Prevention better than cure .... but "spoils my fun"?

[cycle tramp]

Our new PM is now being revealed as perhaps what was always in plain sight. He seems keen to reduce or eliminate harms that cause all sorts of ills via the consumption of various "lifestyle" consumables, smoking even in the pub garden being a current topic.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/l ... tive-state

'“If anything defines Starmerism, it’s the belief that prevention is better than cure,” one government aide told me.'

But wot U fink?

Our current pm is behaving in the same way that all other pms behave, that us they seek to take control over our lives whether we have asked them to or not...
The have plans... their little schemes . Their own ideal of an ideal society that we're all supposed to fit into...

'People shouldn't be scared of their governments, the governments should be afraid of their people'
V for Vendetta

[gbnz]

..the idea that alcohol is somehow safe in moderation is a lie.

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04 ... our-health

..and points to the general hypocrisy within ........ some parts of society- which is that.......... people will speak about banning what they don't enjoy, like smoking .......... but will not even think about banning things that they do enjoy, like drinking

+ 1. Perfect timing, have recognized that I need to cut down on my "smoking diatribes". Living in a socio economically split town, having slipped into the practice of "smoker" rants the past couple of years is a bit much . Think it's largely due to having been obligated to travel distance by bus for the past 5yr's

But particularly having recognised that the weekend bottle of wine(now 's) post weekend rides has to cease . Don't know how that slipped into Friday and Saturday as routine, thankfully never a Sunday. Pity that the plan to limit myself purely to a pint on a ride hasn't worked - several pints 2024 is a huge increase from typical 1-2 pints a year, noticeable that wine enjoyed on the same weekends hasn't been reduced

[pwa]

..the idea that alcohol is somehow safe in moderation is a lie.

https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04 ... our-health

..and points to the general hypocrisy within ........ some parts of society- which is that.......... people will speak about banning what they don't enjoy, like smoking .......... but will not even think about banning things that they do enjoy, like drinking

+ 1. Perfect timing, have recognized that I need to cut down on my "smoking diatribes". Living in a socio economically split town, having slipped into the practice of "smoker" rants the past couple of years is a bit much . Think it's largely due to having been obligated to travel distance by bus for the past 5yr's

But particularly having recognised that the weekend bottle of wine(now 's) post weekend rides has to cease . Don't know how that slipped into Friday and Saturday as routine, thankfully never a Sunday. Pity that the plan to limit myself purely to a pint on a ride hasn't worked - several pints 2024 is a huge increase from typical 1-2 pints a year, noticeable that wine enjoyed on the same weekends hasn't been reduced

Yes, I should cut back a little on the wine too. It's the old story, starting with a bottle a week and creeping up, perhaps now at two per week. Not a disaster, but not as I would like it. Time to reel it in a bit, starting with a few days with none. I'll feel better for it.

It is often said that the most fervent anti-smokers are people who used to smoke but gave it up. I met a bloke who falls into that category a few weeks ago. He works in pubs and used to smoke, but has ditched the fags and now welcomes the fact that his workplace is smoke-free. He talked about how he used to take the smoke at the bar for granted, but he couldn't imagine going back to that. Nor could I. I go to pubs occasionally for meals, but if they were ever to go back to having smoking areas, that would be the end of pub visits for me.

[cycle tramp]

...the issue has always been, that is publicly accept to drink. Its advertised on television, soap operas, murder mysteries and the like revolve around the insides of pubs, and going back to medieval times drinking alcohol was a very good way of ensuring you weren't drinking any thing with bacteria or viruses in it which would kill you faster or at least make you wish that you were dead..

..ah, its not the middle ages anymore, and whilst it's your body to do with as you feel fit to do so - I think in the fairness of open communication, any alcoholic drink should have its calorie content clearly visible and perhaps a small warning that you've upped the risk of developing cancer, so perhaps eating a couple more vegetables and some nuts (on the understanding that you're not allergic to either) might be a good idea..

..the difficulty is to bring about these changes, you need a high proportion of mps who don't drink, in the same way that anti smoking laws were brought in by mps who don't smoke - so any movement on the alcohol front is not going to happen soon...

..I also feel at this point those of us who are not alcohol drinkers should be better catered for in pubs.... if only because of the loss of market share.. coke is not the only soft drink available.... really, be more creative guys

[Cugel]

Well, I feel that these days there's far too much being sold as "fun" that turns out to be no fun at all. Alcohol is one-such and gambling is another. Habitual junkfudding is no fun either, especially when the heart attack comes or the diabetes means a leg off.

Part of the technique of selling dangerous-but-fun stuff to the public at large is to first infantilise us so that we get all hand-clappy, bright-eyed excited by any old nonsense. "Oooooooh - a new and amusing gew-gaw with built-in habit-forming elements! Gimme ten!" (It'll be a hundred by the end of the month).

