea of the government deciding how much we eat would have been regarded as ludicrous. Yet politicians are so desperate to be seen to be 'doing something' about obesity that they want to make chocolate bars, puddings and other sweet treats smaller. Never mind that childhood obesity has plateaued, even fallen, over the past 10 years. Politicians need something to have a crusade about, and today's crusade is against sugar. So we can look forward to ever-blander food - and less of it, too.

The state is increasingly not just not your friend, but actively despises you. I can only hope that he is playing some political game where the public gets angry and bites back against the health nazis that plague decent society.

If Jamie Oliver and his insane hypocritical dishes are on the name and shame list the fair enough, but if not this is just a load of malodorous elitists telling you you're not allowed to spend your money in the same way that they do.

Marie Antoinette was slaughtered for less.

See also: A Triumph For Repulsive Anti-Social Snobbery

Back To The Future With CAMRA

As you can gather from the lack of posts here in the past week, it is still incredibly busy at Puddlecote Inc as our contract mobilisation date looms ever closer. 

Cash flow has become a bit less, erm, fluent recently due to the massive level of investment we have had to undertake. We currently have new vehicles all over the place and are ploughing through the training of the extra staff we have had to recruit. Rewards are high all round but it's squeaky bum time so if things are quiet here in coming weeks that'll be why.

I did manage to catch up with some news this afternoon over my lunchtime sarnie, Twix and Lucozade though, and this article leapt out at me somewhat.

The Government is being urged to hold a new consultation on alcohol consumption, after a study showed that most people believe that drinking in moderation is part of a healthy lifestyle. 

A survey of more than 2,000 adults revealed that over half disagreed with official health guidelines, and that they should be the same for men and women. 

The Campaign for Real Ale (Camra) said its research showed that the Health Department should launch a public consultation on whether guidelines on drinking were "fit for purpose".

They are, of course, not fit for purpose at all. It's quite clear that the Chief Medical Officer was operating from a position of complete ignorance when declaring that "there is no safe level" of alcohol consumption back in January.

The science doesn't support this unless you ignore a whole host of studies which report a protective effect ... which Silly Sally's review did.

Today's article continued ...

A Department of Health spokesman said: "The alcohol guidelines give people the latest and most up to date scientific information so that they can make an informed decision about their drinking. This was the most comprehensive look at all the evidence on alcohol in 20 years (apart from the omissions, natch - DP). 

"The review team looked at all the studies on the protective effects of alcohol, but concluded that the protective effect was overestimated for most people."

All of which suggests that the public surveyed by CAMRA are far more educated on the matter than the government. Isn't that truly scary?

Anyhow, many of you may remember another time when the "no safe level" rationale was used; in order to promote the idea of a smoking ban, and CAMRA were right behind that initiative at the time. It brings to mind an article I wrote on just this subject back in 2011, which was published in a monthly newsletter aimed at members of .... CAMRA.

THERE IS A curious – and ill-judged – tendency amongst many beer lovers to consider their chosen vice as somehow resistant to the attentions of the health lobby as opposed to tobacco. Even CAMRA have fallen for it. In 2004, they weakly attempted to defend pubs from the harmful effects of the smoking ban by playing right into tobacco control hands and suggesting that a diversity of outlets offering choice for all would “split the pub trade”. In the end, they got their wish as all pubs were given no choice. Now, you can argue, if you like, that this has had no damaging effect on the hospitality trade (I’d heartily disagree) but it has certainly contributed to a big problem for pubs, and beer lovers, which is only now beginning to come home to roost. 

In a rousing 1919 speech following the ratification of Prohibition in the US, “anti-saloon” campaigner Billy Sunday declared “Prohibition is won, now for tobacco!”. Because all the while campaigners for the prohibition of alcohol were tied up with that issue, their assault on smoking was left on the back burner. Once the war against alcohol was completed, resources were freed up to attack tobacco, employing the same personnel and moral pleading which was so successful against booze.  

