Chocolate and Health

Welcome back to yet another inane trip into my murky subconscious. I’ve decided to change the mode of address in these posts from using the specific ‘dear reader’ for several reasons. Firstly, I don’t actually have any readers, and therefore when I read these posts in the depths of the night to myself, I feel a dreadful and longing loneliness in the tortured depths of my soul. (Or some other quasi-emo rot at least). Secondly and more significantly, after the trading standards problems with the ‘Newsflash’ in the previous issue (now redesignated ‘A Regurgitated Whinge’), it seemed unfair to employ such a cruel deception to my myriad of imaginary fans (many, you may be interested to know, wear white coats and seem quite keen that I wear a very tight jumper with no arm holes). Thirdly, the more general form of address, where the reader is implied as opposed to overtly stated provides a more accessible and open form of address. Furthermore, such a form of address, dear reader, prevents the breaking up of sentences with unnecessary grammatical terms (just like that).

Well, with that minor formatting issue out of the way, dear reader, I propose that chocolate – those evil, yet sweet-tasting brown squares – are in fact good for me. I reason thus:

1. Chocolate contains sugar and caffeine, which are stimulants.
2. The higher your energy levels, the easier it is to work.
3. Therefore: Chocolate makes me more productive.

Alternatively, chocolate is justified thus:

1. It has been scientifically* proven that chocolate is a comfort food.
2. It is necessary to periodically destress and pause from work in order to continue for a longer time.
3. Such pauses should avoid leaving the immediate environs of the desk because doing so often leads to distractions.
4. Therefore: Chocolate provides me with the necessary relaxation to maintain work for longer.

I could alternatively propose that:

1. Eating chocolate is bad for your health (because eating it to excess increases cholesterol, fatness, cholesterol etc and similarly reduces skin quality, teeth etc)
2. I, as a fully self-aware and informed subject, with an intent for self-preservation act on 1) by attending the gym, eating bananas and not watching TV, all of which are proven to benefit your health.
3. Therefore: a sensible and well-balanced individual such as myself (allegedly) possesses the necessary knowledge and counter-measures to safely consume chocolate in moderation.

There are several disadvantages with the logic of the third argument. For a start, it negates argument two. For, if one has to be emotionally well-balanced and content in order to consume chocolate, it is thus unjustifiable to allow someone who is stressed or depressed to consume chocolate since they do not fulfill the mental health and stability criterion of the latter category. Similarly, such an argument could conceivably be used to justify the consumption of all sorts of other harmful substances. For example, cannabis, cocaine, alcohol, cigarettes, arsenic. All of the above have negligible health consequences in ‘moderation’ (a variable definition of this term might, however, be apposite). Similarly, they all can have fairly significant health implications when used to excess. Yet, unlike chocolate, all of the above can be seen to have a detrimental effect on one’s ability to make the relevant personal and moral decisions detailed under stage 2) of the third argument.

Thus, I would suggest that it is a misleading comparison to compare, say, my consumption of 250g of Cadburys’ finest Turkish Delight (in just over an hour, incidentally), with the consumption of a similar amount of cannabis (result: thoroughly stoned, possibly beyond speech), cocaine (result: fucked), alcohol (result: tipsy), cigarettes (about 150 a day) or arsenic (result: dead).

If there was a point to all of that, I think it got lost. If anyone finds it, could they carefully package it inside one of those bubble-wrap envelopes (I think they should be called bubbelopes) and post it to me, being careful to mark the envelope ‘DANGER! POINT ENCLOSED’ and make sure you use the Post Office’ tracking service, we know what they’re like at losing parcels.