My new inner-cynic just want to laugh at the fools (including my own inner fool) damaging ourselves to death ..... but my older I-cares persona is less unfeeling and would like to throttle those "fun" sellers with all their damaging tricks & profitting about.

The New Model Labour Party though seems to be basically and Olde Model Torylite paty. It's going to be the same-old same-old with a bit more PR empty-gesturing of "fixing things". Ha ha. The Spectacle continues, with the same old circus acts, as the four horsemen on the horizon keep riding this way.

[cycle tramp]

..Going back to my student days in advertising.. here's a beer commercial...

...its starts with the end of the working day, and a group of men who do labour intensive jobs (lumberjacks, foundry working, quarrying) driving or motorcycling to a bar. These are rugged beat up, solid and still functioning vehicles. The beer is pulled, or the top's flipped off the bottle, and as the glasses fill up, the rock band in the background starts up, and the men congratulate themselves on a hard days work, whilst watching the sun go down...

And then a government voice, perhaps a female voice, is heard saying 'warning, this product may cause erectile disfunction and or loose stools'... bang...no one is drinking that stuff again....

[Psamathe]

One important aspect to regulation is the most people don't and shouldn't have time and expertise to make sensible decisions of the vast range of factors influencing our well-being, particularly when often those decisions will mean reading and balancing detailed scientific research papers.

Some might find the impact of eg UPFs interesting and read-up on the subject to be able to make a sensible decision but that would probably not leave then enough spare time to research and balance the impact of 2nd hand vaping for an hour twice a week and the risks from sitting in a traffic jam breathing PMs for 30 mins each weekday evening ...

Add that where something has a significant impact acting on/avoiding such factors might be possible by an individual.

So we become dependent on our politicians following scientific advice rather than their personal ideology and seeking popularity.

Ian

[PH]

Our current pm is behaving in the same way that all other pms behave, that us they seek to take control over our lives whether we have asked them to or not...
The have plans... their little schemes . Their own ideal of an ideal society that we're all supposed to fit into...

If only we had some way of knowing what they were going to be like before an election

[Psamathe]

Our current pm is behaving in the same way that all other pms behave, that us they seek to take control over our lives whether we have asked them to or not...
The have plans... their little schemes . Their own ideal of an ideal society that we're all supposed to fit into...

If only we had some way of knowing what they were going to be like before an election :roll:

In Starmer's case all the signs were there pre the vote - the reason I couldn't vote Labour. Even here pre-election during the campaigning people were posting about how they thought that Starmer was only behaving & saying the way he was was to get elected and once elected he would be different and be as we wanted!

Ian

[pwa]

...the issue has always been, that is publicly accept to drink. Its advertised on television, soap operas, murder mysteries and the like revolve around the insides of pubs, and going back to medieval times drinking alcohol was a very good way of ensuring you weren't drinking any thing with bacteria or viruses in it which would kill you faster or at least make you wish that you were dead..

..ah, its not the middle ages anymore, and whilst it's your body to do with as you feel fit to do so - I think in the fairness of open communication, any alcoholic drink should have its calorie content clearly visible and perhaps a small warning that you've upped the risk of developing cancer, so perhaps eating a couple more vegetables and some nuts (on the understanding that you're not allergic to either) might be a good idea..

..the difficulty is to bring about these changes, you need a high proportion of mps who don't drink, in the same way that anti smoking laws were brought in by mps who don't smoke - so any movement on the alcohol front is not going to happen soon...

..I also feel at this point those of us who are not alcohol drinkers should be better catered for in pubs.... if only because of the loss of market share.. coke is not the only soft drink available.... really, be more creative guys

Alcohol is deeply harmful for some people. I've seen a few good people die early because of it. But there is a level of alcohol use at which the benefits, for some at least, outweigh the risks. I strive for that happy medium in my own consumption. After a glass of wine I tend to be more relaxed and talkative with strangers. After two glasses I'm on top form. After three I'm becoming less interesting and contributing less to conversation. It rarely, if ever, goes beyond that point these days. So for me, a little alcohol a couple of times a week makes life just a little better.

[briansnail]

Where would you draw the line along

Trouble is the science changes.As Woody Allen joked.Who knew in 2050 that drinking and fried eggs were good for you.Of course if we stopped treats. It would mean more people would be unemployed and mentally depressed.That would have a knock on effect on vital industry like car manufacturing to holiday travel.Crime would soar
Quick save British industry.Nip out for a pint and that cream cake.
*****************************
I ride Brompton,Hetchins 531

[axel_knutt]

My parents raised me to be a non smoker, but if I hadn't shrugged and wondered what the point of it was when I took a puff on a fag that my peers were passing round at the back of the Scout hut I might have still ended up one.