Nothing has changed from those days. Just as righteous crusaders tackled both substances around a century ago, so do their modern day equivalents act the same now. ASH have taken to coaching anti-alcohol campaigners on how to achieve the same demonisation of alcohol as has happened with tobacco, and the methodology is lifted from the successful anti-smoking playbook. Professor David Nutt was the first to suggest that “there is no such thing as a safe level of alcohol consumption”, a position which is increasingly becoming the default one. The Cancer Council of Australia certainly thinks that way, a couple of months ago advocating that total abstinence should be the only public health policy. In a chilling reminder of post-prohibition triumphalism in the US, the Australian press reported the campaign as “Cigs war won: now cancer campaigners set their sights on beer”. 

CAMRA keeps ploughing this furrow, as in August last year where they tried to claim some form of high ground by declaring that “beer can supplement a healthy lifestyle if consumed in a responsible manner”, but this approach is doomed if they think that playing in public health’s self-constructed playground is going to do anything but invite ridicule. ‘No safe level’ leaves no wriggle room whatsoever, and the protestation that beer is somehow not that bad will be thrown back at them by the health lobby as an admission of guilt. Which it is. 

No. The best form of defence, as always, is attack. And instead of back-sliding when the smoking in pubs debate was taking place, CAMRA would have been better served standing firm and resisting all legislation on tobacco. While that buffer was still in place, CAMRA were insulated against the worst excesses of an insatiable health lobby. Without it, resources are being withdrawn from tobacco in favour of new targets, and those who enjoy a pint or two are now squarely in the crosshair. 

So as CAMRA now wrestle with being next tick box on the denormalisation campaign, never let it be said that they weren't warned, eh?

The Thoughts Of Chairman Dave

No doubt encouraged by the modern hysterical cult of 'public health', David Aaronovitch wrote a particularly anti-social piece in The Times today on that, erm, 'ever-increasing' obesity 'epidemic'.

Employing a whole host of fellacious arguments (I didn't spell that wrong, it's derived from the latin word fellatio, because they suck) including how 'unhealthy' food should be treated as dictatorially as smoking, he suggests a raft of snobby, finger-wagging policies.

We could ban the advertising of foods that contain too great a proportion of sugars and calories, enforce warning labelling (“This food is UNHEALTHY”) and allow manufacturers producing good food to market them more aggressively. We could specify the display of nutritional information in all canteens and workplace restaurants.

As a lefty, of course, Aaaronovitch is one of those who believes in the weakness of all humans and the hyper-hypnotic power of advertising. Because we all simply do what advertisers tell us, now don't we?

These measures though, pointless and authoritarian as they are, are just hors d'oeuvres before he gets around to letting us know what he really wants to see.

But we’ve left out the central idea of compulsion and perhaps it’s time to bring it in. Often things don’t change unless the community says, in effect, what it collectively thinks of a particular act — usually in the form of law.

Well yes David, and currently the vast majority of the public are very happy with the food choices that are available or they wouldn't be immensely popular. But when did that ever put off a ban-happy people-hating socialist, eh?

Of course, we could try to attach the same opprobrium to being fat as to being a smoker. Some pundits (step forward Katie Hopkins) enjoy this idea and it has its attractions. I’m pretty convinced, though, that “shaming” people because of their weight would produce more harm in the shape of disorders, breakdowns and bullying than it would gain in altering behaviour.

Here instead is a grab-bag of ideas that would convey the same message, some or all of which will one day be enacted. Ban fast-food outlets from stations and airports. Ban the sale of confectionery and sugary drinks to the under-16s. Ban the sale of over-sugared products in supermarkets (as measured by a ratio of sugar to other nutrients). Ban the bringing into schools of unhealthy foods. Ban the presence in offices (like our own here at The Times) of vending machines that seem to sell mainly crisps and chocolate. Specify a weight-to-height ratio limit on air passengers wishing to avoid a surcharge.

