There is a reason pubs serve alcohol...

I have been considering a post about this subject for some time, and have been prompted to write it today as Scotland have now announced plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol to outlaw 2-4-1 drinks promotions.

Over the last year or so I have seen politicians, scientists and doctors voicing various opinions about the extent of alcohol related crime and health problems. The majority of comments have singled out supermarkets and pubs that sell alcohol on promotion. Recently a club in Newport was criticised for selling unlimited drinks to customers - even though the event was run responsibly and there was no trouble on the night.

I have attended events similar to this in Manchester before. The detail is that you are given a wristband and a ticket when you go in. Swap the ticket for your first drink. Once empty return to the bar to swap it for a full one. Each time your wristband is ticked. The barmen know how much you have drunk from your band, and are able to refuse to replace your empty once you are too drunk or if you are consuming too many.

To start, it is my opinion that pricing of drink has no bearing on the amount of consumption. To refer to the principle of elasticity of demand, people will always want nights out with friends socialising and drinking. They will do this regardless the cost. Most people who drink would just pay the extra if the price went up. Note the treasury presently levy a high tax on alcohol - whenever they raise this tax, customers continue to buy the same quantity of alcohol and just stump up the extra few pounds. Historically raising the price of alcohol via taxation to reduce drinking has had minimal effect.

If on the other hand, someone is struggling financially, they may look to cut the amount they spend on alcohol. I deliberately worded that sentence to say that they do not cut the amount of alcohol they consume! When times are stressful an evening drunk becomes more important to someone. Occasionally being drunk has many positive benefits - such as helping you escape your worries, relax, socialise and enjoy yourself!

Remember the old christmas booze cruise to France? This is no longer necessary because supermarkets have cut their prices. Were laws brought in to raise the price it would only inconvenience people as they would just buy it from somewhere cheaper. I have had some reports that beer should be priced around £10 a pint. This would definitely effect demand!

So, similar to my last post, lets look at the bigger picture. The real question is do we want:

1. everyone to have fun a few times a month out with friends in the pub? or
2. people to be stressed financially from going out once a month, and importing large amounts of alcohol and staying at home drinking? or
3. Let's even assume the politicians are successful and no-one ever drinks anymore?

Could you imagine how much fun a pub would be if everyone was sober? We have all been the sober one in a group of friends who are drinking! People would spend less time in face to face contact with friends and communicate using other means such as the internet or telephone.

Taking this question one step further .... do we want a nation of hermits with no social skills? I refer you to recent statements that lack of face to face social contact with other humans is bad for someone's health, and impedes proper development. See Online networking 'harms health' and 'Mental risk' of Facebook teens .

My argument is that there is a very good reason why pubs serve alcohol! Pubs were invented as a place people could go to socialise. The benefit of alcohol is that it is a social lubricant. Once people are drunk they have reduced inhibitions and are less worried about approaching new people, or saying something that may make them look stupid. Without alcohol in everyone's life people would most likely have less casual friends, and share less experiences with other humans. I argue that a world without alcohol would be a worse place to be!

On the subject of anti social behaviour there are always going to be some idiots who cause issues (when they are drunk or sober) - lets deal with this minority and not let them spoil things for the properly behaved majority. People do need to be allowed to take responsibility for their alcohol consumption and behaviour, such as was allowed when later bar licensing was introduced.

Finally I think Tony Blair has done a lot to prepare pubs for the future. Introducing flexible later licensing and making pubs a smoke free environment were bold policies and I personally enjoy the benefits of both. Things are changing rapidly in the industry anyway. Due to the global recession, like everyone these businesses are facing a hard time. For the consumer price competition is good. Don't go stopping this at such a difficult time.

I will be off out for a drink because these proposals are not for England where I live !!

Chris

Update: Will be quicker getting that celebratory drink next time.  Not had it yet and now another headline Governments top medical advisor has drawn up some daft plans -Cries-

More 'World is flat' moments.

Anyone who has read any of my previous posts will be aware that I do not believe in all the hype about human emissions causing global warning, or that there is anything we can do to prevent a 'climate' from changing, as it will by definition.

I have also had a rant in the past about bio fuels - the government's hot potato for a couple of months.  What no-one considered was that forests would be destroyed in order to farm crop for bio fuel as they earned the land owner more money.  People are starving becuase the price of food has soared - farmers are selling grain for fuel and making more money than selling it to feed people.  The net result is that bio fuel farming is causing more damage to the environment when the bigger picture is considered.  

