MY CALORIES ARE MY OWN BUSINESS !

I am increasingly concerned by the way in which our supposedly 'free' society is being told what to do.

Over the years, the 'health fanatics' have managed to get smoking, and smokers, not just vilified but banned from many arenas. No longer are cigarette manufacturers allowed to advertise even their names, let alone their products. Today, many of the same do-gooders are working to ban the use of e-cigarettes, the relatively harmless replacement for the real thing on all manner of spurious grounds.

Fair enough, smoking is a proven killer and it may not be such a bad thing to take steps to reduce its impact on society, but those who were so active in the campaign to have it banned have now turned their attention to many other areas of our lives. These health fascists, who believe that they know best how the rest of us should be living our lives, want to stop us drinking alcohol, eating sugary foods, eating 'too much' meat, and now even things like the size of a pizza are under attack.

It is reported today that Public Health England, a ludicrously named government agency which prides itself on 'protecting' the nation's health, is said to be 'targeting'  pizzas, ready meals processed meat and takeaways in what is referred to as a 'new obesity drive'. This is, apparently, part of an initiative aimed at cutting the average calorie intake of individuals by 20% by 2024. For me this is dieting by government diktat and akin to the behaviour of a totalitarian state.

I don't deny that there are many obese people in our country today nor that being obese is a potential health risk, but I fail to see what our individual lifestyles, which do not affect others, have to do with government. If people are happy with eating 'junk food' all day, every day, fine; if some want to drink more than the government recommended limit of 14 units of alcohol each week, good for them. It is not the business of government to dictate what we each do in our private lives - next they will be telling us how many times we should have sex each week and in what positions !

That some people have problems of alcohol consumption or being overweight is undeniable, but the way to tackle such things is by education in the first place and by penalties in the second, not by imposing restrictions on the lives of the entire population. If people have been provided with the appropriate information and choose to ignore it, that is their look out; if they subsequently suffer health problems because of their lifestyle, they should bear the costs of putting things right, not society as a whole. At the same time, if I want to munch on a huge, sugary chocolate bar or a giant pizza, I should not be penalised either by price or by finding that my heart's desire has been withdrawn form sale because it did not meet government guidelines.

Minimum pricing on alcohol, sugar taxes, smaller but no less costly chocolate bars and sweets, smaller pizzas, bans on this, that and everything; is this the way for a 'free' society to live ? The nannies who always 'know best', like Public Health England and the Chief Medical Officer, Sally Davies (whose medical background is in the very limited area of blood disorders) must not be allowed to turn our country into one in which we all live the lives they tell us to rather than living our own and taking responsibility for ourselves.

The people rose up in huge numbers to tell the establishment what we thought about the European Union. Perhaps it is now time to do the same about this creeping intrusion into our everyday lives as well.

NOW HEALTH FASCISTS GET TO WORK ON ALCOHOL.

Today's news carries the bad news that the 'health fascists' appear to have won the argument over minimum pricing for alcohol. It seems that the government is to publish a consultation paper on the matter, which normally means it's made up its mind and is now simply going through the motions of pretending to listen to the views of interested parties.

 

No one can be in any doubt that there are people in our society who drink from too young an age and / or drink excessively; some drink to such excess that it results in anti-social behaviour as well as causing serious damage to their health. However, introducing a minimum price for all sales of alcohol is simply using a paper sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

Most people do not drink to excess, they actually drink fairly responsibly; these people will be equally affected by the proposed legislation. Whether they get through one bottle of wine a week or one bottle of gin a month, they may well find themselves paying much more than now for their tipple. In round figures, a minimum price of 45p per unit would see a fairly standard bottle of wine, say at a strength of 12%, having to cost at least £4.05, while it would be illegal to sell a standard bottle of spirits for less than £12.60. Beers that are often sold in supermarkets for around £1.50 would suddenly rise in price to £1.80 or more.

 

Many questions arise.

Are things really as bad as the government claims, both in terms of public disorder and health consequences ?

Is it reasonable to try to control a tiny minority of the population by imposing price controls on us all ?

Will introducing minimum prices actually have the desired effect ? What is the real evidence ? Alcohol is not a product like furniture or electrical goods; it is more like mobile 'phones, designer clothing and cigarettes. The price / demand curve may act anomalously.

Is it right that the government, any government, controls the price of any product in a free society ? (We all know what happened in the USA when they tried to outlaw the sale of alcohol in the 1920s).

How will the minimum price be obtained ? Will it be through higher duties and VAT, or will the retailers simply make a greater profit ?

How will pricing be monitored ? Will we have yet another government watchdog, OFHOL perhaps, set up and run at enormous cost to the public purse, and with its snoopers around every corner ?

 

Accepting that there is a problem with some people in some areas, why on earth doesn't the government address these people and areas directly, rather than trying to impose draconian legislation on the whole nation ? If there are people who cause disruption in towns either by the irresponible sale or consumption of alcohol, deal with them. Close down retailers who sell to underage drinkers and give the weekend town centre louts proper punishments, but do not take this fascist approach of trying to regiment the whole of our society - it will not work and will end in tears.

 

With cigarettes, successive governments have increased the duty until prices are now at a ridiculous level, and yet still many people smoke and more start every day, including many who are far too young to buy cigarettes for themselves. They have banned smoking in many places and yet still smokers carry on; they're in the process of banning displays of cigarettes and yet still new smokers appear. Presumably, this is the pattern that will now follow for alcohol. When minimim pricing doesn't have the desired effect, the BMA and other fascist groups will demand further action. No drinking in public places, then restrictions on sales outlets and hidden displays - this may seem impossible, but it will happen.

 

Responsible drinkers must join the fight now or face a future in which there won't even be a single glass of wine with their dinner, or a single beer with their pals in the pub.