Choice Isn't Yours To Make

I've never been a coffee drinker, but for a perfect illustration of left-leaning threats toward personal choice, this is text book.

Given America's love of coffee and super-sized portions, it was inevitable that Starbucks should tie the two together in its latest offering: the massive new "Trenta" cup size, holding 31 US fluid ounces – that's 917ml, or more than one and a half imperial pints – of beverage.

The company says it is responding to customer demand for larger sizes, which it has been testing for almost a year.

Customers want larger sizes, the business responds. Just how it's supposed to work. A non-opinion piece then, yes?

Well, it should be, but this is the Graun.

In a nod to health fears, Starbucks says that only conventional iced coffee, iced tea and iced tea lemonade in both caffeinated and decaffeinated varieties will be sold in the new bladder-bursting cup size, and claims that "sweetened" versions will contain only 230 calories.

So the health-obsessed will refrain from crawling zombie-like over the choices of others in this instance then, surely.

It's what people want and isn't in any way problematic.

But if America works up a thirst for the Trenta, it's a good bet that a fishtank full of Frappuchino won't be far behind.

Fuck me sideways! It hasn't happened yet but Starbucks are being criticised for it already?

How much caffeine an individual should consume is another matter, [...]

A matter, in fact, which has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone but the person drinking it.

How much they "should consume"? Who on God's earth gave you the right to even comment? Especially since ...

A Starbucks iced coffee of that size would probably contain nearly 400mg of caffeine, not enough to put a Trenta drinker into the heavy user category of 500 to 600mg of caffeine a day.

So, again, a non-story.

There are no plans for Starbucks to sell the jacuzzi-sized coffee cup to its British customers. Yet.

Shame, since even though I hate the stuff, I would be at the glass door begging to buy one in solidarity after reading that pile of steaming horseshit.

At least it was thought-provoking of sorts, though. It begs the question why a British newspaper should be bothered about an American chain serving large cups of low calorie coffee which don't reach high usage caffeine levels.

Perhaps they just hate big business?

The Boy Done Good

Some may remember that last year my company retained the services of a tax consultant, out of spite as much as anything, really. Instead of just shifting outgoings from the government's coffers into the consultant's (as I expected but which was perfectly fine by me), he predicted quite a handsome saving.

He's just reported back to advise that he'll be saving us over £20,000 ... every year.

He under-estimated, it would seem, as we were given notice today that HMRC is giving us back £37k+ for last year.

OK, we've had to shell out around £8k for fees, disbursements, and other costs of the process, but that's still £37k which can no longer be spent by the state on bullying their electorate.

I've had worse days.

Compounding Failure Is No Way Forward On Teen Drinking

Last week, Jackart posted a flawless piece detailing safety problems arising out of legislating for compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets, it's well worth reading in its entirety. He did so to point out the natural occurrence of unintended consequences which always occur when the righteous, via their lapdog politicians, try to 'fix' things.

Mary Anne Sieghart has done a similar job in relation to teens and pubs. I think many of us can relate to the picture she paints here.

When we were teenagers, we started going to the pub from the age of about 14. We had to pretend to be 18, but most landlords didn't ask and the rest gave us a wink but served us anyway. The pub was an institution, a social hub. You wanted to be accepted by the regulars, so you behaved the way they did.

And because we were under 18, we knew we had to remain inconspicuous. The landlord would tolerate our presence as long as we didn't embarrass ourselves or him. We didn't dare get smashed or he wouldn't allow us back. And because we tended to meet the same group of friends in the same pub, being banned was not a good move.

The other thing about a pub was that it was mixed-age. The older regulars wouldn't exactly boss you about; they were more likely to take the mickey. But you respected them and didn't want them to think you were a complete fool. The aim was to be able to hold your drink. It would have been humiliating to get legless in front of them.

Quite. But then the modern temperance movement and health lobby got stuck in, and the rest - teens swilling cheap grog on park benches, for example - is history.

Of course, being a columnist for The Indy, Mary's solution to the problems caused by overweening regulation ... is even more regulation, this time in the form of raised duty on off sales and reductions for pubs. That is clearly not going to work considering Mary has already identified the problem, but she's a right-on type with elephant blindness, it would appear.

However, whilst meandering to her disappointing denouement, she has encapsulated the problem in one simple paragraph, even if she stumbled there from completely the wrong direction.