Firstly, doncha think, David, that with all those bans a message would be sent that fatties are something harmful to the nation; that it would encourage the same "disorders, breakdowns and bullying" that you are trying to avoid? No?

Secondly, again typically socialist, Aaronovitch seems to have no respect whatsoever for personal choice and a scant disregard for property rights. In order to impose his preferences on just about everyone else by way of ineffective and stupid legislation, he would actually be happy if coercive policies were forced on businesses and children were banned from eating sweets!

@Jackstarbright No. But your 15 year old...... @SimonMagus @Dick_Puddlecote

— David Aaronovitch (@DAaronovitch) July 28, 2016

It never ceases to amaze me how dreary and joyless a world prohibitionists are willing to impose on the rest of society simply to satisfy their personal pet hates. I mean, whatever drives that kind of appalling anti-social behaviour?

Oh hold on ...

As a youth, David Aaronovitch was a mere slip of a thing, but as he grew older he fell into the habit of eating the most comforting, and fattening, of foods. Then, aged 46, weighing 18 stone and with his blood pressure spiralling out of control, he was faced with a stark choice - lose weight or risk a heart attack. Fearing for his health, Weekend sent him to a fat camp in America. It changed his life. 

I don't remember 12 stone. Thirteen, however, came as something of a shock, standing on a set of scales in a friend's bathroom in Mornington Crescent, London, in the late 1970s during a party. By then someone had called attention to a slight paunch, but I can't recall who. Fourteen arrived on a speak-your-weight machine in Stamford Hill in 1984. Fifteen, counterintuitively, on a set of gym scales five years later. I was 16 stone by the time my second child was born, and passed 17 somewhere around my 45th birthday. After that I stopped looking. No matter how much bigger I got, I was always 17 stone something. The scales in our bathroom broke, and we didn't get them fixed. 

Increasingly, the moment of gratification was accompanied either by a moment of denial or a moment of anxiety. As I got bigger the denial became more difficult. There were fluctuations that helped me disguise the truth from myself. I never completely stopped taking exercise, and in my 40s I had personal trainers who kept me lifting and running, but couldn't stop me eating. Caramel macchiatos from Starbucks, Egg McMuffins, Lindor chocolates (the round ones with the soft, somehow colder centres), Ben & Jerry's, sausage and sourdough toast - wrappers in the wastebasket and steady, relentless growth. 

I put off buying trousers because they never seemed to fit. I became unable quite to get the little folding tables down on aeroplanes when it was dinnertime. A comedian, who didn't like my stance on the Afghanistan war, began to call me "Fatty Aaronovitch".

Ah, the old evangelical reformed smoker/alcoholic/fatty routine, huh? Isn't it always the way? So perhaps today's article is more a plea for the government to stop putting temptation in front of poor, weak-willed David himself rather than everyone else. Except it's everyone else who would suffer that little bit more misery and lack of enjoyment of life as a result of his struggle for reformation, especially kids. Still, as long as David's all right, eh?

Aaronovitch once wrote a very interesting and revealing book about his childhood.

If my childhood was not much fun it had nothing to do with the party. Something in our family didn’t quite work and little tended towards joy.

There wouldn't be much joy in the vile world that he now proposes for other children either.

File this as another example of why we are on the side of the angels here, and people like Aaronovitch are not.

Wartime Giants

When I was a small child in the early to mid-1970s we Puddlecotes used to spend alternate Sunday afternoons at my Nan and Grandad's council maisonette in south London.

After eating a slap up roast beef dinner complete with mushy cauliflower, butter beans, and a Yorkshire pudding cooked in a flan dish and weighing the equivalent of a small dog due to the fat that went into it (but boy was it gorgeous), we'd sit around watching The Big Match on ITV while Grandad alternated between telling us the score before each featured game and telling me precisely which dominoes I had in my hand. He was a lathe operator by trade but a truly gifted mathematician who ran the shop floor's complicated pools syndicate and was capable of working out the returns from an each way yankee in his head. 

