Should Health Department and ASH Employees Be Permitted to Drink Alcohol?

By the word ’employees’, I mean everyone who is associated with the Health Dept or fake charities which lobby for regulation and tax increases, or minimum pricing, or tobacco control, or sugar control, or salt control, or anything similar. I think that all of these people should be vetted to ensure that, despite perhaps being involved in lobbying government etc for only one of these evils, they must abstain from ALL such temptations. In fact, there should be no quarter whatsoever. Anyone who exceeds the BMI should not be employed until they have shrunk, and if they are already in excess of recommended BMI levels, they be given a period of time, say six months, to shrink. If they fail to shrink, then they get terminated. There is no safe level of giving a bad example.

Why has it not already happened? Why have we seen, again and again, Deb Arnott and pals from the health dept standing around at ‘receptions’ holding what are obviously partly filled wine glasses? Eh? Eh?

Think especially of sugar. As we know, experts have warned that sugar is addictive. There is no doubt. There are receptors in the brain which get ‘switched on’ by sugar intake, and, if too many get switched on, then they start to demand more and more sugar. Clearly, there is a model at work, which is especially the case regarding nicotine. The pathways of nicotine addiction, proven by scientific research, have given us valuable insights into how addictions to sugar, salt, alcohol, cabbage, water, etc, work. It is these brain receptors, see? You could get addicted to anything at if you try. And by ‘anything at all’, I mean also being able to order people about, or get laws enacted. Once you get one law enacted, then there is a demand in the brain to get another enacted, then two more, then four more, the sixteen more, ad inf.

But the Cabinet have to start somewhere. It is not possible to start at the end. The first thing that Cameron and his advisor must do is insist that any cabinet minister who advocates persecution of smokers must be totally free from addictions. That means that they must be slim, teetotal, non-smokers who do not take sugar in there tea (erm, not tea – Buxton water).  Although tea and coffee are exempt from the ‘psychoactive’ substances legislation, it does not do for politicians and such to hide behind these exemptions. They must be whiter than white.

But they have to start with one slice at a time, so why not start with alcohol? If the plebs have to put up with minimum pricing, why should the elite not have to put up with minimum consumption?

Why not apply drink/drive limits to politicians, health dept employees, fake charity employees, doctors, academics, etc, etc?   Strict enforcement needs to be the order of the day, with massive personal fines for any department head who permits an employee to work with even the slightest element of alcohol in his bloodstream. There is no ‘sober’ level ……

As we know from various events, academics especially are prone to alcohol addiction, especially when they venture onto Twitter and such.

I’m not sure about salt. I know that excess salt is excreted via the urine, so I suppose that a urine test of addiction to salt is quite possible. I suspect that addiction to sugar could be detected in much the same way.

But of the greatest importance, as a result of its visibility, is ‘overweight or obese’, together with being seen drinking alcohol, especially in public places like hotels, pubs, royal banquets, and the like. For example, I am watching BBC World News. A discussion in Parliament is on at the moment. A SNP MP whose name I missed, but who is MP for South(?) Ayrshire, or somewhere similar, is hugely ‘overweight or obese’. WHY IS SHE ALLOWED TO BE SEEN ON TV, ESPECIALLY IN PARLIAMENT? Having said that, she had the most magnificent set of choppers.

=====

It is clear, especially, that everyone in public health must be as clean as a whistle. No more fatsoes, like Reilly in Ireland, lecturing and persecuting smokers. No smoker should lecture a fatso; No smoker should lecture a person addicted to alcohol, sugar or salt. Nor should any of those people lecture smokers.

These principles could apply much further afield. People like Gore, with his many-roomed mansion and his gas-guzzling limo, and his propensity to fly first class hither and thither, ought not to pronounce on matters which are of a scientific nature when he is not a scientist, such as global warming. Before he does so, he must give all he has to the poor, and follow the IPCC committee.

====

A final word, when just very slightly inebriated.

I have long contemplated how my basic Christian principles can apply in this totemic, battle-weary, propagandised, etc, world. But the first thing that I must ask myself, as a fundamental ‘a priori’ is whether or not I believe in God. For if one does not believe in God, then there is no morality as such. There is only personal convenience. But you could ask that question in a different way. You could question the creed:

“I believe in God, the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in his only son, Jesus Christ……”

Well, that is fine, in its simplistic way, and it is possible to say, “Yes, I believe”, provided that you acknowledge that God is incomprehensible to us mortals. What I mean is that it is not possible to put God in a place, since God is everywhere and nowhere. It is not possible to put God in a time, since time is simply a measure of change and God does not change. The worst thing, of course, is the fact that there is no ‘Heavenly 9 O’clock News’. By that I mean that God does not communicate with us at all, unless it is through dubious miracles to show his love, or through tusammies, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc, to show his anger. Let’s sacrifice a few health zealots, when we get control.

You see, in a simple way, there is a fracture in the physical danger of being a temporal, living human being and the permanence of the soul. That is the hardest thing to reconcile. I am the same person that I have always been, even though my body has changed over the years, and even though my personality has changed over the years. My personality is part of my body, but WHO I AM has not changed.