This is the purpose of this post - people are making conclusions within their own scientific fields, politicians are believing them and throwing money at the causes these scientists have created - the net result being these scientists are kept in work.

Some 'experts' have decided they can predict the world's weather in a timescale of 100-500 years.  Should we believe them when they cannot predict the weather over the next 24 hours with any reliability?  I don't.

Where I am heading with this is that current knowledge cannot predict or understand today's weather patterns.  This is why extra hypothesis are being tabled blaming things like carbon dioxide (hypothesis = unproved).  When making the bio-fuel argument, no-one thought of the bigger picture about the possible consequences.

So how would I explain our inability to understand the earth's weather systems?

Please think back 100 years.  There was no electricity.  There was no television.  No telephones.  No microwave cookers.  Our world is an order of magnitude different because of scientific inventions and discoveries that they did not have.

So why does no scientist, politician or journalist ever think that in another 100 years man will be looking back on today in disbelief about what the world was like without all the then current technology?  Hence the title of my post - I will guarantee we are gonna have more 'World is flat' moments.  Things we look back on and laugh about once we have more understanding.

My final point is about attempts to understand the working of an animal's brain.  Nothing we know about chemistry or electronics can explain or come close to emulating the processing and storage power of our brains.  Things we remember are stored somehow in our brains.  It must therefore be possible to remove the brain from a dead person and read some of this information.  But if someone asked you to do it where would you start?

As I have shown about predicting weather, and our knowledge of the workings of an animals brain there are plenty more forces at play in our universe that we have yet to discover.  Maybe someone should suggest these as an explaination to some of the political hot potatos!!

Chris

Death of Chief Constable Michael Todd

I am saddened to read of the tragic apparent suicide of Manchester Police's Chief Constable. Reports of his coroner conclude he walked up Snowdon on a very cold day and deliberately let himself freeze to death.

Before this incident I would not have been able to name our Chief Constable - which is a great testament to his work.

The chief constables you can name such as Richard Brunstrom are the ones that are in the press for doing a bad job, or outraging the public. This guy lives on a different planet and has become a one man force against minor speeding offences and has been very outspoken about legalising drugs.

I have unfortunately had to contact the police a few times since moving to Manchester City Centre. On every occasion I have been impressed with their sensitivity and professionalism. Much work has been done by Mr Todd to improve links between the police force and the communities of Greater Manchester.

There are many 'liaison' officers assigned as the face of the police force to meet with the community at a local level and ensure the police are delivering a satisfactory service.

It is for this that I will remember and miss Michael Todd. May his team continue focusing on this aspect of policing in his honour.

I also wish to take this opportunity to say how terrible the mental health services are in Greater Manchester. As I mentioned in my previous post I have needed treatment for depression myself. When I lived with my parents I had treatment from the North Wales Health Authority. They were fantastic. I was offered regular help from senior doctors.

I have tried to access services in Greater Manchester. My GP agreed I was in need of similar help within Manchester and tried to make a referal but I was ignored and left with no help or support at all. Were such services available to people in need, more lives may be saved and deaths due to depression and suicide such as Michael Todd's may be prevented.

Chris

Developing medication such as Seroxat

Have read today that our stupid government who have now signed our whole country over to Europe are thinking of making it even more difficult for large drug companies to produce new treatments.

The current system of regulation is extremely thorough. The costs involved in taking a drug to market are phenomenal and the process takes years.

I have taken Seroxat. It is an anti-depressant. Claims an anti-depressant can cause suicide are utterly stupid. A number of people that take anti-depressants do so because they are seriously depressed and are on the brink of suicide. Without such medication a large proportion would probably attempt suicide. Saying that with the medication a few still do does not point the finger of blame to the medication. Think of the large number that make a proper recovery. Any GP will tell you they have seen drugs like Seroxat successfully treat plenty of patients.

The proper question to ask is should these large companies be discouraged from their work? Definately not! Advances in modern medicine are amazing. People need to ask where would we be if no-one took the risk of making new treatments. They should be assisted not hindered in their noble work.

Chris

Obesity - a public health timebomb

Obesity can be defined as "The condition of being overweight", or more specifically "having excessive storage of fat in the body".

A simple way to decide if one is obese is by working out your body mass index or BMI. This is your weight in kg divided by your height in metres squared (multiplied by itself eg if one is 1.7m, 1.7 x 1.7 = 2.89). A BMI of 20-25 is desireable, 25-30 is overweight and 30 upwards is considered obese or worse. This is only accurate for people of normal muscularity. Most rugby players would be obese under these calculations due to their strong bodies - muscle is heavier than fat.

Obesity can cause many health problems. These include:

• hypertension (or high blood pressure)
• type 2 diabetes
• cardiovascular disease
• gallbladder disease
• certain types of cancer and
• psychosocial problems

According to government HSE figures in 2003, 35% of men had a BMI of desireable or underwight. 43% were overwight and the remaining 22% were classed as obese. For women the equivalent figures were 44% desireable or underweight, 33% overweight and 23% obese. To simplify this 1 in every 4 of the population were obese in 2003.

What makes this more alarming is the rate of increase. One study I found shows that obesity in Americans had risen from 12% in 1991 to 18% in 1998. This is a 50% increase. The data in my previous paragraph puts present UK obesity at 22%. This proportion is rising at a serious rate and some action needs to be taken to control it.

The first step I would propose is educating people. One's fat creeps on slowly and most obese people probably don't realise how serious the situation is. GPs should bring the subject up when they see patients about other issues. I know some GPs do this at present.

The cause of the increase is obvious. With more TV channels and the popularity of video games today's children are less active. Teenagers are mouse potatos (too much time at a computer) or coach potatos (too much time watching TV). Also the rise in popularity of fast food (pizza and burgers) and microwave ready meals consumed by a population that are working longer hours and have less time to prepare healthy meals. This hard working population also get home later so have less time for physical recreation, relaxation and hobbies.

Once a person decides to tackle their own obesity there are two paths of action. One is to diet or consume less calories. Also the amount of calories from fat should be watched as fat in foods is very hard to convert to energy compared to carbohydrates and protein. I will discuss food composition in another article later. The main failure of people trying to diet is to allow themselves a 'treat' whenever they fancy. No treats until you have achieved some target! Otherwise you will still eat as much chocolate and cake as before which means you are not actually on a diet!

The second is to exercise to burn off calories. Any exercise is better than none. People who don't exercise often say they don't because they don't enjoy it. To this I say keep trying different activities in different places. I wouldn't enjoy jogging on a cold winter evening along city centre streets. Visit the gyms and health clubs in your area to find one with an atmosphere you like. Consider using some form of personal stereo when exercising - listening to lively music can help motivate you and relieve bordom. Most gyms have televisions so you can ride an exercise bike slowly for 30 minutes while you enjoy Coronation Street. Consider getting a pet dog. They are great companions and will remind you each day when its time for a walk! After a few weeks using a gym I guarantee you will feel much better in yourself. I love the buzz I feel after a thorough session. Did you know if you use weights in the gym to increase your muscle size you will actually burn more calories at times when you are inactive?

Talk to your friends about what they enjoy and ask if you can join them next time.

Dieting is not a substitute for exercise and vice versa. These two are not short term changes that you can do for 6 months to loose weight then get back to normal. Permanent changes need to be made to keep you healthy. Loosing weight takes a long time so don't give up if you havn't seen results in the first few weeks.

I don't recommend any of these 'fad diets', the most famous of which was the recent Atkin's diet. While most professionals will agree they work to some extent it is argued that it is not natural to starve your body of carbohydrates. It's odd that Dr Atkins was rushed to hospital in April 2002 with an unexplained cardiac arrest. The only scientificly recommended way is less calories, more exercise.

One idea for the government to tackle this issue and encourage more activity within the population would be to subsidise the up-market health clubs. How about some form of tax relief on gym membership subscriptions??

Chris

Kylie

Kylie had to pull out of one of her Manchester concerts mid-performance due to ill health.

My thoughts are with Kylie at the moment.

I really hope she only has the flu or a normal chill and will be back to herself in a few days.

No-one can imagine what she has been through with all her cancer treatment. She was diagnosed in May, but was not allowed home the following christmas because she was still having treatment.

After such debilitating treatment it is amazing that she has made the public comeback she did manage. At the moment she is probably realising the permanent effects of her illness. I suspect she has pushed herself so hard to complete this tour to prove to herself she is back to normal. Having to pull out must be heart-breaking.

Someone needs to tell her she can't do things like this - public acts at the peak of fitness complain on behind-the-scenes films of how tough it is touring. After her disease she needs to relax and take care of herself. I don't think there is one fan that wants her to push herself so hard she suffers more health problems.

From her beginnings in music as a squeaky actor who couldn't sing without the help of Stock, Aitkin and Waterman voice processing she has come a long way and the songs she has realeased over the last few years have been really good. She has proved herself as a real musical talent and superstar and should sit back and take stock of what she has done.

Kylie, we will always have the songs you've recorded so far. Relax and look after yourself.