Later he'd sit me on his knee, spark up a Players' No 6, and regale me with tales from the war when he was in the Home Guard, his particular forte back then being to make sure pubs observed the blackout efficiently. Of course, this involved visits while they were closed between 2:30pm and 5:30pm, but the Landlord was usually kind enough to give him a pint or two while he was waiting for opening time. 

However, clever as he was, one thing always baffled him. I remember his words clearly.

"We had rations in the war years sunshine, and for a long time after too. A couple of rashers of bacon, a chunk of chocolate each for the week and a few potatoes, yet there were fat kids fackin' everywhere! Big lumbering beasts they were and no mistake, all of 'em, and stupid too, could barely scratch their own 'arrises they were so fackin' daft. Sometimes I'd go down that alley to get to the Clockhouse (a pub, funny enough, pronounced Clock'aaase) and if they were playing Pitch and Toss I'd need to be Edmund bloody Hillary to climb over the bleeders! We were bloody starving all the fackin' time but there were huge fackin' sprogs up Lavender Hill ... and some of them so big they were down the other side of it as well."

Then, with an affectionate tousling of my hair and a post-dinner gravy belch, he'd muse. 

"I could never understand that, sonny, and I never fackin' will."

It's been a puzzle I've wrestled with ever since those distant dull yellow and brown faded days. But thanks to the marvels at 'Public Health' Industry junk science HQ, it's a puzzle that has finally been solved! 

CHILDREN whose parents smoke are more likely to be fat - and to lag behind in their school work, suggests new research. 

The study showed that being exposed to second-hand smoke can make children pile on the pounds and slow their mental development.

But of course! The world and his wife - and probably the family budgie too - smoked back then, and in every possible location. Even Woolworths was bathed in a fog of smoke throughout the day so no wonder the kids were all massive!

Oh hold on, isn't there supposed to be an obesity crisis? Now. In 2016. When just about no-one smokes and secondhand smoke has been banned everywhere including outdoors? And come to think about it, I just remembered more accurately. Grandad didn't say anything about huge kids, in fact he spent more time telling me about how you could play their ribs like a xylophone. 

Yes, the 'research' cited by the Express is utter utter bollocks, isn't it?

Just Guidelines? Yeah Right!

Well what a day of turgid gobshitery and joyless shroud-waving we have witnessed today over the Chief Morality Officer's new alcohol guidelines. I'd post about how deeply flawed they are but Snowdon has done so admirably already so pop over there and read all about it.

I must, however, comment on the blasé nature of many comments about the matter. Here is one and there are some spectacularly short-sighted ones under this tweet too.

My take on new alcohol recommendations. Which are just that - RECOMMENDATIONS! https://t.co/fr52FyrsoF do what you want, but know the risks!

— Dr Suzi Gage (@soozaphone) January 8, 2016

This idea that these are just recommendations, and that's all, is incredibly naive. Have these people been sleeping for the past 30 or 40 years? When have guidelines ever remained guidelines without leading to more and more coercion?

40 years ago government guidelines on smoking were to not smoke but, if you must, take fewer puffs and leave a longer stub, now we have bans just about everywhere in a campaign of "denormalisation" of smokers. In many countries they are actually now speaking openly of the "endgame"; of prohibition. All because government were persuaded that the 'guidelines' were not being taken seriously.

With sugar, the guidelines had barely been altered downwards by the WHO before there were calls from 'public health' that the public isn't following them so we need a sugar tax and TV advertising bans on certain foods.

There used to be guidelines about what food kids should be given by their parents to take to school, now we have packed lunch inspections and unapproved food being confiscated, while many openly talk about mandatory school dinners because the 'guidelines' are not being adhered to.

These are just a few examples of many many others I could have chosen (add more in the comments as I'm sure you will know plenty of other examples). This is how health nags work, people, if you haven't noticed that where have you been?

