Link Tank 30/07

Better late than never?

Why our parliament is literally beyond satire

One man's battle to save Britain's pubs - with e-cigarettes

Britain's love affair with curry is heating up

The politics of fear

The no-kids-allowed movement is spreading

The science and magic of beer

What Dizzy has learned from porn

Australians smoking less, doing more drugs

Thomas the Tank Engine is imperialist propaganda ... obviously

"I’ve been driven to strong drink"

Monkey jockeys

The Epidemic That Refuses To Materialise

Through gritted teeth, the BBC reported some good news yesterday.

Between 2009 and 2010 the percentage of 11-15 year olds who had tried alcohol fell from 51% to 45%.

The NHS Information Centre figures also suggested "a shrinking number think that drinking and drunkenness is acceptable".

So positive was this story that even the ubiquitous Don Shenker doom-mongering quote was missing. Unsurprising, really, since it just isn't possible to spout Alcohol Concern's most popular soundbite of "pocket money prices fuelling under-age drinking" in this context.

In fact, it's worse than that for Don and his chums, as the Straight Statistics team reports.

The general trend ... has been a steady decline for the past decade but the 2010 figures suggest this decline is accelerating. The numbers saying that they had drunk alcohol in the past week fell from 18 per cent in 2009 to 13 per cent in 2010 – five percentage points in a single year.

And to illustrate this, here is that under-age binge-drinking epidemic in glorious technicolour.

From the above, it's clear that whether alcohol is being sold at 'pocket money prices' or not, the point is moot. Kids are increasingly choosing not to spend their pocket money on it. There's simply no urgent problem here.

Of course, for regulars at Chez Dick this comes as no surprise, but after years of being told the sky is falling with regard teen alcohol consumption, half the commenters at the BBC article express total disbelief. Instead, it must be the kids lying, they say. In an anonymous survey. Over ten years. With different kids each time of asking.

So, despite the source being impeccable, and the respondents having no axe to grind, our bovine public are still - in large numbers - inclined to believe misinformation produced by lobby groups, whose funding relies on creating scare stories where none exist, rather than stark incontrovertible fact.

When the handling of social issues is so out of balance as is definitely the case with the perception of our nation's drinking habits, it's well past time to look seriously at why the likes of Alcohol Concern are funded as generously as they are.

Olympics 2012: Cocaine, Ecstasy In - Tobacco Out?

Don't ever accuse this blog of not being topical.

OLYMPIC athletes who test positive for cocaine and ecstasy should not face an automatic ban from competing, the British anti-doping agency has said.

Professional sportsmen and women currently face a two-year ban if they are found to have the illegal substances in their system during competition.

But in a document seen by The Times, UK Anti-Doping, the agency responsible for random testing of British athletes, says the sanctions are disproportionately harsh. Regulations on recreational drugs and medications including asthma inhalers should be relaxed in time for the London Games, the report says.

Drugs such as ecstasy and cocaine are judged by scientists to have no performance-enhancing effects in most sports.

Meanwhile, where tobacco is concerned, the opposite is being mooted.

[...] smokeless tobacco products are of growing popularity in sport owing to potential performance enhancing properties and absence of adverse effects on the respiratory system [...] considering the adverse effects of smoking on the respiratory tract and numerous health threats detrimental to sport practice at top level, likelihood of smokeless tobacco consumption for performance enhancement is greatly supported.

Sadly, the full text is behind a paywall, but a kindly fellow jewel robber furnished me with the benefits attributable to nicotine claimed therein.

"Promotion of related positive reinforcing effects results in vigilance, reduced stress, mood modulation and lower body. Interestingly, nicotine also triggers a significant increase of pulse rate, blood pressure, blood sugar and epinephrine release owing to simultaneous stimulant and relaxant properties. As a consequence ... smokeless tobacco is a very attractive drug from a doping perspective.”

So, let's get this straight. There are no benefits to tobacco consumption whatsoever ... unless such benefits can be used against it. Yep, that's about the consistency of information we've come to expect.

Sit round the athletes' villages of the future socially puffing waccy-baccy and you'll get a rap on the knuckles, but stick some snus under your lip? Don't even go there, Sven!

Presumably, they'll be coming to strip Hestrie Cloete of her medals soon enough, too.

As an added bonus, here's the mightily popular Shirley Strong doing rather well for GBR in Los Angeles 1984.

You shouldn't need to ask why that's relevant.

The Consequences Of Crying Wolf?

Two recent articles, one from the US:

The number of Americans who view smoking cigarettes as being bad for your health has gone down, according to a new report.

The perception by teenagers and young adults that heavy cigarette smoking is a high-risk activity has declined in many states, the study on substance abuse and mental health released today found.

The perceived risks of smoking one or more packs of cigarettes a day dropped between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 in 14 states among youths aged 12 to 17, and in 31 states among those aged 18 to 25.

And another from Australia:

A new survey has found nearly one-third of smokers believe the health effects of smoking are exaggerated.

This is quite incredible.

At a time when anti-smoking rhetoric has never been more all-pervading - in countries with the most shrill methodology - the message is being ignored more!

Now, far be it from me to suggest failings in the tobacco control community's approach, but perhaps the policy of attempting to scare the living daylights out of smokers with increasingly dubious claims might be reaching an end of its useful life.

Persuasion - not bullying - is perhaps the key to future success. Not that the Aussie spokesperson is capable of identifying the changing nuances, of course.

Quit Executive Director Fiona Sharkie said on Sunday smokers are kidding themselves if they think they can get away with smoking because the health effects have been exaggerated.

"Almost all smokers will get emphysema, while a quarter of all deaths from smoking are from emphysema," she said.

Err, in just a few words, you've conveyed condescending irritation and hyperbole in equal measure.

You're not helping, love.

E-Cigs Still Confusing The Hell Out Of Anti-Smokers

One of the best aspects of being a vaper (or 'dual user' as I was advised by an exclusive vaper in Stony) is that e-cigs confuse anti-smokers so deliciously.

A perfect example was posted a few days ago by US anti-smoking speaker Rick Stoddard on the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) Tobacco Free Facebook page.

e-cigarettes..... It's ok to stay addicted as long as you have "harm reduction"... now say that 3 times real fast...... now say this 3 times real fast "excuses, excuses, excuses"

Following a few polite responses in support of the e-cig as a way of quitting smoking, Rick came up with this dissent killer.

Selling addiction for profit. How is that any different from the tobacco cartel that got you hooked in the first place?

Perhaps he might ask the same question of ASH and the Royal College of Physicians in this country, then.

ASH is today calling on the Government to develop a harm reduction strategy for tobacco.

ASH endorses the key findings of a report published today by the Royal College of Physicians. The report notes that despite a steady decline in overall smoking rates, the most disadvantaged smokers, who tend to be the most heavily addicted to nicotine, are still not quitting.

The report notes that whilst it is the nicotine in tobacco that keeps people hooked, the harm from smoking is caused primarily by the thousands of poisons in tobacco smoke. Medicinal nicotine, on the other hand, is relatively safe but little has been done to promote longer term use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) as an alternative to smoking for those who can’t quit.

Hmm. Selling addiction for profit. How is that any different from the tobacco cartel that got you hooked in the first place, eh?

It seems anti-smokers are still utterly blindsided by the e-cig. It completely ruins their long-practiced argument that nicotine from pharmaceutical companies is good, anywhere else is bad.

Because now there are three suppliers of nicotine delivery rather than the less confusing two of yore, they're all over the place on how to act. Or, as tobacco control advocate Michael Siegel explained back in May.

The ideology is simply this: nothing that looks like cigarette smoking can possibly be a good thing, even if it saves lives. People need to quit smoking the way we say they should quit smoking. There is a right way and a wrong way to quit smoking. The right way is our way and the wrong way is any other way. If it looks like smoking, it's still smoking, even if there are no adverse health effects and the individual has achieved smoking cessation.

I've no doubt that Stoddard has the very best of intentions - after all, he does the same job that David Goerlitz was doing before being hounded out after criticising the potentially harmful methods of hysterical tobacco controllers - but until he, and others, can accept that the rules have changed, their approach is looking increasingly old hat and at times absurd.

In fact, a sceptic might argue that they are now so in the bunker with their pharma funders that a continuation of smoking is preferable to quitting in a way which doesn't involve their sponsors' products.

But that would be like saying that it's not about health anymore, or something. Which I, of course, would never do.

Fancy A Certificate In Fatty Nagging?

Laid low at the moment with the lurgey Mrs P kindly passed on to me, as well as being rather busy planning an important event next month amongst the usual life clutter.

I thought I'd share this briefly, though, from the University of Reading.

Certificate in Obesity Management

The course focuses on the development of knowledge and skills to enable students on completion of the course to be able to set up and deliver an effective weight management service.

The Certificate in Obesity Management will cover the following aspects of obesity assessment & management:

- The management of obesity and prevention of obesity-related co-morbidities
- Patient assessment
- Dietary interventions
- Promoting physical and "everyday" activity
- Motivational Interviewing & behaviour change consultation
- The role of pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery

What are the benefits of attending?

On completion of the course participants will have:

- a thorough grounding in all aspects of obesity management
- developed the skills to facilitate the delivery of appropriate services for patients
- participated in learning opportunities with local, national and international experts
- undertaken a practice-based project in their work area
- been instructed in the most effective method of sternly wagging a finger (OK, I'll admit to adding that one - Dick)

Who funds the course?

Development of the course has been supported by the Government Office of the South East (GOSE) and the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SCSHA).

Coupled with the news - featured in Saturday's link tank - that ...

Both LMCs and GP consortium leaders have backed moves by NHS Hertfordshire to block any patient with a BMI over 30 from being referred for routine joint replacement surgery without first being referred to a weight management scheme.

... and I think we get the bigger picture, don't you?

Meanwhile, In Tower Hamlets ...

At least Cllr Bartlett used the proper channels to try to enforce his outdoor smoking ban. But while we were all watching Stony Stratford, the Christian Institute and Pink News - not normally sources which would be in agreement - were both reporting that areas of Tower Hamlets have been designated smoke and alcohol-free zones, and a lot more, without any democratic input whatsoever. From the latter article.

It is understood the posters were found last Thursday morning at council-managed housing blocks in Shadwell, next to the DLR and Overground station.

They state: “You are entering a Shariah controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced.”

Underneath, images declare that smoking, alcohol, music, drugs, prostitution and porn are forbidden.

[Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary] said: “This will mean this is an area where the Muslim community will not tolerate drugs, alcohol, pornography, gambling, usury, free mixing between the sexes – the fruits if you like of Western civilisation.

“This will be a very heavy leafleting campaign aimed at both the Muslim and non-Muslim community in terms of what the Sharia means economically, socially and politically.”

Earlier this year, he claimed he had “thousands” of people willing to patrol streets up and down the UK to dissuade people from anti-Islamic behaviour.

Porn?!? From my cold, dead hands, sunshine!

A police spokeswoman said: “We are aware of a limit [sic] number of posters appearing in Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Newham.

“Officers are working closely with the local authority to have the posters removed as soon as possible.”

Why bother? Street prostitution is already illegal, as is drug use in public; alcohol-free zones are in abundance around the country; ASH have openly advocated outdoor smoking bans; noise nuisance bylaws are commonplace to prohibit music; and they'll be getting round to porn and gambling soon enough, if not already.

There's not much there which won't be enforced under common law soon. May as well leave the signs up and save some money for the council in having to produce their own in the future. You know, Big Society and all that.

[Tower Hamlets council said:] "We treat issues like this very seriously, and the matter is being looked into further by our Hate Crime Team"

This, naturally, won't apply to the smoking bit.