A commenter to yesterday’s post made me realise just how true my heading is.
He said that most smokers now no longer go to the pub – they drink at home. I don’t know if national statistics have shown such a thing. They may have, but it all depends upon what questions are asked, and what people say in surveys. It is a well-known fact, I understand, that people under-report how much they eat, so it is not unlikely that they will under-report how much they drink. Before I started drinking substantially at home, it was comparatively easy to say how much I drank on average each week; all I had to do was multiply three by nine, which was my ‘normal’ intake each time I went to the pub – three pints. I suppose that I could add a couple more on Friday nights. But, now, I have no real idea. Perhaps more importantly, I have no wish to think about it. What does it matter?
But there is no doubt that very few smokers now go the pub. It is also true that many fewer non-smokers go to the pub. It is a matter of fact that some 17,000 pubs have closed since the smoking ban in England.
So the constant nagging by TC for the last several decades has frightened people sufficiently that they no longer avail themselves of the ‘appetite suppressing’ drug, nicotine. So they eat more – and more, and more. They cannot help themselves.
I can only quote my own experience. I enjoy my food very much, but I rarely feel hungry. That’s the whole point – I rarely feel hungry. Why do I rarely feel hungry, even though I enjoy my food and am physically quite active (you have to be when you are looking after a disabled person!)? It makes sense that my ‘nicotine habit’ suppresses my appetite, but does not stop me from enjoying my food.
So we see two effects of smoking propaganda and smoking bans. One, the incessant propaganda has caused obesity, and, two, smoking bans have caused people to drink at home more excessively than they would have otherwise.
If I stopped there, I would be behaving like TC in that I would advancing only ONE reason for this or that, and not including OTHER reasons. The reduction in the need for physical activity must ALSO contribute to obesity, but what about alcoholism?
The reality is that ‘youths’ (18 – 24) do not drink as much alcohol as they used to, but middle aged people drink more. That is what national statistics says. Is it not likely that the people most affected by smoking bans are middle-aged smokers who have become somewhat set in their ways? Those that have brought up their kids, are paying off their mortgages, are working in jobs with somewhat more responsibility, who would rather smoke and relax (and drink) at home than bother to go to boring pubs?
What is the answer?
I saw a piece tonight in the New York Times (I think) which complained that Trump, President Elect of the USA, was denigrating honest, investigative journalism. What a load of shit! We smokers all know that the New York Times has been promulgating anti-smoker propaganda for years! They headline the fear-mongering blatherings of ‘Experts’ without any ‘investigation’ at all. The piece in question particularly talked about Trump’s disregard for ‘Climate Change’. How awful!
Trump seems to have embraced Social Media. He has bypassed the MSM, and the newspapers do not like it. They especially do not like being ignored by Trump. But they are blowing in the wind. Social media is here to stay, and there is nothing that politicians or newspapers can do about it. Scepticism is also here to stay.
Politicians, if they had any sense, would stop and reverse micro-management. Such management is very, very expensive. It is not a solution to move that micro-management to local authorities. There are simple answers – do not fix what is not broken. Fix those things which are broken. Fix especially the things which you yourself have broken.
One of the things that especially annoys me is the difficulty of reversing erroneous legislation. You would think that the Tories would reverse legislation which they opposed in Opposition, but they never do. Nor do Labour in the reverse situation. The inference is obvious – their opposition was manufactured. They really did not give a shit.
So we have a situation where the Press claims to be ‘courageous’, but is acquiescent; politicians claim to be ‘free-thinking’, but they are not. Social media is revealing those failings, faulty though Social Media might be.
It will take some time, but I am sure that,eventually, truth and facts will prevail.