Gambling problems? You Bet!

Common Sense On Gambling?
Don’t Bet On It

It seems odds-on that Britain is about to see a whole new wave of gambling casinos springing up across the country, and, as always, many people aren’t terribly happy about it. The door to an increase in the number of casinos nationwide has been opened by relaxing the laws on gaming. There are now almost 100 new casinos being planned for British towns and cities.

This news comes on the back of a report which shows that Britain is ever more becoming a nation of gamblers, with a 5-fold increase over the past 3 years, and the creation of roughly 300,000 people who seemingly can’t stop throwing money at horses, sports teams, and a white Christmas. Most of the increase is being blamed on the rise of internet betting - stick in your credit card details and you’re away. You don’t really see the money going, at least not for a month of so when a weighty bank bill plummets through the letter box onto the floor. Britain currently leads Europe when it comes to the number of gamblers, and is third only behind Japan and the United States in the world.

There have been a number of dissenting voices against the latest plans for expansion. Tim Batstone, president of BACTA, which represents the UK gaming industry, comments that, “We expect that by 2010 there will be 703,000 problem gamblers, more than twice as many as at the moment.”

Tessa Jowell also called for caution. She said that any changes need to happen very slowly and some checks implemented into the system: “Reform needs to be taken in steady steps, not giant leaps. I think it’s right to limit the high-prize slot machines to regional casinos. We have relatively low rates of problem [licensed] gambling in the UK. New protections are urgently needed.” A spokesman for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport added the concern that, “Lip-service has been paid to the problem gambling that will inevitably result. . . Protecting gamblers and vulnerable people is the number one priority of the Bill and if we believe that, following two studies, which will be done after casinos arrive in the UK, if there is evidence that these are causing harm or a rise in problem gambling, then there are powers to act.” Finally, Paul Kenny, a representative of the GMB union, said that, “To suggest that an explosion in casinos is all good news leaves aside the effect on existing jobs, which will be blown away by the impact of the resort hotels.”

So, the main problems in the minds of some people are: (1) the impact of this new Bill on current jobs and, (2) the rise in so-called “problem gambling,” especially among those who are poor and “addicted.” In response to these problems some people have suggested government legislation to limit the number of casinos, the number of gaming machines, and the size of the large payouts that attract more people.

I would have bet my life on it that something paternalistic would raise it’s ugly authoritarian head. However, we should ignore it. The first rule of gambling is the same as that which governs any other economic matter: my money is my money and I should be able spend it however I please. Of course, many people gamble away silly sums of money, but that is no concern of mine. Gambling is not unique is this regard. People blow stupid amounts of money on a whole host of things, most of which are considered to be perfectly legitimate ends: clothes, holidays, music, wide-screen televisions, cars, houses, jewellery and a million and one latest technological gadgets, such as mobile phones with 5000 ring tones and 10,000 mind numbing games. Never once have I heard a politician call for regulatory controls to limit the amount of money Cindy can spend on the latest fashion accessories at the weekend. Nor have I ever heard of a group lobbying for a reduction in the number of high-street stores selling over-priced fashion items with the lie that some fat and ugly punter can look like the model in the catalogue.

The phrase “problem gambler” has occurred in almost every news report of this story. But, what does this phrase actually mean? In what way is some given person a “problem gambler?” Problem to whom? They aren’t spending anyone’s money but their own. When you place a bet you are aware of the risks and must be prepared to take the hit of losing. Moreover, as I said above, many people spend stupid amounts of money on a whole host of things: are they “problem shoppers?” “problem homebuyers?” “problem music-lovers?” “problem necklace wearers?” “problem TV watchers?” “problem theatre-goers?”

It seems that if someone is “addicted” to something it is considered as a “problem.” But, this whole notion of addiction needs to be challenged much more than it ever is. In what way can someone be addicted to gambling? It’s hardly a genetic trait like having brown hair. There is no “slot-machine gene.” The language of addiction suggests irresistibility. My knowledge of physics is patchy but as far as I’m aware there is no magnetic field surrounding people that sucks them into the nearest book-makers, and no irresistible physical mechanism by which someone’s hand is twisted behind their back to fetch the wallet. The human spirit is much more robust than our new breed of pseudo-psychologists make out, with their nonsense that people are helpless victims of some monster - gambling, sex, violence - over which they have no control. The truth is that it’s very easy not to gamble. You simply don’t perform the physical actions necessary to placing a bet: walking into a book-makers, lifting a pen, and selecting the 200-1 blind horse with three legs and a limp. You don’t believe me? Look at yourself right now - reading this article - not gambling. Simple. If you don’t want to be possessed by the gambling demon then just keep reading.