If we had invented a system that encouraged young people to drink too much, it would look like this. Strong spirits would be ridiculously cheap to take home. Bars and clubs would be designed to maximize the amount people drank. And young people would be deterred from entering the one institution that taught them how to drink well rather than badly.****

It is, indeed, a model which encourages the worst excesses in teen drinkers, but it is entirely caused by those who see alcohol as a demon, and teens as fragile as a soap bubble.

Current legislation can send a licensee to bankruptcy should he/she be caught serving a pint of IPA to a 17 year old, so consequentially 17 year olds don't drink in pubs, even surreptitiously. They will still drink, though, and it's arguable that teen money has had an effect in driving off sale prices downwards.

The best way, then, to get back to the days of youths forsaking the park bench in favour of venues which subtlely teach "how to drink well rather than badly", is to abandon the policies which drove them there in the first place.

Stop sending rugby playing 17 year olds into pubs on entrapment errands; free the police to punish unruly behaviour rather than licensees for serving respectful teens with a bottle of Bud; get the righteous out of the equation and allow the public to apply common sense within guided boundaries**.

The very last thing the state should do is what Mary has suggested - that being to apply more legislative tweaks to a problem they caused with previous meddlesome regulation. Or, as Jackart puts it ...

The message to Government is simple. STEP AWAY FROM THE LEGISLATION. WE WILL SOLVE PROBLEMS, NOT THE STATE, IF YOU LEAVE US ALONE.

He's most certainly not wrong, you know.

**Of course, if the government wanted to see the return of the quiet local for trainee adults to dare to enter, they could quietly knock Health Act 2006 enforcement on the head too ... but that would be far too imaginative for our current bunch of elected numpties to comprehend, I suspect.

UPDATE: Bobski has shamed me by articulating perfectly my first reaction to the Sieghart paragraph which I have enthusiastically labelled ****

Last sentence is spot on in my mind. Third sentence is slightly misleading, they are meant to make it easy to drink (bar access and stocked drinks) and more enjoyable while intoxicated but they don't force people to drink. Second sentence to me is something that isn't the issue, I am a free marketeer (so low prices are good) and alcohol has always been cheaper to buy at a shop and take home than drink out. Finally the first sentence of the above paragraph; I think that we have created a system that has increased the availability of alcohol and legislation has removed the old teaching mechanisms and made it more desirable to 14-17 years olds by telling them that they aren't allowed it.

Bravo!

Smokers To Be Banned From Flying?

They're really determined to pass off this nonsense with a straight face, aren't they?

Study Shows Nicotine That Clings to Surfaces Can Be Inhaled Months After a Smoker Leaves an Area

Thirdhand smoke, the nicotine residue that is left behind on furniture, walls, and carpeting after a cigarette has been smoked in a room, can become airborne a second time, a new study shows.

The resulting particulates, a toxic mix of ozone and nicotine, are so small that they can easily penetrate into the deepest parts of the lung, and over time, scientists say, could contribute to breathing problems like asthma or even cancer.

Scared yet?

Only recently have scientists have begun to measure and understand the dangers of exposure to thirdhand smoke.

Well yes, because nutty public health funders have only recently begun to pay handsomely for the correct conclusions.

Previous research has shown that thirdhand smoke can rub off onto skin and even be ingested if food is eaten that’s been exposed to smoke. It was also shown that dust could carry thirdhand smoke to the lungs.

Some of said research was even conducted by companies which don't sell anti-bacterial floor mops.

But the final paragraphs of the utter tosh article are new and original.

The researchers also found that humid conditions appeared to be somewhat protective against exposure to the products of thirdhand smoke.

“This may not be very significant under normal indoor conditions where relative humidity is governed by comfort and kept around 60%,” says Dubowski. “However, in airplanes, where relative humidity is particularly low, less than 20%, and ozone concentrations can reach higher than 100 parts per billion, the potential for exposure to products of thirdhand smoke products may be greater.”

How is that relevant, one might ask? Smoking has been banned by just about every airline worldwide, it's surely one of the last places you'd find nicotine residue.

And then the penny drops ... they're talking about the nicotine carried on the clothes of smokers themselves. If they can just make this scare story stick (pun unintended), who's to bet against cotinine swabbing alongside body scanners as you pass through security.

"Sorry, Sir. You've been smoking so we can't let you fly today as you're a danger to public health".

I'll admit to not having seen that one coming.

She Sells Sanctimony

The woman in question, "Anna", is reported to have said that she feels "violated". Yeah, yeah. We've all been there, love. A police officer is nothing. Call me when you meet someone with a deep and abiding love of "literature", which turns out, three months later, to include the terms "Wilbur" and "Smith". And only "Wilbur" and "Smith". Or the plight, suffered by a friend of mine, who met a handsome, human rights lawyer, champion sportsman, lover of the arts, the man of her dreams and only discovered the next day, at breakfast, that he was a TORY MP. Try that for violated. Or the Israeli woman who had sex with an Israeli man, then got him jailed for rape, after she discovered that he was an Arab Israeli. Hmm. Well, no, not that one obviously. That's just racism. Or, as they call it in Israel, "the law".

Yes, dear. Sweeping generalisations are always wrong-headed.

Similarly, making judgement calls based on reading material is just snobbery, and dismissing a 'perfect' man due to his political allegiance is just narrow-minded prejudice.

Jeez.

Money For Nothing (Between The Ears)

Only a couple of days after my mentioning the complete lack of humour exhibited by those who perpetually seek out offence, comes this.

It was No. 1 in 1985, but it's unacceptable for Canadian eyes and ears today.

The Dire Straits song "Money for Nothing" was ruled by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council to be "extremely offensive" and thus inappropriate for airing on radio or television because it uses an anti-gay slur.

Hmm, it would seem that they have no concept of derogatory parody, either.

Listen guys, I am old enough to remember the lyrics being explained by Mark Knopfler in the music press at the time (when I was young enough to bother myself reading such things) and, thanks to Wikipedia, the relevant bit has been preserved.

The lead character in "Money for Nothing" is a guy who works in the hardware department in a television/custom kitchen/refrigerator/microwave appliance store. He's singing the song. I wrote the song when I was actually in the store. I borrowed a bit of paper and started to write the song down in the store. I wanted to use a lot of the language that the real guy actually used when I heard him, because it was more real....

Yes, and it is real. This is how rough and ready meagrely-paid working guys describe those they believe are undeserving of respect simply because of the wealth earned by being able to handle a guitar/keyboard/drum/TV talent contest and, especially in 1985, tousle their hair to appeal to groupies in their MTV videos.

Dire Straits used this clever device to poke fun not at gays, not at bands who play on MTV - after all, the band's video for this was lauded for its innovation, and MTV ensured it became a classic - but at those who use such dismissive language in an envious and pathetically spiteful way.

Obviously this is far too clever for dull-witted offence-seekers to comprehend.

It may well be too clever for the types who routinely fling the 'faggot' word around as they listen to music radio too, but the joke is fully on them, thereby making Money For Nothing so delicious in its approach.

Far from being considered offensive, the song should be admired for conveying more anti-homophobic teaching in five minutes than any public-funded guardian of public morality will do in his/her lifetime.

Anyone who would be offended by the 'gay slur' is not only a 'faggot', but also fucking stupid. And if they don't understand what stupid looks like, they would be well advised to pop along to their local anti-discrimination watchdog's office and look through the window.

Next up, the video gets banned everywhere for showing a cartoon character smoking a cigar. Think I'm joking?

Anniversary Link Tank 15/1

The inaugural Link Tank appeared here a year ago almost to the day following a conversation with Bella Gerens in outside a pub in Westminster where the idea struck. Originally intended as a weekly dump of articles which were of interest but not quite bloggable or deserving of being discarded on Twitter, it has now morphed into ... well, about the same really.

So, here's a 1st Anniversary Saturday morning smattering of international libertarian thought, a soupçon of bansturbation, some silliness, and the odd article from my RSS reads.

Coffee and crumpets optional.

School junk food bans create a thriving black market

Turkey cosies up to the EU by banning alcohol from sports advertising

Internet licensing is coming, and Facebook want to issue them

The environmental solution is pogo sticks

Treating all men as potential predators doesn't make our kids safer

So you thought you knew your star sign, eh?

Do pregnant smokers lie, or do the researchers?

The German prostitution industry is now specialising - services for care homes faring well

When booze was banned but pot was not

Step away from the contraband Kinder egg, Ma'am

The Simpsons do porn