Problem lifestyles and the ‘new norm’
Monday, November 4, 2019 at 20:40 
I enjoyed the Battle of Ideas at the weekend.
I was only there for one day - Saturday - but the atmosphere was as lively and good natured as ever.
It shows that serious and sometimes controversial issues can be discussed without rancour, although that may be something to do with the choice of speakers and panels that are rarely completely polarised. Instead the organisers look for nuance which can be a bit unsettling for those who like debates to be black and white.
The audiences are happy to embrace the motto of the event (‘free speech allowed’) but I’m not sure how often this is genuinely put to the test. Few if any speakers ever really push the boundaries so it’s difficult to know how people would react if they did.
This year I was asked to take part in a session that asked the question, ‘How can we deal with problem lifestyles?’, to which the organisers added, ‘Whose responsibility is it to deal with people who smoke, drink or eat 'too much'?’ and ‘Should the state step in?’
My fellow panellists were Dolly Theis who chairs the Big Tent Ideas Festival and previously worked for the Centre for Social Justice, psychiatrist Dr Frankie Anderson (above), and Dan Enachescu, head of public policy for Diageo in Europe.
Dolly and I were probably the furthest apart in outlook but it was all very civilised and the format of the meeting - which was supposed to be a conversation with the audience - didn’t really lend itself to picking fights with other members of the panel.
Instead, after we were each given five or six minutes to make our initial case, the rest of the time was mostly spent responding to points from the audience.
In hindsight I regret not challenging Dolly’s advocacy of what she called the “new norm” of healthy living because it sounded a bit Orwellian to me. Nor was I alone because after the meeting Forest supporter Liz Barber told me she was “fizzing” at some of Dolly’s comments while another attendee (also a smoker) described them as “patronising”.
The irony is that Dolly and others like her don’t see themselves as apologists for the nanny state. Far from it. In fact, the screensaver on her mobile phone actually features a picture of classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill. (Naturally, I failed to recognise the great man when she showed it to me.)
Anyway, the Independent yesterday published an article that, had it appeared 24 hours earlier, would have been worth mentioning in the meeting. Headlined ‘Alcohol consumption will soon follow smoking and meat-eating in becoming a social evil’, it argued that ‘The number of units people drink is declining and consuming less may soon become a badge of honour in the same way not smoking or not eating meat have become.’
Badge of honour? Social evil? I think the writer, Tola Fisher, is jumping the gun a bit but the direction of travel is clear to see and it is being driven by a vast public health industry that wants to create, in Dolly Theis’s words, a “new norm”.
In this brave new world smoking will be eradicated, alcohol consumption will be reduced to a minimum, and we will eat not for pleasure but to live as long as we can, never mind that in our grand old age most of us won’t have the money to enjoy it. Plus, as we live longer the chances of getting some form of cancer - regardless of our lifestyle - will inevitably increase.
What is equally clear is that the definition of ‘problem lifestyle’ is shifting rapidly. I don’t know about you but for me examples include being regularly off your face on drink or drugs with children in the house. Or, thanks to your behaviour and the people you associate with, your family are witnessing high levels of violence and the police are knocking on your door every other week.
Now that’s a problem lifestyle.
Few would dispute that being an alcoholic, smoking 100 cigarettes a day (as Allen Carr did) or being life-threateningly obese also qualify as problem lifestyles, but the rules are changing so fast that today, if you smoke a handful of cigarettes a day, drink more than the recommended number of units of alcohol per week, or eat ‘too much’ meat (and too many calories), you too are in danger of being added to the list.
We know what Tobacco Control’s agenda is and we know what their strategy and tactics are going to be because every few years they publish a new blueprint for a ‘smoke free’ future. Increasingly however there is an insatiable drive to create not just a “new norm” for smoking but for eating and drinking as well.
Alarmingly it’s being coordinated by middle class meddlers whose future vision eliminates not just risk but personal responsibility and pleasure as well.
Reader Comments (6)
People like Dolly are not liberals or libertarians, they are simply snobs.
My lifestyle is no one else's business. I do wish these moralising do gooders would just fcuk off.
I smoke as a badge of honour now. It is the only way to show that one is not a patronising snob scared to death of living.
Why can't they just leave us alone 🚬🚬🚬
God ! Spare us these people telling us how to live our lives. Take no notice and enjoy yourself !
I was indeed 'fizzing', and meant to challenge her on use of the word 'normal' by asking her to call me abnormal to my face, and in front of the audience.
Frankly, it's a word best fit for the anti pleasure, po-faced puritans who seem not to understand that pleasure seeking is entirely human and VERY normal.
The controlling class always thinks they know better. Beyond that they gain power and profit from their 'moral' crusades. They are not libertarians or really interested in health. They are self-deluded totalitarians. And they must be stopped.
Smoking isn't a 'problem lifestyle'; oppressing and persecuting others is the true problem.
Given this modern predilection for offering therapies for behaviour most of us don't even consider a problem, I wonder if we should just turn the tables on such prudes and busybodies.
Surely there must be an apt psychological term for the bizarre pathological urge to inflict therapy on people who partake in pleasures that don't happen to be to the would-be therapist's taste?
Next time you encounter one, instead of telling them bluntly where to get off, why not ask gently if they had any childhood problems, perhaps they felt inadequate compared to the cool kids smoking behind the bike sheds or something......
Stress to them there is no need to indulge in compulsive behaviour, such as trying organise the lives of those who require no help.They must just admit their problem to the world and seek help.
Who knows, we could even see self-help groups like Busybodies Anonymous springing up. Far better the poor dears are boring the backsides off each other in some safe place instead of pestering the rest of the world.
There might be some truth in what you say Manx. Let's not forget what infamous smoker phobic Cecelia farren said about why she started smoking and then quit.
She said on the smoking years programme that she began because a pretty girl she was jealous of at school was a smoker and she quit because she fancied a lad who didn't smoke. It seems to me the ones who need help are those who clearly have no mind of their own but push their own prejudices and hang ups on others.
Farren and her fellow smoker phobics are weak willed, weak-minded, and clearly unable to make decisions themselves without first seeing what someone else might do.
I would rather be a lifelong smoker bullied by bigots and haters of Farren's ilk than be someone incapable of making my own decisions. I smoked because I always wanted to since I can remember. I never smoked because someone else did. I certainly never smoked to get a kiss from a boy I fancied. How shallow and vacuous these rabid smokerphobics are. They do need help and a personality injection.