The most likely objection to what I have been saying about individual choice in how we spend our money runs something like this: “But, what about those people who gamble so much that they affect others beyond themselves who have no choice, such as children who perhaps don’t eat properly because Mum and Dad are too busy feeding poker machines?” A prima facie persuasive response, but actually quite vacuous. The problem in such instances is not gambling. The problem is their gambling. What about those people who shop so much that they affect others beyond themselves who have no choice, such as children who perhaps don’t eat properly because Mum and Dad are too busy feeding the already fat designers of the latest fashion? Again, people waste their money on a whole host of things - not just gambling. We need to stop blaming the pursuits - which are after all merely neutral - and start blaming the idiots who abuse their own participation in them. Gambling does not cause poverty in such instances. Stupid people cause it. Since their actions harm others beyond themselves we should take action against them, if their actions harm non-consenting parties, not against gambling, or shopping, or foreign holidays. There is a better case for taking the children of such people into care than there is for legislating against gambling.

It’s amazing that there is such a prejudice against gambling. All gambling is is an investment, usually financial, aimed at reaping a reward. You weigh up the costs and benefits and act accordingly - playing the odds and taking your chances. Is there much difference between this and investing in stocks and shares? Or buying a house? Or setting up a personal pension plan? Or investing time and money training in an attempt to get some particular job? My own father lost more money on his pension plan when the company he worked for went bankrupt than he ever did in a bookmakers.

Gambling is simply taking a chance with something of value to you. Some people win, and some people lose. I think therein lies a major problem in the minds of the current politically-correct establishment. Modern culture doesn’t like the idea that some people will be losers. Everyone is meant to get a prize. But, when there is an element of chance it is inevitable that many people will not. So, the only way to ensure that all will indeed have prizes is to control everything as far as possible, thus eliminating chance. If that means controlling our behaviour, our money, and ultimately the most significant aspects of our lives then there exists an entire culture of people willing to do just that.

This is simply one more attack on an already battered looking concept of freedom. One of the slogans of George Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984 is “slavery is freedom.” We must ensure that this does not happen. The only way to do so is to support freedom of choice and individual responsibility in our everyday lives and issues, and in this particular instance we should applaud the relaxing of regulation and encourage a move towards a freer market in which individuals make choices for themselves and accept responsibility for them.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons).

New Rules for the New Age

In light of recent political developments here in Great Britain, I think our society needs a new set of rules for a new age. I propose the following, based on the 10 commandments:

1. I your Nanny, am a jealous Nanny, thou shalt have no other Nannies before me.

2. Thou shalt not take thy car, but giveth the bus a go. Thou shalt be especially damned to hell if thou drivest a SUV.

3. Thou shalt not criticise other religions, cultures, or lifestyles. All are equally valid and true, and thy must needs refrain from hurting people’s feelings.

4. Honour thy son and thy daughter. Even though they mayest trespass against thee, refraineth from smacking lest thy redden their skin a little or makest them cry.

5. Thou shalt not smoke in public places. In fact, Hell consume thee, it’s best not to smoke at all. Doesn’t thou knoweth what they doest to thy heart, lungs, and to countless other body parts thou hasn’t even heard of?

6. Thou shalt not snack on fast food, crisps, sweets, carbohydrates, or too much dairy. Lettuce only mayest thou eat, and the food thy shalt eat shall be lettuce.

7. Thou shalt not buy alcohol during happy hour, lest thy be a public nuisance.

8. Thou shalt not allow thy children to engage in competitive games and sports. The poor little lambs might actually lose and feelest as though they walkest through the valley of the shadow of death.

9. Thou shalt not support grammar schools or universities who admit only the most able students. All students art of equal intellectual and physical ability: even the stupid and the fat ones.

10. Thou shalt not under any circumstances vote in the next election. Nanny wants a few more years – so stay in the cot!

A-men/women (to be politically correct)

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)

Apologists for Terror

Sick & Tired of Leftist Spew

I get sick and tired of the glorification of terrorists. There are those who would have us believe that certain murderous dirtballs are actually nice-guys-really. Why so many people adopt such a romantic view of a certain class of murderers is quite beyond my comprehension. But they do. This has been lucidly illustrated on two occasions recently.