Stated in those terms, it is also possible to think that I do not really know ‘who I am’. All I know is that, over my 75 years, I have always been the same person ever since I ceased to be a baby and became aware, despite my often stupid, selfish, greedy, malevolent behaviour. My ‘soul’, that which is me, remains the same.

Essentially, there is no problem with the creation of the physical universe. We can think about it, but our thoughts do not matter, since we cannot begin to understand. There is no need to go into detail. The mere facts of the ‘micro’ and the ‘macro’, as we see the universe, together with the existence of Space, which seems to be ‘nothing’, but really exists, must make us humble. There is a huge problem, which is ‘the problem of evil’.  How can an all powerful God countenance the existence of evil?

The teaching of the Catholic Church has always been that we humans cannot see the Big Picture. We are looking at the back of beautiful tapestry, and all we can see is the stitchings. We cannot see the beauty on the face of the tapestry.

Even as a catholic student, I had my doubts about this explanation. Why should God hide the beautiful face of the tapestry?

So we fall back, and have no alternative, to Adam and Eve, who buggered up a perfect Garden of Eden by eating the forbidden fruit. The utter nonsense of that blather is proven by the simple expedient of the clear fact, from fossil records, that humans did not exist on this planet when nature was ‘red in tooth and claw’ – the age of the dinosaurs.

====

I do not think that it is possible for us to understand. We have not even figured out the simple question of what Space is. Could anything be simpler? There is this massive ‘thing’, Space, which all the scientists, philosophers, cosmologists, astronomers pretend to believe is ’emptiness’ – that it is nothingness – that is is non-existence. As far as I know, only Einstein contemplated the nature of Space, and even he ‘chickened out’ a bit by describing it as ‘g’ – ‘the gravitational field’. There is a real ‘thing’ which exists between the Earth and the Moon, and it is called Space. It is not emptiness.

===

I have ventured into forbidden territory tonight, just a little. But I have to say that Christian ideals must propel us into a new way of thinking for the 21st century, and that Muslim ideals should also propel us in the same direction. That is, that it is true that the human population can only expand to a certain extent before disaster occurs. The disaster may be man-made wars, or it may be famine. It would be better if the UN elite just stated the potential problem rather than hiding their opinions by using words like ‘sustainability’.

The weird thing is that, at the same time as worrying about ‘sustainability’ (aka population control), the UN is also trying to ensure that humans live as long as possible.

Have you ever know such an enormous example of CATCH 22?

Forgive typos. I must publish and to bed.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Should Health Department and ASH Employees Be Permitted to Drink Alcohol?”

  1. Ed Says:

    It looks like you’ve been deep down the rabbit hole tonight Junican! 🙂 Your comments do lead you down the path of what is a soul and indeed what is reality!

    One of the greatest physicists alive and the grandfather of digital physics is a very interesting chap called Ed Fredkin. For those that like playing computer chess, then thank this guy;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin

    Ed firmly believes in “other”, or at least a supreme being/consciousness that initially pressed a “run” button that created this physical universe. In essence our reality is just information, and because a system can’t compute itself, it must be computed in “other”, or something outside our frame of reality. An interesting paper of his that’s well worth a read is “on the soul”. A soul in essence would be an “information packet” in digital terms and the paper discusses capturing a “soul” after death.
    If you scroll down on this page you can download the draft of this paper here;

    https://keychests.com/item.php?v=enzyojjhxkg

    Of course, Fredkin says what other physicists won’t touch with a medicated barge pole. A more detailed look into his digital philosophy reveals;

    “ In 1992, Edward Fredkin published two papers which are the indispensable shots-across-the bow in understanding the universe in which we live as an artifact produced by programming on a computer. An earlier profile of Fredkin published in The Atlantic Monthly in 1988 had stated the gist of Fredkin’s thinking on the subject. The article had noted that many of Fredkin’s ideas about physics and computing were acceptable to the scientific community, but his conclusions were not considered to be within the realm of science. “If Fredkin … stopped at saying that the universe operates as if it were a computer, he could improve his stature among physicists….”[1] Fortunately for the rest of us, he did not stop there: the universe operates as if it were a computer because it is a computer.”

    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/finite-all.html

    Nick Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher at Oxford Uni, has a similar, but darker view, in the fact we may all just be a simulation in some massive quantum computer;

    http://www.simulation-argument.com/

    Lastly, you would need a big TOE! TOE being – theory of everything. This would marry our conventional physics with quantum physics (unified field theory) which Einstein failed to do. An ex- NASA physicist and researcher at the Munroe Institute (where they studied the effects of out of body experience, remote viewing, telepathy, etc) for over 30 years, has done this. Tom Campbell is highly respected in his field and does seminars/lectures which can be viewed on youtube, but basically harks back to Fredkin’s hypothesis in the fact we are all most likely living in a digital virtual reality;

    • junican Says:

      I have just read the first link – the Wikipedia one. It is gobbledegook to me. I have also watched the video – the last link. I need time to address the other links.Thanks for supplying them.

