Skip to main content

A 'Life' Observation?

Although I'm very interested and engaged in the current domestic political process here in the UK, I'm conscious that a lot of my posts are covering political events and attitudes and I worry about becoming one of the myriad 'political commentators'. I have no intention of wanting to, or becoming one. The world has far too many already; most of them burning oxygen for no good benefit!

To keep it light and to vary the post content, I'm going to sound off, this week, about an everyday observation that some of you might find amusing, but I guess, most of you won't.

The Evils of Smoking Tobacco


The UK has recently introduced new legislation to further regulate the sale of tobacco. That's a whole (or series) of posts in and of itself, but I'm staying away from politics this week. My observation is of a more personal nature.

Since the new legislation has taken effect, the standard amounts that can be legally retailed in the UK has changed. It's now the law that the minimum amount of loose tobacco that can be sold for hand-rolling is now 30g (just over 1 imperial oz.). Yeah, I know; smoking is bad, but when you've been unable to eat for three months, it helps relieve the boredom!

Buying my usual blend since the mandatory changes, I've noticed that the flavour that I'm used to has changed markedly. The flavour has noticeably improved. The bouquet is far more sweet, light, and floral than I remember. It's subtle; it's nuanced. This, to my taste, is better and it's definitely noticeable and wasn't just a "one-off" experience; it's every time!

I got to thinking why this might be? At first, I thought it's because the producer had somehow changed the blend. I don't think it's that, as they wouldn't have missed the promotional chance to crow about the 'great new flavour' but there's been nothing but silence.

What's Happened Here?


No, what I think is that the tobacco is supposed to have that bouquet and flavour. When it's fresh. That's the key, I think. The tobacco has to have been repackaged by law and it's now illegal to sell it in the old quantity of 25g. This means that all of the old tobacco has to have already been sold, or disposed of. The result is that all of the pouches on the shop shelves has to be sold in the new minimum amount... and it's all fresh. This is what the tobacco really should taste like!

It just goes to illustrate just how long some of the "popular" brands of tobacco hang around on the shelves of retailers getting stale, only for mugs such as me to come along and buy it! It's 'gone off'!

Wow! This has really opened my eyes as to just how long some tobacco hangs around and the noticeable difference between fresh and stale. Mind blowing.

A Bleak Future?


You shouldn't smoke. Really, don't. However, if you must, I wonder how long it'll be before the 'new, fresh' situation will last before it sinks back into the usual situation of stale tobacco hanging around waiting for some poor punter to buy it?

I hope that this doesn't happen and we still get fresh tobacco for our (stupidly obscene) amounts of money. I think that it will revert, alas.

My message to the retailers is: Don't overstock your tobacco! It's way better for you to operate a Just-in-Time system here. It's a much more interesting and enjoyable experience for the poor punter.

Thanks for reading and normal service will be resumed.

Mandatory Health Warning to the 'Young-un's':


The best way to give up smoking is... NEVER START!

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Yes, it is annoying to have to go through this process. I appreciate that. However, I really don't want the bulk of comments to be vacuous spam posted in the main by bots.

If you are a reasoning human, please persevere.

Popular posts from this blog

Phyrric Victories and Losses

Note: I had intended to post this article last week, but unfortunately I was unable, due to many appointments that I was obliged to keep. I'm 'late to the party' with this comment, but I hope that you'll consider it anyway. Thank you for your patience. An Historical Introduction Phyrrus of Epirus (c.318 - 272 BC) was a classical Greek General who won a costly victory at the Battle of Asculum. This is now referred to as a "Phyrric Victory" since he was quoted (by Plutarch) as saying: If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined. (Sorry for the hideous paraphrasing.) Phyrric Victories and Losses The General Election on the previous Thursday was labelled as what is referred to as a "snap election", since it was called by the Prime Minister at six weeks notice, which is a very short time as far as General Elections go. The result of the election was bizarre to say the least. To bring in Phyrrus...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thirty Years Too Early

I was born 'out of time'; that's to say, thirty years too early. When growing up, I had an eclectic mind. I was interested in a lot of subjects and was fascinated by finding how lessons in one subject could be applied to a completely different subject. I loved exploring the connections. This meant that I pursued many subjects and didn't really concentrate on one to the exclusion to all else. I continued that throughout my higher education and try to do as much of this as I can in my working life.  My biggest successes at work have been when I can combine knowledge across sometimes disparate subjects to design innovative solutions and it's the part of work I enjoy most: It really doesn't feel like work. At least two of my bosses have commented that my chief skill is "...seeing connections that other people don't see..." (I paraphrase). The problem for me, is that I get to do so little of this kind of 'work'. Modern IT is still very silo-...
Post a Comment
Read more

Adverts, Adverts; All The Way Down

Talking Heads Over the recent months and years we've seen many talking heads from the Web and advertising companies telling us that if we want 'free' services and 'apps' on the Web then we're going to have to accept advertising as the price for this. The increasing numbers of users employing various "ad-blockers" in their browsers are portrayed somehow as "evil" and are denying these companies a legitimate source of revenue. They warn users that if you deny this revenue stream then you'll have to pay, they argue. OK, I get it. Running and hosting Web sites doesn't come for free and most Web companies aren't charities; someone has to pay for it. There are many worthy Web sites out there that are run on a shoestring and use advertising as a way of 'keeping the lights on', as it were. However, if they and the advertising companies are wondering why more users are deploying ad-blockers and revenue is flattening out, then...
Post a Comment
Read more