Monday, 6 February 2012
The Smoky-Drinky Template.
I'm sure it was only yesterday I read that one beer a day was officially good for you. The dose has to be absolutely precise because two beers a day and your head goes lumpy. Same newspaper.
If there was any truth in that, I would, by now, have grown at least one extra entire head. Which would have advantages - cigarette in one, drink in the other. I'd just need to grow one more to deal with the salt-saturated chips deep-fried in lard and I'd be happy. Terrifyingly ugly, but happy. I could also hide in alleyways and ask passers-by the time with one head while telling them the time with another.
Actually, that could be a fun new game which might be better than my previous failures - Deathmatch Golf and Anarchist Chess. You need two people and one dark alley. When a poor sap comes along, one of you emerges slightly from the shadows and says 'Excuse me, do you know the time?'
The other remains unseen on the other side of the alley and just calls out the time. Then the first one says 'Thanks' and fades back into the shadows.
Just around the corner, you set up a somewhat overpriced emergency dry-cleaner's.
But I digress. Back to the Demon Drink.
Two glasses of wine or beer a day 'doubles the risk' of mouth cancer
The first paragraph:
Drinking two large glasses of wine or two strong pints of beer a day triples the risk of developing mouth cancer, according to a new Government campaign.
Boosting the scare within seconds. If anyone believes any of this crap, then they will never be subcontracted on any of my projects. I have closed off subcontract options on entire institutes for less.
So what is the real risk of mouth cancer? Simon Cooke has already looked it up and it's just above 2 in 100,000 and it has been the same since 1971. I was eleven in 1971 and drinking no booze at all. My efforts since (and they have been strenuous) have made no difference at all to the figures. Nothing has tripled or doubled, nothing has changed at all.
SC notes that the highest of this small risk is among Pakistani men. Oh listen, is that the sound of a thousand Righteous anuses (ani?) in a display of Olympic standard simultaneous puckering? They will call it racist. I will call it biology. Ignore biology in the name of equality and you have rickets and skin cancer and all sorts to deal with. Equality costs the NHS billions.
If I go out into the sunshine with a black friend here, it won't affect him at all but I can turn into Lobster Man even this far north. Equality is a fine idea but it must not override biology.
Pakistan is mostly - not entirely - Muslim. No alcohol. Their bodies developed not experiencing it and not knowing how to deal with it. This is not harmful in itself. When they come here, a place where we love anything fermented, a few will adopt our ways and culturally that's good. Biologically, it's a disaster. Their children will grow up here and (if allowed) will develop a tolerance for the booze but it's too late for the adults.
So let's double that risk from 2 in 100,000 to 4 in 100,000. Scared yet?
Let's triple it from 2 in 100, 000 to 6 in 100, 000. Surely you're scared now? I mean, what are your chances of being in the 99,994 per 100, 000 who do not get throat cancer? Oh, you must be petrified. Let me clean out your dunks cupboard, for safety's sake. You'll thank me one day but I'll be a long way away just in case you work out the scam.
Under the deal, drink producers and retailers, including Diageo, Carlsberg and Majestic Wine, have pledged to provide clear unit labelling, support awareness campaigns and develop a new sponsorship code on responsible drinking.
Ah. As with the tobacco industry, the drinks industry is trying the appeasement approach. So there will shortly be horrible pictures on booze and the price will be out of everyone's reach (except MPs because we subsidise theirs) and the borders will be as sealed against booze as against tobacco (but not illegal immigrants, guns or drugs) and the pub closures will accelerate and the pubs will blame anything but the drinking ban. It's the price of tea and biscuits, the supermarkets sell them cheaper. They have cheesy biscuits on sale cheaper than water!
Meanwhile their ex-customers will make their own arrangements. Just as the anti-tobacco template has rolled out, the resistance template will follow. Fight them? Why? These idiots are easily circumvented. The established businesses don't want your custom so set up your own places. Forget them. They threw you out, remember?
Non-smokers will soon be forming their own Drinky-Drinkies and when they ban those kebabs and chips, there will spring up Drinky-Eaties too. Hopefully with proper onion bhajis and not those damn supermarket dumpling things. Bhajis are not meant to be oven cooked. Real ones are deep fried and are actually less fattening because they are not full of stodge and are actually mostly onion. Whoops - personal prejudice digression.
Yes, there will be Smoky-Drinkies and Drinky-Drinkies and Drinky-Eaties all over the place soon. New ones, and new combinations, as each successive pleasure is banned. Eventually they will merge and we'll need a shorter name for them because Smoky-Drinky-Eaty-Coffee-Salty-etc is going to get a bit unwieldy.
Perhaps we could just call them 'pubs'. By then, nobody else will be using the name anyway.
Posted by Leg-iron at 02:00