A few months ago Joe Cahill, co-founder of the Provisional IRA, who served time, narrowly missing a well-deserved hanging, for the murder of a police officer finally did the honourable thing and died. Shortly after, Sinn Fein President, Gerry Adams, made reference to Joe Cahill having served time not for murder but “for his beliefs.” Moreover, a certain contingent of the Democrats in America paid tribute to a “true Irish patriot.” How fancy. What a great guy Joe Cahill was to have been a “true Irish patriot” who served time “for his beliefs.” He really sounds like a real hero. Stand aside Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Teresa and Spiderman.

Modern people have a love affair with those brave enough to suffer for their beliefs. Adams was appealing to this kind of sentiment in the less discerning of listeners when he spewed his twisted republican propagandist view of history, masking the naked truth: Joe Cahill did not go to prison because of his beliefs. Joe Cahill went to prison for the same reason as Ian Brady, Ian Huntley, Charles Manson, and the Yorkshire Ripper – he was a convicted murderer.

Moreover, this was no true Irish patriot. A patriot loves his country and his fellow countrymen. Joe Cahill co-founded an organisation that helped tear his own country apart for decades and which killed 1000’s of his fellow citizens. No matter what spin flies from the mouths of republican terror apologists the fact of the matter is that Joe Cahill was a murderer and the co-founder of an organisation stained with the blood of 1000’s of victims – military and civilian. This was no hero, and he should not have been celebrated as one.

More recently (07-Oct-2004) some equally ridiculous comments have come from the large mouth of a well known politician.

Her name is Clare Short: short on facts, short on tact, short on political analysis and well short of the mark with the latest bucket of vomit to emit from a mind more soured than her face.

I had to read her claim 5 or 6 times before it sunk in that she was indeed saying, in an interview with the Gulf News, that the IRA “never targeted civilians.” I suppose in the Fairytale World of Short that Hamas never once blew up a bus in the Gaza Strip and that Hitler was just a misunderstood nice-guy-really-once-you-get-to-know-him.

Maybe all those news reports that I watched over the years simply got it wrong about the volume of civilians deaths - mostly deliberate, on any intelligent definition of that word - and punishment beatings. Surely Clare Short cannot have missed Patrick Magee's recent ramblings of rapture in defence of his killing of civilians in a Brighton hotel. And could she have so easily overlooked the fact that the IRA targeted 2 pubs, murdering 21 civilians and injuring nearly 200 others, in the very city she helps serve as an MP? Or, does she think that 10 workmen coming back from their day’s chores at Kingmills in South Armagh looked just a little too akin to SAS commandos? Were all the shoppers in Belfast on Bloody Friday, on which the IRA blitzed the city with over 20 bombs (no warning given for any of them) genuinely mistaken for undercover military personnel? Or, perhaps, Clare Short thinks that the IRA genuinely mistook a fish shop on the Shankill road for a military barracks? Or did they think a furniture shop on the Shankill was a secret Navy Seal hang out? Were two the babies killed in that attack rightly considered to be legitimate targets? Perhaps Ms Short tries to reassure herself that an IRA attack in Enniskillen killing 11 people at a remembrance day service was all merely part of a just cause. They didn’t really mean to kill any of the civilians who were present paying tribute to the fallen of two world wars? I could go on and on in a similar vein presenting occasions on which the IRA cannot be said to have not deliberately targeted civilians. I'm afraid that the IRA aren't as stupid as Ms Short appears to be. And if I’m being unfair to put her comments down to sheer ignorance and stupidity then I can only conclude that since she approves of ‘the cause,’ she is simply attempting to re-write the history of the methods used so as to salve her conscience.

Short is merely one of a new breed of leftist apologists for terror, hankie in hand, eyes welled with tears, babbling on incoherently about empathy for the poor cretins who indiscriminately targeted innocent men, women and children as an inherent part of their campaign. For such trendy types any violent cause is justified - except when Britain & the US are involved of course - just so long as there is some supposed 'grievance' or 'anger.' She even states: “The American public fought against British colonialism with violence, the free French fought against German occupation with violence, the Palestinian people are entitled to resist occupation. I mean, it's in international law [and] the Iraqi people are entitled [to resist occupation.]" So, there you go: fighting against Hitler on a moral par with hacking the heads of hostages in Iraq, De Gaulle no better than a plane hijacker, George Washington as bad as any Hamas terrorist.