      I spent several years trying to get my head around Relativity Theory. If you try hard and spend time mulling over things, you can understand. But it is all counter-intuitive, which means that it is very hard to remember. There is no time to go into it now, but we can swiftly give an example. Imagine a very long vehicle – say a train with lots of carriages but with all the connecting doors between the carriages open so that there is a long distance from the front end of the train to the rear end. Suppose that there is a source of light (such as a flashlight) at the front end and a person at the back end.

      Scenario 1: The train is stationary, and the flashlight flashes. The passenger at the back of the train sees the flash an instant later.
      Scenario 2: The train is moving very fast in a forward direction. The flashlight flashes. Because the passenger is ‘hastening towards the light’, would he see the flash sooner than he did when the train was stationary?
      The answer is “No”, because the forward movement of the flashlight away from the passenger is cancelled out by the movement of the passenger towards the light.
      The situation gets more complicated if you imagine the passenger to be in the middle of the train, and also imagine a flashlight at the back end of the train. Thus, when the train is stationary, if both flashlights flashed at the same instant, you would expect the passenger to see both flashes at the same instant. But suppose that the train was moving rapidly forward?
      Again, the movements would cancel out.
      The importance of this example is that the interior of the train is disconnected from the exterior. As far as the interior of the train is concerned, it does not matter whether the train is moving or not. All observers would ‘measure’ the speed of light as the same, regardless of whether they were moving or not.
      That is a simplified version, because things change when the train and its contents are accelerating or decelerating in that, even though the speed of light is the same, the wavelengths and frequencies of light change. Further, objects which are accelerating become shorter in their length, and objects decelerating become longer.

      The General Theory of Relativity, essentially, transports the Special Theory into Space. The emitters of light are now not flashlights but Suns. Light from Suns always travels at the same speed, but how does gravity affect light? A couple of astronomical expeditions to try to observe the bending of light as a result of the gravitational field of the Sun were successful. Star charts showed that particular stars should be in position X in the sky at a particular moment. During the eclipse, they were seen to be not quite where they should be. It is obvious that the stars themselves had not jumped backwards or forwards. The only explanation is that the gravitational field of the Sun had bent the light from the stars.

      But (and this is where Einstein chickened out at the time), it makes much more sense to imagine that light itself was not bent. It makes much more sense to imagine that the space through which the light was passing was bent.

      Thus we come back to the failure of Astronomy and Physics to decide what Space actually IS. What is certain is that Space is ‘a thing’. It is not ‘nothingness’.

      —-

      This has been a long comment, and does not address ‘the spiritual’. I need to rest and think about your other links.

  2. Rose Says:

    I have always thought that anyone who has anything to do with anti-tobacco should have the courage of their convictions and abstain from eating anything that contains even the merest trace of nicotine.

    6.1
    “Many commonly and widely consumed vegetables of the nightshade family (Solanaceae) such as potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants and capsicums naturally contain low levels of nicotine. Nicotine has also been detected in cauliflower and tea – two non-solanaceous plants.”
    http://web.archive.org/web/20090629142438/http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/P278_Nicotine_FAR_Final.pdf

    They might have been able to claim ignorance in the past but there is no excuse now.

    • junican Says:

      All humans, whatever their age, if they eat those vegetables, absorb some nicotine which flows around their bloodstream in just the same way that nicotine absorbed through the lungs does. I cannot see any difference.
      TC is engaged in a huge propaganda exercise to differentiate between smells and tastes. For example, if I eat a well-done sirloin steak, at the same time as experiencing the taste, I inhale the carcinogens from the burnt bits. “There is no safe level” of inhaling carcinogenic substances.
      Or is there? Who will describe the toxicology of absorbed carcinogens?
      It seems to me that there is a circular argument. This is especially true of Doll’s conjecture/allegation that there is a ‘time delay’ between smoking and lung cancer. ‘A’ got lung cancer after 30 years of heavy smoking; ‘B’ got lung cancer after 40 years of light smoking; ‘C’, a non-smoker, did not die from LC. Therefore, C has had a happy, fulfilled life. That is the implication.

      • garyk30 Says:

        The number of years smokers have smoked or the amount smokedhas no bearing on the age at which they are diagnosed with lung cancer;because:

        Smokers and never smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer at about the same age!!

        US Mortality:From 2001-2005, the median age at death for cancer of the lung and bronchus was 72 years of age.

        http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/25/5/472
        RESULTS
        Although never smokers were slightly older at lung cancer diagnosis than current smokers in two population-based cohorts (MEC and NHEFS), this difference was not observed in the majority of cohorts evaluated (NHS, HPFS, CTS, and U/OLCR; Table 2).

      • junican Says:

        That is very curious. It doesn’t really make sense. Suppose three people are diagnosed with LC at the age of, say, 60. A has smoked 50 cigs per day since 20 years of age, B has smoked 15 cigs/day for the same length of time, and C has never smoked but has been exposed to SHS. Is there any known toxin which can be absorbed, a) in minuscule quantities, b) in low quantities, and, c) in large quantities, and yet produce the same result as regards ‘health’ according to the same time-table?
        There must be something wrong with the whole concept.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: