Forgetting to Go to the Pub

I don’t think that it is senility.

Readers will know that, before the smoking ban, I used to go to the pub nine times per week as a rule – every night and Saturday and Sunday afternoon. I don’t mean getting paralytic; I mean venturing forth, having, say, three pints and chatting with acquaintances. When the smoking ban came in, I continued with my habits for a few months, but, as people started to disappear (including non-smokers), I took a decision. I decided that, after playing golf on a Saturday, I would have perhaps two pints at the clubhouse and then go home and stay at home, rather than go to the pub to watch a bit of football and have another couple of pints. That decision then spread to Sundays. It was a couple of years before I said to myself, “Why don’t you take a break on Mondays?” By that time, I was blogging a bit – I mean leaving comments on blogs such as Frank Davis and Taking Liberties. First, Mondays nights and then Tuesday nights, and then Thursdays nights and then Saturday nights. During that period, I started this blog. But it suited me to still go to the pub on Fridays, Sundays and Wednesdays, partly because Friday and Sunday had entertainment and were fun. Wednesday was just a midweek ta-ta.

Despite being aware that it is Wednesday today and intending to go for my usual couple of pints, I forgot.

I did remember at about 10.20pm just after I had made a cup of tea for herself and I, and so I rushed off to the pub and had my two pints. Funnily enough, I quite enjoyed my two pints. I would probably not have bothered had I not had very little red wine left (which is what I am drinking now).

Forgetting to go to the pub is rare but has happened before. Frankly, I am quite happy about it because it means that I have broken ‘my addiction’. All the previous pub-going must have been due to addiction to alcohol, obviously. Was it not wonderful that the smoking ban broke my addiction to alcohol? Is that not an additional benefit of smoking bans? Judging from the emptiness of pubs these days, there must have been lots and lots of people who were ‘helped’ by the smoking ban to break their addiction to alcohol.

Oh… I forgot…. I am now buying at least two 3 litre boxes of wine per week and drinking them at home, and smoking like a chimney. Perhaps that is why I am not forgetful and senile. Surely there must be epidemiological studies?

—–

The above is all rather illogical, isn’t it? But that is nothing when compared with the speeches in the House of Lords about PP. In his report, the paediatrician, Chantler, said that PP might have a ‘slight but significant effect on youth uptake of smoking’. In the speech by the (Tory) leader in the HoL, that statement became positive proof of the wonderful effects of PP.

The permissibility of the distortion of truth and facts has an origin. That origin lies in the nature of epidemiology. For example, Dr Snow found a pattern of cholera victims which was centred on the water pump. When people were stopped from using that pump, the cholera incidences ceased.

But do you seen an important consideration?

Dr Snow must already have had some inclination that cholera was in the water and not in the air. In a sense, he was lucky, because, had the gunge in the water from that pump cleared itself quickly, he would never have had time to isolate that source, and ‘germ theory’ would never have replaced ‘miasma theory’.

In the Doctors Study, Hill and Doll had some very peculiar circumstances to deal with. Many of the older doctors must have been involved in the WW1. Many of them, in 1950, must have just emerged from WW2. So, the Doctors Study started with a potentially damaged group of people. Thus, the Study could only describe WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST. The Study, in itself, could not predict the future.

That is not science. It is history. It cannot be replicated.

====

It is a matter of fact that Tobacco Companies, in the past, made some awful judgements. They did, in fact, know about the link to lung cancer. That is obvious from Doll’s Hospital Study (and others). Tobacco Companies, probably because of short term considerations, could not get their collective heads around the idea that THERE IS A RISK. The risk is not, and was not, the same as just blindly walking onto a road without looking to see if there is a bus coming. THERE IS A RISK, but the Doctors Study, and all the other studies which the newly fledged anti-tobacco WHO initiated, were already contaminated by propaganda. There is little difference between Communist propaganda, Nazi propaganda and Tobacco Control Industry propaganda.

—–

Epidemiology cannot predict the future. It only describes the past. It is not the same as physics, chemistry or toxicology, which CAN predict the future.

===

OK. The Zealots and Puritans have won again. But who cares? So cig packets will be yucky  brown. Not an awful long time ago, many goods were provided in brown paper bags, or even wrapped in newspaper! We get used to it. We do not care. In fact, we might come to regard the yuckie brown cig packets as beautiful. But there is something that I am curious about. Why did tobacco companies not fight against fake pictures on their packets? It must have been appeasement.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Forgetting to Go to the Pub”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “my addiction to alcohol?”

    I doubt that you are, or smoking either.

    I will bet a 750 ml bottle of Pinot Noir that you do not suffer withdrawl symptoms when you have to do without either of them for hours on end.

    Do you wake up in the middle of the night with a craving for either of them?
    Thought not!

    I, for one, can not remember ever seeing a cig in my dreams.
    Nor do I drink wine in my dreams.

    During sleep, the sub-consious desires are freed from the restraints of the conscious mind and any desire to smoke or drink would be freely brought forth.

    As would any physical needs, like having to pee.

    • garyk30 Says:

      I doubt that tobacco companies worry much about the falling adult smoking rates.
      The number of smokers remains about the same.
      USA 1965= 45% rate and 50 million smokers

      USA 2010= 20% rate and about 46 million smokers

      USA 1965 = 16 million ex-smokers

      USA 2010 = 48 million ex-smokers

      The market for cigs has increased; tho, illicit cigs must have them worried.

      Market share of cigs consumed must be an important consideration for them.

      • garyk30 Says:

        I doubt that tobacco companies worry much about the falling adult smoking rates.
        The number of smokers remains about the same.

        Non-precise est for Australia

        adult population/rate/adult smokers

        2001 = 14.55 million/ 22.3% = 3.2 million adult smokers

        2013 = 12.25 million/ 16.3% = 3.7 million adult smokers

        At the very least, the number of smokers has remained the same.

        Consumption is down; but, illicit trade is not counted.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    Damn typos

    2013 = 17.25/ 16.3% = 2.8 million adult smokers.

    Number of adult smokers has stayed about 3 million.

  3. junican Says:

    No, I don’t wake in the night desperate for a fag. Even if I wake desperate for a pee, I still do not even think about lighting up. It simply does not enter my head.
    I’ve also got used to not smoking for several hours when flying. If the idea does pup into my head, it is easy to push it back out again. On the other hand, the first thing that I do on leaving the airport is light up – and very enjoyable it is too!
    Of course nicotine is psychoactive, as is caffeine, alcohol, marijuana, cocoa, and almost every substance that we consume. We would all starve to death if they were not.
    I wasn’t exactly joking when I mentioned my apparent addiction to alcohol, which the smoking ban helped me to break, though mostly joking. I think that I would find it very unpleasant to decide to stop indulging – very unpleasant indeed. I would most certainly be very, very tempted to cave in to the desire for a pint of beer. Tobacco Control hijacked the word ‘addiction’ decades ago and redefined it to suit their purpose.

    I don’t trust the figures for smoking prevalence one bit. I trust National Statistics (I don’t think that it has been corrupted – yet), but their figures depend upon surveys. It is extremely unlikely that a non-smoker will fib and say that he smokes, but it is quite likely that someone who smokes a little will say that he does not, especially teenagers.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: