Wasted on the way.

I often reflect on the perversity of our laws. It is illegal to smoke in public places. It is illegal to purchase alcohol before the age of 18 in the UK. Once you are 18, you can go outside and pretty much drink and smoke yourself to death. Heroin is a Class A drug and as such banned from supply or consumption. Sugar is once more in the headlines today. A Dutch scientist has defied the odds and succeeded in bringing the danger of sugar to prominence. I say this because the strength of the retailers who cram sugar in to their wares is not to be underestimated. What all these things have in common is addiction. Its just that some are acceptable to society under our current laws and some aren't. Ergo, how do you define which addictions are ok and which aren't? The long term effect of sugar addiction on our health is beyond reasonable doubt judging by the sky rocketing rates of diabetes currently being seen. There have been calls for minimum pricing on all alcohol to try and curb our national problem with alcohol. The addictive properties of this drug are slowly being accepted even if many lives are being wasted on the way. Despite graphic warnings on the packets, the numbers of young people taking to cigarettes carries on regardless. At a time when our young have never had so ittle money, they still seem happy to spend it on this highly taxed killer. Sugar is more acceptable because it transcends our national life. It is rife in advertisements and our young are quickly introduced to its insidious effects. The Dutch scientist rightly argues that sugar addiction is every bit as difficult as tobacco or alcohol to overcome. So why is it deemed to be so acceptable? Probably because there are such huge numbers of people afected. The consequences of this social sanctioning is a nation of bulging waist lines whose long term health outcomes are being eroded by the amount of sugar in their diet. It is the devil's own job to convince a teenager of what thses things will do to them in twenty, thirty or forty years time. This being the case, it makes far more sense to try and protect them from this trio of addictions for their own good. It will be a brave man indeed who seeks to do this. I wonder if Jeremy Clarkson could be just the man for a crisis? This would at least try and make some sense of his desire to unseat Nick Clegg at the next election..He needn't tax petrol - just sugar, alcohol and tobacco. Good luck Mr. Clarkson because these are the real challenges which face our governments of tomorrow. Minimum pricing on a chocolate bar? Now that really would be radical!