Of course, Short adds that, "the killing of civilians is always wrong. . . but I think the cause is just." What she naively overlooks is that "the cause" can rarely be so easily divorced from the deliberate killing of civilians - remember the IRA's "cogs in the British machine" comment? That the killing of civilians is an intrinsic part of the cause of most armed groups renders Ms Short’s comment redundant.

Such sentiments as those espoused by Adams and Short are merely symptomatic of a wider trend – the inability to distinguish between those who are terrorists and those who may have a claim to the status of freedom fighters. In much political discourse today there is an assumption that the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is what side you happen to support. But, this assumption needs to be challenged, and there is a far more objective test that can be applied to correctly determine who might have a claim to the label of freedom fighter and who most certainly does not.

A freedom fighter must have a source of oppression against which he or she fights to obtain freedom. The true freedom fighter will target only the source of his/her supposed oppression. In other words, to indiscriminately kill civilians who have nothing to do with ones oppression is to lose all possible claims to the title of ‘freedom fighter.’ Hamas describe themselves as freedom fighters, struggling against Israel, who they perceive as the oppressors of the Palestinian people. However, having deliberately and indiscriminately blown countless innocents to shards they can most surely be denied any attempt to convince us that they are freedom fighters. They are not. They are terrorists. Those who killed a bunch of kids in Iraq recently were not freedom fighters either, as Short would have us believe. They are terrorists.

Likewise, the PIRA that Joe Cahill was so proud of co-founding deliberately shot, bombed, killed, maimed and mutilated countless innocents who had nothing to do with the IRA’s supposed ‘oppression.’ Deliberately and indiscriminately blowing innocent people and places into little itty-bitty pieces is hardly a qualification for the title of ‘hero,’ ‘freedom fighter,’ or ‘nice-guy-really, when you get talking to him.’

We must always have the courage to describe such types exactly as they are: murderers, terrorists, criminals, and destroyers of both individual and communal life.

Clare Short and those of her ilk would be better speaking only about matters they know about - and in Clare Short’s case that might mean a vow of silence.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)

Gay Partnerships

Ladies & Gentlemen! Please be Upstanding for the Groom and Groom!

A right debacle has been raging recently as members of Northern Ireland's gay community lock horns with Christian organisations over the issue of “gay marriage.” The most recent spat happened two weeks ago when members of the Northern Ireland Gay Rights Association (NIGRA) picketed a meeting held by The Christian Institute (CI) in Belfast. The CI had called the meeting to oppose governmental plans to introduce a Civil Partnership Bill (CPB) for same sex couples.

Why does the CI care whether or not there is a CPB for same sex couples? Well, it’s the usual rather queer response, as Mike Judge (appropriate surname?) of The Christian Institute said, such unions would be “morally wrong” and would “devalue marriage.” Continuing, he said, “The bill is wrong. We object to it in principle and do not think it should be forced upon the people.”

On the other side, the NIGRA has been bending over backwards to defend the bill. P.A. MagLochlainn stated that he thought it was about time that people stopped being prejudicial, and expressed the NIGRA’s desires to engage churches in dialogue to learn from one another. He stated that, “I want to make it clear that what we are actually looking for is the right to have a legal partnership, not a Christian marriage. . .We want to strengthen our relationships so there is a stable family unit. All we want is the same legal rights as everyone else.”

Amongst other things the CPB would give homosexuals the following rights: Visiting rights in hospitals, an ability to gain parental responsibility for each other's children, recognition for immigration purposes, joint state pension benefits, the obligation to support each other financially, the ability to claim compensation for fatal accidents or criminal injuries, recognition under inheritance and intestacy rules, the right to register their partner's death and continue tenancy of a property, exemption from inheritance tax on a partner's home, and exemption from testifying against each other in court.

For the sake of consistency I agree that homosexual people should have many of the rights that such a bill would give to them, although I would like to qualify this. In a libertarian society many of these issues simply wouldn’t exist. Take exemption from inheritance tax for instance. In a libertarian society there would be little issue over inheritance tax. Any given person would be entitled to dispose of their wealth as they see fit, to the benefit of anyone they see fit: a charity for the blind or a seedy massage parlour. Tax breaks would simply be a non-issue, since such taxes simply wouldn’t exist in a libertarian society in the first place. Or take pension benefits. In a libertarian society people could set up structures whereby any designated person they choose benefits from their pension after they die. In fact, as more and more people take out private pension funds this option is becoming more and more realised.

Probably the most controversial aspect of the Bill is the ability to get parental responsibility for a partner's children. But this is not as controversial as it first appears. We are often quoted statistics saying that the children who grow up with a mother and a father have a better chance of doing well in many aspects of life. This is sometimes used as reason why gay people should not be allowed to look after children. But, it is equally an argument why single mothers (or fathers) should not be allowed to look after children. Moreover, there is as much evidence to suggest that children of wealthy parents do better than children of working-class or unemployed parents. Does this mean that the former should give up their children if a wealthy couple are available to look after them instead? Some children get better parents than others, and there isn’t much we can do about it, except, perhaps, redistribute children while we’re doing the same with our money. In any event a person’s suitability for parenting should not be judged on the basis of that persons sexual orientation. A person’s suitability for parenting should be judged, surprise surprise, on their ability to parent.

Many of the problems that arise spring from the unwillingness of certain groups to adhere to the notion that private consensual relationships should not be the domain of public policy or government interference. Presumably Mr. Judge would also describe adultery as a moral wrong that devalues marriage. Does this mean that we need laws to punish adulterers? To take the comments from such Christian groups to their logical conclusion we are left with a society which is little other than fundamentalist rule, since these Christians appear to think that if something is moral then it must be legislated for, and if something is immoral then it needs to be legislated against.

This typical blurring of the politico-legal sphere with the moral one is a classic religious error. Because something is immoral is not good enough grounds for making it illegal. Most Christians would regard masturbation as immoral. Does this mean we need societal rules outlawing those who feel like playing with Johnny every now and then? And perhaps, while we’re at it, we would need a new bunch of MP’s - Masturbation Police - to skulk around the neighbourhood with ladders and a pair of binoculars to ensure that little Johnny isn’t playing with his namesake.

The only possible justifiable grounds for government interference into the lives of citizens is for the protection of their lives and livelihoods from direct non-consensual harm, and even then there may be exceptions. So, murder, theft, vandalism, assault, fraud, for example, are rightly illegal. It is difficult to see just how homosexuality harms anyone in this way, and just as hard to see how a CPB would adversely affect those who aren‘t a party to it.

If homosexuals are permitted to enter civil partnerships I don’t see how this will damage marriage. Will marriage partners suddenly decide to divorce and pursue gay partnerships? Heterosexual marriage will continue ever on as it always has and always will. The fact of the matter is that civil partnerships for homosexuals is in no way whatsoever a threat to heterosexual lifestyles or marriages. The biggest threats to heterosexual marriage these days are the parties to such marriages, not anything outside of marriage.

I have yet to see or hear anyone outlining just precisely how they think society will change for the worse if homosexual civil partnerships are allowed, (apart from a few nutty fundies who, not without a hint of embarrassment, mutter something unintelligible about Sodom and Gomorrah). Homosexuals will still be homosexual if they aren’t allowed to enter any kind of legal arrangement with a partner. Heterosexuals will remain heterosexual whether or not homosexuals are allowed to enter a civil partnership. The only difference between the two scenarios is that in one gay people will have certain privileges, such as next of kin rights, and inheritance benefits, while in the other they won’t.

It might sound like I’m kissing the ass of the gay community. I certainly don’t mean to sound as though I am. I lament the fact that they saw fit to protest outside a Christian meeting, I find it distasteful how anyone who fails to give a hearty thumbs-up to the gay lifestyle automatically has a ‘homophobic bigot’ labelled slapped onto them, and don’t even get me started on the sleazy and disgusting semi-naked writhing that was publicly displayed at the annual Gay Pride parade.

I consider homosexual behaviour to be disgusting. I make no apology for that. However, I also consider a lot of heterosexual behaviour disgusting too. I simply acknowledge that I can’t arrogate to myself the right to tell someone else how they should or shouldn’t live in cases where their lifestyle has no negative impact on my own life at all. Whatever gay people get up to behind closed doors it’s simply none of my business. Whether or not they do the things they do makes absolutely no difference to me.

And, in addition, regardless of what I think of homosexuality, I fail to see how my quality of life, or the life of any heterosexual person, can be adversely affect by a CPB as proposed.

Stephen Graham B.th (Hons)

Fat Bastard

Hey! You! Fatso! Leave Those Cakes Alone!

The Times newspaper carried a report recently outlining research by a group of German scientists that concludes that some fat people can rightly blame their metabolism, and a gene that controls it, for making them obese. And thus, fat people everywhere will delightedly hold onto this new excuse for their size, along with the other typical excuse - “water retention.” Burger & fries retention anyone?

We need some common sense. Every time you see an obese person ask yourself this question: did they get that size eating fruit and salads? You’ll find that you intuitively, and quite rightly, answer that in the negative. Even the afore mentioned German scientists have qualified their conclusions to say that the rogue gene is not a very common cause for obesity, that it isn’t the whole problem and sole cause of obesity, and that even among those who have the gene, many still remain thin. So, folks, we can remain steadfast in our position: on the whole, obese people are the way they are because they simply won’t stop stuffing their fat faces with cakes. Pure fact with whipped cream on top.

However, in the recent discussion of obesity I find it odd that very few people are willing to put the blame where it properly lies: with those who eat too much. Discussion, after report, after news column constantly lays the blame at someone else’s doorstep: it's the fault of food manufacturers who don't label food correctly, or it's the fault of all those advertisements on television brain-washing us into eating more chips, cheese or chocolate bars. And most people seem to think that this is “our problem,” that we “must do something:” perhaps tax ‘unhealthy’ food or legislate some kind of advertising control so as to stop chunky charlie chomping on chedder. In other words, a great many people think that the way to keep the population thin is to make the government fat.

A major flaw in the whole debate is the assumption that there is such a thing as “unhealthy” food. No food is inherently unhealthy. It all depends on the dosage. People are eating too much and not doing enough physically. Fat people don’t get fat by eating a cake. They get fat by eating 100’s of cakes, burgers, fries, and the like, all day every day.

This isn’t just a problem amongst the adult population either. It seems as if the ‘little ones’ aren’t really all that little anymore. In fact they’re fast turning into beach balls with legs. In response to this child-expanding phenomenon, we had, a few months ago, the publishing of a draconian, even hysterical, Health Committee report, which more or less stated that virtually everyone must carry the can for this: everyone, that is, except for parents of fat children and fat people themselves, whose only can carrying is that which takes place between supermarket and car.

One of the more bizarre sections in the report was the criticism of the government failure, after 10 years of trying, to implement a “walking strategy.” Outrageous! Think of all the lives that could have been saved if government had only released details of that wonder-working phenomenon known to most of us as “putting one foot in front of the other.” It is noteworthy that human kind has done remarkably well without a “walking strategy” ever since primitive man first lifted his knuckles off the ground to pursue hairy mammoths. Unfortunately these days human beings are themselves turning into mammoths through their reluctance to move.

After bombarding us with emotive statistics and horror stories, such as that of a 3-year-old child dying from obesity (which, as it turned out, was caused by a medical condition rather than over-eating - a minor fact pushed to the sidelines for the purposes of social engineering) the report suggests some tactics, many of which caused not just a few raised eyebrows.

It recommended a voluntary ban on junk food advertising aimed at children, followed by a government ban by 2007 if this fails. What in the name of Walmart is this meant to achieve? Children do not earn money and I’ve certainly never seen any doing the weekly family shop at Tesco. They eat only what their parents give them. If your child is obese then stop giving them too many sweets and burgers and ensure they get exercise. Of course, one of the reasons for such a measure is to aid parents when it comes to a child’s supposed “pester power.” What? I realise that some parents are far too stupid to have children, but is there really a new breed of parent that can’t even use a mere 1 syllable word - “no” - when a child asks for it’s third packet of potato crisps or a daily trip to Burger King?

Another insane recommendation was the suggestion that food sold in supermarkets should be labelled in accordance to a traffic light system: red for high in fat, and green for, well, lettuce, I suppose. This idea is based on fuzzy thinking and would be most unhelpful. Foods that are high in fat might also be high in protein, calcium and iron – all of which are essential in any healthy diet. Again the underlying problem is the assumption that there is such a thing as unhealthy food or “food that makes you fat.” But, as I have said, no food is inherently unhealthy, it all depends on the dosage. One cheeseburger a week is not going to make you obese or have a drastic effect on your health (unless, of course, its surface area is 20 square feet), although 10 cheeseburgers a week certainly will. Moreover, you don’t even need to eat fat in order to get fat. If you were to eat incredibly humongous portions of pasta you would soon find yourself expanding at the middle. Why? Because your body has a rather miraculous process by which it creates and stores fat all by itself. Neat, huh? I love biology.

The tone of the report was also quite worrying. Consumers are treated as if we’re gormless, gullible and feeble victims of business marketing, or brain-dead zombies irresistibly susceptible to corporate programming. Of course, people do make bad choices, but it must be recognised that people do indeed have a choice, and that we must all learn to look after ourselves rather than be spoon-fed the typical mush from Nanny. No marketing is irresistible, and so virtually every case of obesity is caused not by corporate brainwashing, but entirely by personal volition. No amount of government programmes or medical assistance is going to prevent people going to the fridge at 2am to polish off that sizable wedge of cake insidiously lurking with it’s army of calories behind the semi-skimmed milk.

The solution to the problem of obesity is much easier that this national puzzle that it has become. We don’t need to visit health food shops to buy small portions of ‘vital’ vitamins, ‘essential’ oils, or some weird brand of ‘indispensable’ small red seeds at grossly overweight prices (having never used any of these ‘essential,’ ‘vital,’ or 'indispensable' products perhaps I‘m just very lucky to still be a living, breathing entity). In fact, the solution is even easier than living according to Atkins. All we need is a new, amazingly simple, diet. And thus I present this new diet, fated, hopefully, to take over from Atkins. I call it “Graham's Stop-Start Diet.” Stop stuffing your fat face. Start moving your fat ass.

Stephen 'the not so slim' Graham B.Th (Hons)

Smoky Fog

SMOKE SCREEN

The issue of a ban on smoking just won’t go away and I fear that the ban is now inevitable. During the debate we are frequently quoted statistics informing us how many people are now non-smokers. But before others arrogate to themselves the right to speak for me, a non-smoker, I have some things to say about the matter.

I am a non-smoker. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke. But what I hate more than this is the smell of the cogs turning in the skulls of the administrators and sympathisers of the nanny state as they dream up brand new ways to dictate how we should live. This issue of smoking is just one part of a wider campaign of social engineering.

In a report for the Belfast Telegraph, Professor Patrick Johnston, an expert in cancer (but obviously not an expert in civil liberties) informs us that he “would like to see a smoking ban – similar to that in the Republic [of Ireland] – introduced here [in Northern Ireland]. . . [a ban] would help wipe out one third of all cancers in 12 years. . . I cannot think of another single initiative that would achieve that.” It all sounds so appealing, doesn’t it?

OK, so we can wipe out one third of all cancer in 12 years. Fine and dandy. But, doesn’t this just mean that more people will die of something else? Maybe more will die of heart disease. So, what next? Do we ban fatty foods and make 2 hours daily exercise compulsory for all so as to drastically cut the numbers of people dying of heart disease, simply because Prof Johnston and others like him “cannot think of another single initiative that would achieve that.” Maybe these people are missing what to me is a blatantly obvious fact: we’re all going to die somewhere, sometime and of some cause. We can legislate until the cows come home but all we end up doing is legislating our lives away. Lets face it almost every week there’s some new amazing super-duper discovery to add to our ever growing “it’ll increase your chances of getting cancer” list – everything from red meat to sun bathing to under arm deodorants, it seems. We simply cannot legislate our way to immortality and it is foolish to try.

I would like to thank Prof. Johnston for caring so much about my health, but I'd rather make such decisions myself than hand responsibility for myself over to a new breed of moralising doctors.

I am completely against a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants for the same reason as I am against a ban on smoking in one’s own home. Few would stomach a ban on smoking in the privacy of a person’s home, and it wouldn’t take a Sherlock Holmes investigation to see why: government has no business making such a law with respect to private property. Unfortunately the majority of people who have contributed to this debate thus far have done so on the basis of a foggy understanding of the term “public place.” Smoking should be banned in public places, we are told, and, so the argument goes, it must therefore be outlawed in pubs and restaurants. The problem with all the fuzzy thinking lately is the failure to recognise that most pubs and restaurants are not actually “public places.” They are, like many houses, privately owned. Why then shouldn’t the owner of the pub or restaurant in question decide, just like the owner of a house decides, whether his private property is smoking or non-smoking? And subsequently, people can decide whether they want to visit or not. If people don't like to be in a smoky environment then they don't have to go to a smokers house or to a smoke-friendly restaurant. The outcome of the ban in the Republic of Ireland means than smokers must go outside to smoke. The irony of this should not be missed: people are being forced from private property to public property on the basis that it’s wrong to smoke in a public place. Pure genius. Pure Irish.

One of the major arguments in favour of a ban is the argument from passive smoking. But, why do non-smokers continually go to smoke-friendly pubs and restaurants? Apparently almost 80% of the population do not smoke. That’s a massive amount of power, if only people were to accept responsibility for using it. If this 80% were to stop going to pubs and restaurants, telling the owners why they are abstaining, they would find that the policies of a number of pubs and restaurants would change fairly promptly. Likewise, if they can't get good staff or have a high labour turnover, then they will likewise soon get the message. Instead, non-smoking customers continue to go to such places and by so doing they consent to sitting in a smoky environment, as do the members of staff who work there. When you apply to work in a pub or a bar you know exactly the type of environment that is. You have a choice, you make the choice and you live with the consequences of that choice. If we, the customers, were to take a little bit of responsibility for ourselves we might actually create a market for non-smoking bars and restaurants. But I fear too many people just can't be bothered, and until enough of us “take power” into our own hands we will continue to be dictated too by the nanny state and her minions. Can’t 80% of the population do better than this?

Another major argument for this ban is that the results of smoking - disease and damage to countless body parts, many of which we never even knew existed - are putting a drain on the National Health Service. Those who argue this way claim that no one can say that smoking is a private matter, because everyone pays for the NHS and their service is being drained by smokers.

Rather than seeing this as an argument in favour of a smoking ban we should see it as an argument against the NHS and an argument in favour of government control in many more aspects of our lives than advocates of this argument care to admit. Aside from smoking there are thousands of self-inflicted diseases, disorders, injuries and ailments. The most obvious example is sports injuries. These too put a drain of NHS resources. Or ailments that result from sexual intercourse, alcoholism or obesity. These too are self-inflicted and drain NHS resources. If we are to have an NHS we need to bite the bullet and treat all people on it no matter how they have been injured or made sick. That’s simply the price we pay for it. But, a system of private care would be so much better. It would mean that each and every individual is responsible for their own choices and the consequences of those choices. Diseases caused by smoking are therefore of no issue to anyone but the smoker in question, since no one but the smoker must pick up the tab for his treatment if he or she has no medical insurance. In fact, a private system of health care might be better at making people quit smoking, since the insurance premiums for a smoker might be far greater or even difficult to get at all.

One of the most horrendous arguments in favour of a smoking ban is this paternalistic mush offered by the editorial of the Belfast Telegraph: “smokers should see a ban not as a threat to their rights but as something that is in their best interests.” How very nice. Allow me to translate this baloney: “You, the smoker, are unable to look after yourself, so we, the government, and condescending media, will dictate how you should live so as to save you from yourself. You know, we’re really much better at making these types of decisions for you.” Arguments of the form “this isn't a threat to you, it's in your best interests” are more suited to tyrannical regimes than a liberal democracy in which people make their own life-choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Anyhow, whilst a smoking ban might help a great many smokers quit, I don’t think that giving up the principles I have been outlining in this article is a price worth paying for that.

The problem with those who have been arguing against the ban on smoking is that they have thus far been trying to do so on the terms laid down by the anti-smoking lobby: namely, through the use of rights language. Non-smokers, we are told, have a right to breathe clean air, so smoking should be banned insofar as it violates that right. On the other side we are told that smoking is a civil liberty and thus smokers have a right to smoke. As long as the debate continues in these terms the anti-smoking lobby will always remain ahead. No-one can ever be convinced that smoking is a “right.” Smokers can’t just smoke anywhere they please. They certainly have no right to smoke in my house. Nor do they have a right to smoke 3 inches from my face. And, since smoking does indeed cause a number of diseases, no one will be convinced that one person has a right to give another person cancer through their dirty, filthy habit. So, people will intuitively side with the group who argues against this. However, although it is less obvious, non-smokers have no universal right to breathe clean air either. If I am a chain-smoker you have no right to force me on pain of legal penalty to stop smoking when you come to my house on the grounds that you have a right to breathe clean air. If you decide to enter my house then you do so at your own choosing and can’t be said to have any right to breathe clean air. Since a pub or restaurant is private property then you cannot be said to have a right to breathe clean air if you choose to enter a smoke-friendly place.

Despite the misuse of language and the conceptual blurs that dog this issue, a great number of society’s new puritans celebrate the fact that pubs in the Republic of Ireland are no longer immersed in a smoky fog. It’s a pity I can’t say the same for the minds of those who support such measures.

Stephen Graham B.Th (Hons)