My father smoked a pipe for a short while, just because there was a free baccy ration in the Navy and he wasn't the type to pass up a freebie. He stopped again for no other reason than he broke the pipe.

My mother started smoking 7 years after her pipe smoking father died of lung cancer. Why? She was grumbling about her nerves one day at work, so another woman suggested getting a packet of fags out of the machine. She worried about it, and made numerous attempts at stopping, but that made her nerves so much worse the kindly GP told her to stop worrying about trying to quit, and keep smoking. She died of COPD.

Well, I feel that these days there's far too much being sold as "fun" that turns out to be no fun at all. Alcohol is one-such and gambling is another. Habitual junkfudding is no fun either, especially when the heart attack comes or the diabetes means a leg off.

Who gets to define what's fun and what isn't?

Lots of people think there's no fun in cycling, particularly if you end up with your kidney wrapped around a propshaft. I don't see much fun in watching people kick a bladder of wind round a field for 90 minutes, especially if I get my head kicked in by rival fans, but my father was a lifelong Leeds United fan. Kissing is just a pointless way of spreading germs if you ignore the fact that people enjoy it.

One important aspect to regulation is the most people don't and shouldn't have time and expertise to make sensible decisions of the vast range of factors influencing our well-being, particularly when often those decisions will mean reading and balancing detailed scientific research papers.

It's the government's job to provide it's citizens with the information to make informed decisions about their welfare, but even when they do there's a chorus of "nanny state telling us what to do again".

People are about 1000 times more sensitive to a risk that's imposed upon them than one they choose for themselves, which is a big factor in deciding what should be banned and what shouldn't. Smoking has secondary effects for those inhaling other's smoke, but what about the effect an alcoholic has on his family, or the cost rock climbing imposes on the NHS? What about the people who died in Lockerbie just because some Americans wanted to fly home for Christmas?

[Psamathe]

...

One important aspect to regulation is the most people don't and shouldn't have time and expertise to make sensible decisions of the vast range of factors influencing our well-being, particularly when often those decisions will mean reading and balancing detailed scientific research papers.

It's the government's job to provide it's citizens with the information to make informed decisions about their welfare, but even when they do there's a chorus of "nanny state telling us what to do again".
...

It's an interesting one but I'm either not sure or it depends on the particular issue eg. I tell somebody that it's bad for their health living next to a busy road with lots of PM pollution so they go to their Council and ask to be rehoused and Council refuse - it that right or is it the Government's job to implement legislation to stop the air pollution.

Many years ago it was acceptable for people to smoke in the office. Should the Government just have warned those non-smokers that passive smoking is bad for their health or should they put in place legislation to prevent smokers exposing others to health risks?

Ian

[Cugel]

Alcohol is deeply harmful for some people. I've seen a few good people die early because of it. But there is a level of alcohol use at which the benefits, for some at least, outweigh the risks. I strive for that happy medium in my own consumption. After a glass of wine I tend to be more relaxed and talkative with strangers. After two glasses I'm on top form. After three I'm becoming less interesting and contributing less to conversation. It rarely, if ever, goes beyond that point these days. So for me, a little alcohol a couple of times a week makes life just a little better.

My own condition has probably always been: one pint and I'm anybody's; two pints and I'm nobody's. I'm a happy drunk (and it doesn't take much) but also likely to nod orf rather than do drunken antics.

The only virtue of alcohol is that it can reduce the sometimes overweening inhibitions in some folk, so that they can socialise rather than scurrying orf to hide away from the madding crowd. But the toxic effects on one's body is a rather high price to pay - not to mention all those other effects its infamous for, from wife beating to running over others with the car.

[PH]

If only we had some way of knowing what they were going to be like before an election

In Starmer's case all the signs were there pre the vote - the reason I couldn't vote Labour. Even here pre-election during the campaigning people were posting about how they thought that Starmer was only behaving & saying the way he was was to get elected and once elected he would be different and be as we wanted!

Ian

I heard people saying that sort of thing as well, I thought them foolish. To act as anything other than that which they were elected as would be a gift for the opposition and the media (Often the same thing). It would ensure IMO that they were only in power for one term.
I voted Labour, it isn't the Labour Party I would wish for, but in my opinion, during the time I've been eligible to vote, the worst Labour governments have been better than the best Tory ones.
I'd also rather less of this was laid at Starmer's feet, yes he's the PM, but what the last Labour leader ought to have taught us, is you don't get very far if the Party isn't behind you, at least the Parliamentary part of it. I know there are some dissenting voices in the PLP, but I think the majority either support, or accept, the current direction.