Take all the above into account, and if you can still honestly believe that the hugely-funded Goliath of 'public health' is not going to be rubbing their hands with glee at the future possibilities after today, well, you're not very bright is the most charitable I can offer.

As a result of these 'guidelines' that we are apparently free not to follow - you know, they're just fuzzy-wuzzy friendly advice, that's all - a whole new door has been opened on alcohol nagging.

Soon there will be campaigns by the usual suspects to say that the guidelines are not being adhered to. It will not be because the public have taken note of the advice and chosen to ignore it, instead the legions of public health parasites will say that the 'guidelines' are just not working and something must be done about it; that big industry is blinding drinkers to the harms; and that - how convenient - there are now so many more people drinking over the recommended guidelines that government must crack down hard!

Research will be produced showing that x% of drinkers are exceeding the 'guidelines' and that therefore they must be brought into line with advertising bans; restrictions on availability; higher taxes; denormalisation campaigns and bans.

This isn't even conjecture because we've seen it all before. If you think these are just guidelines that can be ignored, and that that will be the end of the matter, you're either massively deluded or - like Suzi who tweeted above - a public health campaigner who is well aware of what is actually going on but just wants to quell the outrage a little before moving on to the 'next logical step'.

Battling History And Humanity

Where, oh where, do you start with this from New Zealand?

New Zealand has a problem and not enough is being done about it. Williams says drinking has been "normalised" in New Zealand, clouding the incredibly high risk that alcohol places on our health and several aspects of our well-being. 

"The drinking culture and pressures to drink and continue drinking are very persuasive and pervasive," she says.

This is from, you will not be surprised to learn, Alcohol Healthwatch director Rebecca Williams who gets paid for having such an opinion.

"There's (sic) very few areas or occasions you can go to in New Zealand where alcohol isn't an expected part of the activity. 

"It's seen as an essential element to relaxation, an essential element to social connection and an essential part of all our gatherings, generally."

Probably, Rebecca, because alcohol is very good as a relaxant and brilliant for encouraging social connection. Parties at your place must be pretty crap if you aren't comfortable with that.

These trends also worry New Zealand Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell, who believes drinking is "extremely" normalised. 

"We celebrate the birth of a child with alcohol and we commiserate the death of someone with alcohol," he says. "It's seen as such a normal thing that people buy it when they do their weekly grocery shop."

That's because it is normal, you berk. It's the very definition of the word normal.

Since you are one of the vanishing few who don't subscribe to the consensus, that makes you the one who isn't normal. That's how it works, y'see?

Bell says there's something about humans and the "pursuit of getting out of it". 

"Most, not all, cultures have had some form of intoxicant. Part of alcohol's popularity is it does what it says it's going to do. It give you warm feelings and it loosens your inhibitions."

Yes, it's been the same throughout the world for millennia, and it's a good thing. So why don't you just piss off and leave people to enjoy what they are clearly happy with?

Dry July's Scott Savidge acknowledges he's not an expert on alcohol - Dry July is first and foremost a fundraiser - but he says our longstanding relationship with alcohol is pretty clear. 

"It's so intensely socialised and so embedded in the culture and so freely available. 

"People have been eating plants and fermenting things to go to different spaces in their consciousness since the beginning."

Indeed, and that is never going to change, so stop trying.

Savidge believes the often-slated youth of today are no worse than other age groups and generations. 

"Younger people, students and so on are often targeted or highlighted because they're visible. What people don't see is the large numbers of people who aren't visible who are drinking problematically; the older people who drink at home in a way that's not monitored."

Were these people ever young themselves, because I'm struggling to imagine it. And 'monitored'? What sort of fucked up mentality would even consider the idea of monitoring people making free choices in their own homes?

Williams, of Alcohol Healthwatch, says there needs to be drastic action to stop the normalisation of alcohol becoming even deeper entrenched.

It's been entrenched for thousands of years, you sour old crone, stop wasting your pathetic life and go do something more constructive for society instead. Like peeling the pavement with your chin.

"The industry says it comes down to personal responsibility, but that's rubbish. It's a mix of personal choices and our environment. 

"The environment determines and sustains the culture. Every single review of our drinking habits says we need to restrict advertising of alcohol, yet we do nothing."

Every single review? Written by purse-lipped puritans like you, perchance?

Change needs to be made at the population level, she says. 

"No amount of education or social marketing will make a significant impact. There's (sic) so many studies and experts that say there needs to be taxation and restricted availability."

"So many", as in a few isolated professional miseries amongst millions of people who are quite content with how they choose to live their lives. You're outnumbered by orders of magnitude; you're the outliers here, the abnormal ones, not us, so go boil your heads in chip fat or something yeah?

At the moment, there's too much acceptance of drunken and drugged behaviour, according to Makary. 

He cites the drink-driving advertisements with a carload of drunks and one sober driver, implying it's okay to get drunk as long as you don't drive.

Yes, because it really is okay. That is just about the sum of it.

Look, I'm not a supreme idealist, I know that people like this have to exist - we've suffered their tedious ilk for just as long as some caveman first sucked on a weather-fermented fruit and knocked himself out - but can politicians please stop taking the hideous fuckmuppets seriously?

Humanity loves alcohol and history proves that will always be the case. Just because a handful of grumpy social outcasts open their miserable gobs once in a while doesn't mean anyone should be listening.

News From The Slope

No, the title isn't a Clarkson reference. I just thought you'd be interested in some of the crackpots that tobacco control industry policies have unleashed recently. Please remember, though, that there is no such thing as a slippery slope.

A wibbling loon writes:

We are now faced with concerning population lifestyle trends where countries such as the U.S. see half the population consuming sugar beverages on any given day ... 

I don't know about you, but I struggle to see how 50% of people drinking one nice-tasting drink - ranging from Coca-Cola through to orange juice - on any given day is a problem. People like nice tasting things, and one drink a day is hardly Armageddon, now is it? I presume the point is to infer that half of the population are guzzling the things from dawn till dusk ... and it's all the fault of those evil capitalists!

... and where sugary drinks become the greatest calorie source in a teenager’s diet.

You may have taken that to mean a majority of their intake, but the sound bite is - as you might expect - just the usual prodnose mangling of statistics and playing with words. A clue to its origin appears in this hysterical panic piece from Harvard (that's the Harvard who want to wage a "cola war" by way of taxation and to have fast food classified as a pollutant), but even they can only inflate the figure to 11% of a child's diet.

Children and youth in the US averaged 224 calories per day from sugary beverages in 1999 to 2004—nearly 11% of their daily calorie intake. 

On any given day, half the people in the U.S. consume sugary drinks; 1 in 4 get at least 200 calories from such drinks; and 5% get at least 567 calories - equivalent to four cans of soda. (17) Sugary drinks (soda, energy, sports drinks) are the top calorie source in teens’ diets (226 calories per day), beating out pizza (213 calories per day).

Do you see the trick? If you throw all sweet-tasting drinks into one pot and divide up all other sources into cakes, potatoes, other vegetables, burgers, chicken, nachos, popcorn, hot dogs, and, oh yes, pizza, you can claim all those lumped together drinks to be the biggest. Clever, huh?

Of course, another way to put it is to say kids get 89% of their calories from food and 11% from drinks (in reality, it's nearer 6%), a perfectly reasonable ratio for any human - who consumes just two staples, food and drink - I'd venture to suggest.

Our frenzied drinks-hater continues ...

However how can we blame our children and young adults for these trends when they live in a world where soft drinks are widely visible from the supermarkets to school places to social media?

Perhaps he'd like a ban on advertising and to have the products hidden behind shutters ... like tobacco. Just a guess.

Furthermore if we consider the growing evidence suggesting that sugar consumption mimics the addictive properties of drugs such as cocaine ...

By "growing evidence" I think he means one pathetic piece of junk science by a bunch of bullshitters.

... it only further highlights the similarity and severity of the public and global health challenge we have faced with tobacco in the last century.

Yep, nice tasting drinks are just as dangerous as tobacco so the same measures must be put in place ASAP. For the children, natch.

Meanwhile, in Australia ...

Should fast food outlets be forced to put tobacco-style health warnings on their packaging?
That's one controversial and extreme measure being proposed by an Australian healthy food advocate, as he ramps up his campaign to change the way fast food outlets advertise to children. 

Mr Schultz posted an image of a Big Mac box labelled with the words 'BIG MACS MAKE BIG CHILDREN' and a picture of two overweight kids to his Game Changer Facebook page in an attempt to fire up debate.

'Just like a cigarette packet demonstrates the causes of cigarette smoking and its damages, this image demonstrates what the fast food product can do to the human body,' he said. 

Mr Schultz said plain packaging was an eventual goal, but as a first step he wants to see detailed ingredients lists included on fast food packaging and information about where the food has come from and if it has been treated with chemicals or growth hormones. 

'Later on [plain packing] can come. Ingredients have to be explained as a first step,' he said.

Which, presumably, will be followed by lots of next logical steps until everything is sold in shops resembling Argos but without the display cabinets.

Except that Deborah Arnott has already told us that ...

"the “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false" 

And plain packaging cheerleader Simon Chapman contemptuously dismissed the idea that tobacco control policies can transfer to other products when he said ...

"Look, if the slope is slippery, it's the most unslippery slippery dip I've ever seen in my life."

So perhaps we won't be seeing packaging like this in the future, after all, eh?

Image courtesy of Simon Chapman from a slideshow he presented about the potential for plain packaging which used to be here but now isn't

Poo Sticks Resurrection

You may remember an article here last year about the the tobacco control industry's brilliant new existence-extending exercise, poo sticks. If not, do go have a read to catch up.

Well, with the pressure being loaded on the New Zealand government to fall into line and implement the stupidity of plain packaging, Janet Hoek - one of the world's foremost public health extremists - has seized an opportunity to resurrect the idea.

Australia’s decision to introduce plain packaging has aroused international attention and stimulated interest in complementary initiatives. To date, research attention has focused on external packaging and few studies have examined the physical objects of consumption – cigarette sticks. 

Practical implications – As policymakers internationally consider introducing plain packaging, they should examine whether dissuasive sticks could enhance measures regulating the external appearance of tobacco packages.

This is a euphemism for suggesting government mandate that - at the same time as turning the outside of packets into a B list gore film - the cigarettes inside should look like bile, sick and shit.

Hoek's angle is very interesting though, because - as we already know - tobacco controllers are involved in a global game of keeping up with the Joneses; of always looking for some way of kidding themselves that they are doing something important instead of just being miserable tax spongers.

Ireland preen themselves at being the first to inflict a national smoking ban, Australia is proud to have been the first to infantilise their citizens with plain packaging, but Janet has a plan to keep New Zealand right up there in the international illiberal bastards stakes.

Just think of the glory! The white fern nation could be the very first to not only demand plain packaging, but also to make the cigarettes look crap too! What a giant leap for mankind, eh? She explains her potentially huge contribution to humanity in this video.

Now, I'm sure you thought that with all advertising banned, along with sports sponsorship, cigarettes hidden behind screens and colour schemes taken off packs in favour of gory pictures, that no tobacco controller could ever claim with a straight face that the tobacco industry is 'marketing' their products.

But you'd be wrong because apparently, now, the white of a cigarette paper is evil and a means of conveying social acceptability. It's getting to the point where someone should seriously start to question the sanity of these people, doncha think?

By the way, Hoek also wants plain packaging for fast food and fizzy drinks. Not that there's a slippery slope or anything, after all we know that's just a fallacy cos Debs told us so.

And tobacco controllers would never lie, now would they?