The Health Bill is presently going through the Lords. Clause 19 bans shops from displaying cigarettes: “A person who in the course of a business displays tobacco products, or causes tobacco products to be displayed, in a place in England and Wales or Northern Ireland is guilty of an offence”.
It is a subject on which we are being heavily lobbied. Bodies concerned with health are busy arguing the case for the clause, arguing that it will reduce smoking among the young. Tobacco manufacturers and organisations representing shopkeepers argue that there is no evidence that it will have that effect, but that it will be expensive to implement and may put small shopkeepers out of business.
I was very interested in the response I got on the issue yesterday when I was visiting John Port School in Derbyshire as part of the Peers in Schools programme. I variously begin such visits by eliciting pupils’ views on issues which have been or are being considered by Parliament. The students were overwhelmingly in favour of the ban on smoking in enclosed public places. However, when I asked about banning cigarette displays in shops – and briefly mentioned the arguments on both sides – they were overwhelmingly against the ban.
We are likely to vote on the clause on Wednesday. I have not yet decided how I will vote and may not do so until I have heard the debate. I will be interested to know readers’ views on the issue.
This proposal is more to do with stigmatising smokers than reducing youth smoking. The recent anti-smoking activity in this country has had a devastating effect on the hospitality trade with thousands of jobs lost and landlords losing their livlehoods and their homes. Small shopkeepers have enough to contend with battling against the might of the Supermarkets.Please give them a thought. Selling cigarettes to minors is already an offence. The law is in place. Enforce it and request parents to have responsibility over the actions of their children. This constant nannying has got to stop.
Just a quick note about the banning of cigarette displays:-
The Ministry of Health asked anti-smoking organisation ASH to report on the cost of alterations and gantries, ASH reported the cost for the gantries and alterations at just £120. This figure was sent by health minister Lord Darzi to every member of the House of Lords.
When the supplier, 4 Solutions of Canada, heard about this, it pointed out the individual cost would be approximately £450 — and this did not include any of the installation costs, which would be around £1000. They also pointed out that the costs of the gantries for all the outlets in Britain could be over £30 million.
Neither ASH nor the Ministry of Health has corrected the information they have given to the members of the House of Lords in advance of the vote.
The true costs of implementing this measure will result in closures of small shops just like we are losing 40 public houses a week, there are no benifits in hiding tobacco in Canada for example smoking ratesamong the young are increasing even though tobacco has been removed from the display.
It really is about time that government funded groups and stakeholders were not allowed to set the agenda for government policy on banning smoking.
Smoking is a legal pastime enjoyed by approx 14 million UK residents its about time their views were taken into account.
In this time of financial austerity how can the government justify spending millions upon million of pounds on anti smoking propaganda with not even negligable results.
Please vote against further measures to increase unemployment, shop and small business closures give the millions of smokers a voice.
My Noble Lords and Ladies of the House,
It is my belief that to criminalise retailers who openly display tobacco products would be counter productive.
I am certain my noble peers are aware that to do so waould put unecessary pressure onto small buisinesses, that the costs of these measure will far outweigh any benefit to Her Majesties treasury and will not pacify to any degree the anti smoking lobby.
I am against any legislation that will cause harm to businesses, reduce income for the Treasury and worse still drive law abiding citzens into the arms of criminals who not only smuggle tobacco people and drugs but also fund international terrorism as the honourable members in the Commons point out at every opportunity.
It has been shown in Both Iceland and Canada where simular measures have been in effect that these measure serve only to push up smoking rates,increase smuggling and actually do more to advertise smoking than any tobacco sponsered avertisement ever did!
These facts are cleary apparent to the government of New Zealand who in their wisdom have vetoed any thought of travelling down this road.
I would also submit for your consideration that the curent smoking legislation has achieved nothing accept to close thousands of businesses, put 10,000 peopleand their dependants on benefits which this country can ill afford and is dividing our nation in a manner not seen since the devine right of Kings and the civil war which followed.
I am my noble Lords and Ladies but a common man, a citizen of this land who is deeply saddened by the peril such legislation brings, where does this stop my noble peers? Will my noble peers allow this to continue until it threarens their very existence for if allowed to continue and the common man may be treated in such a shabby manner who is there to prevent the same happenning to you? I entreat you protect your people for by protecting them you protect yourselves.
For the lords. both temporal and spiritual, should
send more than than one moment debating such stupidity
beggars belief and calls out loudly for dismissal.
Debate, indeed the greater issues that cause concern
to this nation and its people, leave petty follies to
the chattering parrots in their self pity and nauseating
isolation.
veritatem fratribus testari
When I go into any shop, I rarely buy anything on impulse. I go in to buy what I wanted. However, I can’t be typical. Shops spend a lot of time and effort making attractive displays to entice customers into buying things they didn’t know they needed, and they wouldn’t bother if it had no effect. It therefore follows that displaying tobacco products encourages more people to smoke, or occasional smokers to smoke more. Seeing the brightly-coloured boxes of this grown-up product on the shelf right behind the counter, where one can’t help but see it when paying, is bound to be extra encouragement for children to take up smoking.
I have wondered about certain practical aspects of this. What will shops be allowed to display to indicate that they actually do sell cigarettes? They will need a sign of some sort. Presumably they will produce a price list or “menu” of products that customers can see if they ask for it. Perhaps I should read the Bill to see if this is explained.
I certainly believe displays of tobacco products in shops encourage young people to take up smoking. I don’t believe the tobacco industry when they claim the only purpose is to inform people who already smoke what is available. Time and time again they have used this argument to oppose restrictions on advertising, yet the fact is millions of their customers die through the use of their products every year, so if they didn’t find ways to attract new ones, they’d be out of business! The shop displays are just another form of advertising, and therefore represent a loophole in the present legislation.
My Lord Norton.
I believe that shop-keepers have the best knowledge of the cost of alterations and lost trade. The blanket smoking ban has already caused the closure of thousands of pubs and clubs and tens of thousands of jobs and I would not like to see any more people losing their livelihoods.
Christopher Morcom, QC said ‘Considering plain packaging, is one thing, but the conferring of the proposed legislative powers is quite another. No government should be given powers to legislate, such as the amendment contemplated, unless evidence justifying the exercise of those powers is brought forward and properly debated. The House of Lords should have none of it’.
Yours Truly
Charles Winfield
I believe the evidence is pretty indisputable based on international comparisons of law changes that limiting or prohibiting advertising does reduce sales. So it’s a rational health argument and I’m perfectly relaxed on ending it in general shops thereby removing temptation from ex-smokers or the young. I’m certain it will negatively hit small corner shops – who do disproportionately rely on cig/alcohol sales but that isn’t a good enough argument in itself. Small shops need help but that’s properly a matter for solutions based around fairer corporation/licence/rates.
I don’t know what amendments have been put down but I can think of at least one reasonable exception. In my nearest city there is a specialist shop that sells pipes, loose tobacco and some expensive cigars. That’s all it sells. It would seem barking to tell that shop that it had to have its goods hidden under the counter when all anyone coming into the shop is there for is to buy/browse the selection of such goods.
Personally I see no merit in banning displays in a wholly or essentially specialist shop and think a reasonable amendment ought to be able to exempt them.
I would ask your Lordships to vote down this proposed ban on tobacco displays and end this witchhunt against smokers.
We are meant to live in a free society and yet it is proposed to hide a perfectly legal product from the prying eyes of children.
What has the country come to with this ludicrous suggestion; there is absolutely no evidence to support this ban and reduction in youngsters taking up smoking, none whatsoever. I thought we were meant to legislate laws based on evidence rather than propaganda.
The anti-smoking lobby is very powerful only because it is funded by New Labour. I, as a smoker, have any right to see the products I wish to purchase in full view, so I can make a decision on price and brand.
Just remember, the black market in tobacco has increased dramatically with the increase in tobacco tax; they will certainly not hide their wares from youngsters even in the streets.
Are the pro-ban people only arguing on the grounds that it will reduce smoking amongst the young?
The reasoning, at least in part, in Australia, was that displays tempted those who were trying to give up. To me, this would seem to be a stronger argument than the one dealing with young people. It’s a long time since I was a young person, but I doubt that display advertising would have been significant in getting me to smoke. Peer group opinions would have been much more significant.
But in the end, what does the evidence say? Have any of the bans come into force yet? Is there any other research?
What next, hide the Stella Artois, hide the Johny Walker,
hide the mars bars, hide the jelly tots , cover up the
crisps, top shelf for the naughties.
Methinks this debate is just another brick in the altar of bigotry and hatred against those who do what most
politicians dont. State agitated prejudice against one’s
own people. Treason in any context, a crime for which
the noose awaits those who tread the path of contempt.
A quiet reminder for the honourable gentlemen of the lower House and Noble Lords in the Upper,
Be wary, tread not down the paths of good intentions
spouted by the few, listen more attentively to the
cries of supplication from the many,lest one day you
all will be held to account.
audemus jura nostra defendere
It should be noted that there are a large number of new commenters on this post, all opposed to the ban. This often happens with blog posts on anti-smoking measures. I think you’ll find this post has been linked from forums such as the so-called “Freedom2Choose”, requesting their members leave comments here. So it’s worth bearing in mind the comments here don’t accurately reflect public opinion.
I feel those leaving comments should “declare an interest” if they belong to a group such as the above, just as they would if they were speaking in the Lords!
As most of these cigarette machines are in pubs, it would be better to keep kids out of pubs !! I thought that pubs were for adults to go to have a drink. smoke and chat ? If ‘families want to take their kids out to eat, they should go to a restaurant. Apart from kids running around in bars why are the parents drinking alcohol while taking care of children.
Cigarettes in machines are much dearer than in shops and the under 18’s do not have that sort of money to spend.
80% of the underage smokers buy from the black market and don’t use machines anyway.
The poster above refers to “Freedom2Choose”, requesting their members leave comments here. So it’s worth bearing in mind the comments here don’t accurately reflect public opinion.
Who exactly belongs to ‘Freedom2Choose’ then ? Are they not members of the public that have an opinion ?
I am sure that many ‘members’ of the anti smoking lobby have had their say. So if members of groups’ views are discounted, the likes of ASH etc. should not be listened to. Unfortunately they are !!
While no one is disputing that members of Freedom2Choose are members of the public, I believe he was saying that you can never judge the response to a blog post as representative of public opinion, particularly while an outside organisation gets members to lobby the blogger on it. I will note that no one is disputing that other lobbies will and have had their say (though not very much in response to this blog post), but I firmly believe that debates such as these in a distinctly unrepresentative arena should be judged on the quality not quantity of arguments. Certainly, a nationwide public opinion poll would be evidence, but not a poll of replies to this blog post, if you take my meaning.
Jonathan,
We are talking about 11-16 year old here not 4 year old that are ‘encouraged’ by bright colours. !!
Do you know what is the most popular brand that kids smoke ? It’s Lambert & Butler. In case you don’t know, the package is boring grey with a black line.
Work that one out.
It is well known that the brands that the kids smoke are the ones that are brought in from China to resemble the popular brands. The ones that are about £2 per pack.
Ban shops selling to youngsters and ban displays and ban machines and you will start seeing the first of many deaths from Chinese imports containing God knows what.
This is a curious one. The idea that people should be prevented from so much as looking at products that are “bad” is a new departure for those proponents of deep state intervention in personal choice and lifestyle and consumption decisions. And it is somewhat worrying from a much broader perspective than the (increasingly tiresome) tobacco debate. If you accept in principle that government can dive so deep into everyday private transactions that it can force retailers, those whose raison d’etre is to make available consumer items to the public, to hide those very items from those with whom they are supposed to transact, then you are opening quite a can of worms. Why, for example, could the same principle not be applied to alcohol or foods that contribute to obesity? Because alcohol kills slightly less people than tobacco? Well then, how many people does a product have to kill before it qualifies for a displays ban? In the US now it is being claimed that obesity is a bigger killer than tobacco so where do we stop?
Anyway, the point might be quite moot now as the government’s case is quickly unravelling on this issue. The Democracy Institute published a report this week demonstrating that not only did the government’s evidence fail to prove its own case, but rather proved the opposite, i.e. that display bans do not work.(See: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6613/)
And, they have been shown to be lying outright about what would be the impact on small shopkeepers. They claimed a Canadian company was quoting an implementation cost of £120 for small shops and when that very same Canadian company refuted the claim and said the cost would be in the thousands instead, did they retract to set the record straight? Nope (see http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23684334-details/Lords+cigs+vote+sparks+a+worry+for+newsagents/article.do) The government has also claimed that young people are in favour of the ban. Lord Norton’s note above clearly proves that this too is inaccurate.
The fact is that nothing about this idea stacks up and it amounts to yet another example of a control freak government in the thrall of special interest groups that has lost all connection to the real concerns of real people.
Can’t help thinking that if a legal product in this country cannot be displayed, what exactly CAN be displayed? Where does it stop? no more displays of petrol and diesel? No more displays of beer wines and spirits? No more displays of political parties, churches, Marks and Spencer etc.? All football clubs to be nameless in case it offends another football club? What has happened in the country of the so called free that nothing legal can be displayed because it may offend or sell a legal product. Are the inmates now running this asylum, or what?
Have your say :
http://www.uksmokingban.forumotion.com
Firstly I hope this facility will provide for the public view to be heard and not be yet another empty gesture such as those put forward by the present Government.
Your summary suggests that there are 2 main sides to the lobbying on this Bill and in this respect you are wrong.
You mention health bodies (many of whom are the good guys – organisations directly funded by Government to produce evidence and enthusiasm for their paymaster’s measures) and the manufacturers and retailers of tobacco products (who we are told are the bad guys – only ‘in it for profit’ and not trusted to provide unbiased evidence) BUT there is at least one further group, the public who, though directly affected by government actions, are seldom considered.
They have already seen disproportionate legislation based upon over-egged so-called-science that, like many Government ‘cures’, promise much and deliver far less at a massive cost to public funds, commercial activity and social health. A revisit to Regulatory Impact Assessments would provide interesting reading!
Fears of cancer may be sated to some extent in the claims that you would be helping to stamp out the ‘most preventable cause’ of cancer BUT, when Mr Brown’s Government and those in the ‘professional bodies’ (who they fund) say it will be so, there is no evidence that the people will change their behaviour to suit. What they fail to declare is that social conditions, made worse by this Government, are the cause of detrimental life choices and low expectations and are the main cause of preventable ill-health in any Country.
I would hope that The Lords have more experience of life and the consequences of political action than the present House of Commons with its ‘professional’ politicians with their life background of political or law degrees. Laws are now passed by and based on evidence provided by those who are socially and financially distanced from the result of their actions.
-Many smokers and their friends have already voted with their feet by staying away from pubs, clubs, bingo halls and cafes. Many now purchase low priced supermarket drink and entertain at home. They more willingly travel abroad or use less-than-legal sources to purchase tobacco products at more reasonable prices and realize they are, most certainly, an unwanted facet of nuLabours society.
-This Country has never before seen such a collapse of the hospitality industry as we are seeing now. Around 4,000 pubs, 90 Bingo halls, 100 members clubs and many cafes no long provide valuable support to individuals and communities (nor do they provide taxes to the exchequer or employment to the many thousands of newly unemployed).
– It appears smoking rates have risen despite claims that the smoking ban would lead to a fall in smoking prevalence.
-There is no evidence that hospital admissions for heart attacks have fallen due to the recent smoking ban despite evidenced promises from funded organisations such as ASH, CRUK etc.. The disturbing news from Scotland is that, contrary to well publicized dramatic falls in hospital admissions, the official, unbiased, year on year figures show the first rise for many years and heart attack admissions are now higher than they were before their ban.
-Claimed uptake of smoking cessation services was over-estimated and is still not achieved despite campaigns that make the Government the second highest contributor to commercial television advertising revenue.
-The cost to the hospitality industry for renovations and provisions for smokers was claimed to be negligible but many venues have spent many thousands of pounds in an attempt to provide some form of humane shelter for their customers.
You have now received new evidence from ASH, CRUK etc. that makes new claims for the current debate. They are as spurious and unfounded as their previous claims.
-The costs for display changes is far more than they claim.
-The claimed fall in smoking prevalence in Canada and Iceland are fanciful and not supported by actual evidence.
-Vending machines are a source of cigarettes only for youngsters involved in ‘health’ stings. Any self-respecting youngster would never use such an expensive source and can find many cheaper alternatives on their unregulated street corner.
-Youngsters begin smoking due to peer pressure ‘behind the bike sheds’ not due to ‘behind the counter displays’. Those displays, if of importance to anti-smokers, are a vital aid for many parents to explain the costs and addictive nature of the activity.
-The claimed support from the Consultation was again orchestrated through funded health groups and initially ignored submissions by trade groups. (It might be worth mentioning that the EU and others committed to tobacco regulation refuse to listen to any evidence from sources that might be connected in any way to tobacco funding yet welcome assistance/funding from the pharmaceutical industry who appear to benefit from sales of their own products!)
Please use your abundant common sense to defeat this further imposition of healthiest idealism.
I suspect this measure has little to do with the reasons stated and more to do with “denormalising” smoking even further.
That term should make every member of the House shudder. It is impossible to denormalise an activity without denormalising the people who engage in that activity. A free and liberal society should not be tolerating state sponsored intolerance of 20%+ members of its population – even if it is, apparantly, for their own good.
It is none of the government’s business whether a person over the age of 18 chooses to smoke or not. If a display ban would stop children taking up smoking then show us the evidence or are we now in the situation where government claiming policy X will have result Y is good enough?
Talking of ‘declaring an interest’, can no one put a stop to the graft perpetrated by grifters like Baroness Uddin ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6211535.ece
This is getting beyond a joke. Still, if I was a tobacco lobbyist, I would be thinking that splashing some cash on the Lords might be a profitable way to invest my money.
Baroness Elaine Murphy, one of the authors of this blog, may remember writing to Michael McFadden some time ago to say that:
“You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it. We know that legislation which discourages all public smoking will have the better impact on public understanding and perception of smoking as an unacceptable habit. Hence fewer people will smoke, hence health overall will improve.”
I would like to congratulate the Baroness on her incisive words. Health is of paramount importance, and any measure that improves public health in the smallest degree should be adopted. I am very glad to see that the medical profession is bravely taking a leading role it defining policy in this area, and helping to redefine our culture in a healthier direction – often in the teeth of resistance from a few misguided people who don’t know what’s good for them with quite the clarity that you do.
I look forward to the Baroness and her learned colleagues further acting to reduce the public acceptability of the consumption of alcohol, which is responsible for at least as many premature deaths as smoking, and very likely a great deal more. I am sure the Baroness will agree that public health would be greatly improved if the drinking of alcohol in public houses was also made an unacceptable habit, and the display of alcoholic products in bars also moved under the counter.
I sincerely hope that the Baroness will also employ her undoubted talents to advance the health benefits of natural, fat-free, sugar-free, environmentally-sensitive low-energy nutrition. For far too long the British people have been enjoying a high fat, high sugar diet which cause countless preventable premature deaths. I am glad to see that some restaurants are now removing salt from the tables of diners. I am sure that the Baroness would agree that it would help if pepper, vinegar, oil, sugar, and every kind of sauce were also removed, and diners restricted to a single course, with sweets and alcohol and coffee removed from restaurant menus.
The Baroness may also wish to consider restrictions upon lewd public dancing by scantily-clad young women, which very often results in unplanned pregnancies and an additional burden upon our overburdened health service. The government should take steps to restrict dancing of this sort by also making it socially unacceptable, perhaps not by banning it outright, but at least by obliging young women to wear long dresses that conceal their legs, arms, and faces, and other attributes.
I would also like briefly mention to the health risks attendant upon gambling, listening to loud electric music, pornography, angling, swimming, yachting, surfing, hang-gliding, gardening, knitting, football, cricket, rugby, wearing scent, and numerous other unhealthy, life-shortening pastimes which only serve to reduce the health and productivity of the work force. But I am sure that the Baroness is already well aware of these, and is already actively campaigning for their restriction and denormalisation.
It would be nice to know that the HoL made a radical decision like this based on evidence instead of hysterical rantings by a few anti-smokers.
This link takes you to an essay containing all the evidence you need to firmly reject this new statute.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10159
It has been said, but it bears repeating, that laws already in force offer the answer. By all means punish those selling tobacco to children, none of us here want to see that situation continuing, but a tobacco display is yet another disproportionate remedy. It is something a poor parent would do, but you seem to have forgotten that you are not our parents.
You let down 12 million people with the infantile smoker ban. Please use this opportunity to exercise some common sense.
Interests declared: member of the public, customer, smoker, proud member of Freedom to Choose, human being disgusted at the way he is treated in a growing fascist state.
Noble Lords,
We have had enough. Please do not support this clause.
I am proud to declare my membership of Freedom2Choose.
Unlike the majority of posters here I am not a member of freedom2choose, but am aware of their tactics of swarming to threads like this to hijack debate and promote smokers freedom issues.
However, this issue is really about existing smokers. It is about the freedom of non-smoking children not to be seduced into smoking by the efforts of the tobacco industry using their last available advertising avenue – the shop display.
Their Lordships have already been fed nonsense about the issue by tobacco lobbyists acting throught front organisations like the Tobacco Retailers Alliance. You have been told that child smoking rates in Iceland did not fall after their shop display ban, contrary to the evidence of the largest survey of schoolchildren there, that showed that the youth smoking rates fell twice as fast as previously following their ban.
You have been told that it will cost shpkeepers thousands to instal new displays when, in reality, the tobacco industry will bear the cost, as they have in other countries.
I see another attempt to feed false information in an earlier post from Maud Flavel, who says that the most popular brand amonst children is Lambert and Butler, which has a very plain pack. Half truths Maud; the children at my school all buy the holographic packs, which they find attractive. When they were first produced my pupils told me they were swapping information on where to get them locally on their facebook and myspace pages.
I hope their Lordships don’t get seduced into voting against this measure just because of the desperate lobbying of the tobacco industry and its puppets.
I am sure your Lordship will not be influenced by comments on this blog. I’m sure that you may take them on board, but will do your own research. All I will add is that I believe that every child gets his first cigarette from his/her friends.
“Unlike the majority of posters here I am not a member of freedom2choose, but am aware of their tactics of swarming to threads like this to hijack debate and promote smokers freedom issues.”
Then by that token, it’s a pity that the Jews did not have the opportunity in the 30’s to ‘swarm’. Had they been able to, their persecution may have been avoided by the Nazis.
If an organisation is prepared to stand up in defiance to persecution of millions of people, the their voices should be hailed and not condemned.
Brenda (A very proud member of freedom2choose) and one of a growing group of people that are fighting very hard to avoid the majority of people in this country being persecuted for smoking/drinking or eating legal products that the puritans do not like.
Once again we see smokers comparing restrictions on their habit to the holocaust, something many people will find hugely offensive. If you really believe that a few laws on smoking are the same as the murder of millions of people under the Nazis, and use terminology such as “persecution” as if you are some ethnic minority group, then you really need help.
The smoking ban has already put thousands of health professionals out of business and will continue to have a devastating effect on the once-thriving industries to cure heart and lung disease. I hope that the plight of our poor doctors, nurses and surgeons and the effect that there job losses will have on the wider economy will be considered when this extension of the smoking ban is considered…
I am fond of a cigarette or two especially after a tough day. A bulk pack of 200 dark tobacco French Gauloises Caporal’s will often last me a year or longer. However, in France I am finding them impossible to buy especially after the relocation of the factory from Lille to Alicante in Spain. The French it seems have become Anglo Saxon blonde smokers. Disgraceful!
Its not so much having a smoke after a tough day, as have several during a boring day. When I say this I am reminded of our troops serving in Afghanistan. Its alright trying to relax by going to bed with a Trollope but has the house considered that a culture change at the front line might cause them to go to bed with a hookah?
In fact it would not be too much of a stretch to imagine a little opium being mixed in with the sawdust that doubles up as tobacco. This would indeed be ironic given that the British introduced tobacco to the region. Habitual smoking in front line service is a chemical addiction but it is one that has my full endorsement in terms of keeping people alert and focused.
Our youngsters are bored too; better they smoke cigarettes than smoke a joint, of course a joint has no tax to pay on it so the state encourages chemical addictions of an illegal nature. The Treasury does not care; it is as it always has been, amoral. Let the people have their cheap affordable cigarettes and beer or suffer the evil alternatives whatever they may be.
Ref: History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Merger Procedure, III Competitive Assessment, 13
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m1735_en.pdf
History goes up in smoke as French stop making Gauloises
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article561087.ece
I’m no friend of the tobacco lobby, but one does have to think of the law of unintended consequences. What if rural post office shops go under because smokers no longer ply their trade there ?
The smokers will still get their fags from white van man down the pub [assuming that hasn’t been taxed out of business as well..] and the old people will be a lot more lonely if they can’t go to the corner shop to transact their business. And that kills quite a lot of old people as well.
I think you should canvass opinion widely – ask Kenneth Clarke as well as Baroness Murphy. I agree that smoking is very dangerous, but if the Government really want to stop it, they could ban it – but they wouldn’t want to upset that many voters or lose the tax revenue.
This is just pushing the tough decisions elsewhere, and asking ‘corner shop owners’ to pay the price of their inability to get beyond dithering and indecision and electoral calculation.
Just a silly anecdote…
I used to enjoy those ‘Curiously Strong Mints..’ in those super strong tins – I won’t give the name of the manufacturer in case I get told off for advertising.
I worked for a while in a ‘head office’ which was based ‘the wrong side of the river’ in a major city. I used to purchase them in a convenience store chemist. They then disappeared, and I put it down to lack of customer demand.
But when making another purchase at a later date, I queried the fact that they no longer sold these fine mints. “Oh, we still sell them, but we keep them ‘under the counter’ now” the assistant said cheerily.
I was too flabbergasted to ask why, and how one was supposed to know they were being sold if not on display, and what other ‘goodies’ might be kept under the shelf.. Reminiscent of those old ‘something for the weekend’ moments I thought..
“A person who in the course of a business displays tobacco products, or causes tobacco products to be displayed, in a place in England and Wales or Northern Ireland is guilty of an offence”.
If an employee was to leave a pack of cigs on display in a shoe shop this seems to imply that they would be collared. I would appreciate a clarification of display, rather than display for sale.
I am clear in my own mind that tobacco vending machines should be banned with all vending machines of products that attract under-age users. Of course, this would include contraceptives.
But we are talking health issues, and contraceptives = good, unless you are RC. Why not completely ban the sale of tobacco goods? [to be continued…]
Amy Johnson said: Unlike the majority of posters here I am not a member of freedom2choose, but am aware of their tactics of swarming to threads like this to hijack debate and promote smokers freedom issues.
There’s only one person hijacking debate here, Amy. What you perhaps meant to say was that debate isn’t allowed, in your mind, by those who disagree with you.
If you want a good example of ‘swarming’, how about this from a document entitled “To examine how a Government committed to a voluntary approach was forced by effective advocacy to introduce comprehensive smokefree legislation.” boasting about how they conned the government prior to the Health ACT 2006? (note the word ‘forced’)
Cancer Research UK, the biggest cancer charity in the UK in particular substantially increased its campaigning activity. It involved its 1,000 fundraising committees, volunteers in its 620 shops and 3,000 staff and scientists in letter-writing and Christmas card campaigns to MPs. In the run up to the vote on the legislation both Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation ran advertising campaigns to urge the public to lobby their MPs on the issue and succeeded in mobilising 25,000 people to do so.
As you are an opponent of swarming, I take it that you will equally express your disapproval at such swarming tactics from anti-smokers?
No? Thought not.
There is no evidence of advantages for this measure, it is unnecessary and can only harm businesses. Those in favour have lied about its potential benefits and, disgustingly, subverted consultations by air-brushing out 25,000 responses which disagreed. ASH have then since lied to the Lords about the figures.
I shall now declare my interest. I hope it is passed as I want Labour out for as long as is humanly possible. This, if it is rubber-stamped, will further stoke up anger amongst 9 million voters, and confirm politicians’ contempt for a quarter of the electorate. This can only help in making sure that Labour are considered unelectable for the next generation or more.
Thanks to Theyworkforyou.com, we will see exactly who voted for it, and they will be mostly Labour.
Go for it, Lords. It won’t make any discernible difference in smoker prevalence, in fact, it will probably increase the appeal to rebellious teens, but it will thrill me personally in helping to hammer as many nails in Labour’s coffin as possible before GE 2010.
It’s patently obvious what will happen – financial hardship for small scale retailers and an increased demand for ‘forbidden fruit’ – thus encouraging even more kids to indulge. People don’t start smoking because the products are on full display. Many kids start because they want to appear more grown up/cool/rebellious and, of course, because smoking is undeniably pleasurable. As is alcohol, sex and a lot of so called junk foods. Our enlightened policy makers actually encourage children to have sex (all too often with the same gender). Indeed, it’s a recognised vocation for many young unattached girls, who are rewarded with free accommodation and benefits simply for giving birth…
I’m assuming, though pretty confident, that the majority of under age smoking (and drinking) relies on proxy purchase by someone who is, or appears to be, 18+ and also on cheap smuggled tobacco sold on the street, alongside miscellaneous substances particularly cannabis. In fact, I believe that the majority of ‘roll your own’ smokers, regardless of age, acquire tobacco in this way.
In essence, this legislation is a thinly cloaked attempt by non elected bodies to further alienate users of a perfectly legal product. One that raises £billions for the public coffers – provided, of course, that tobacco sales by bona fide outlets are not adversely affected by ill advised state control.
I don’t know whether the ban on displays is a good idea or not but I remember something from last year. In interviews, I believe on the Today programme, the Government claimed that the Canadian experience showed it worked. Shortly AFTER that my fiancee and I went on holiday to Canada (she has relations who live there). I mentioned the comments to one of the people we were staying with and he commented that the Government had only just passed the legislation (and that it was not yet in force).
It would behove Lord Darzi, & said Lords & Ladies to read what is written below, let it sink in, and then look to yourself as human beings. Would Darzi, be supporting hatemongering if it was aimed at ethnics, I think not.
Politicans, Lord Darzi & his ilk, & said Lords & Ladies should not be implementing legislation to pacify the anti smoking propaganda movement, personal preferences & agendas. They should be looking to represent everyone, not actively encouraging the hate-filled campaign against smokers that is taking plac, a hatemongering never witnessed in this country, but appears to have replaced fox-hunting as a legitmate blood sport.
ASH and the Tobacco Control Industry have taken over government and the House of Lords. This insidious industry seems to have more power than those that are supposed to represent ALL sections of society. It’s a sad day for democracy & freedom when a fascist industry can dictate policy.
Where’s The Humanity?
Paul
1st May 2009.
The following is lifted in its entirety, and unashamedly, from Professor Siegels blog.
Only very rarely will one see a clarity of this calibre.
If it causes anti-smokers and their supporters to pause and to think about their holy crusade, then it has done its job.
“Higher taxes “may” have a disproportionate affect on the poor? Have all the abstractions of ideology and academic debate and policy completely isolated you from the reality of human experience?
You could sell cigarettes for $100 per pack, and a wealthy smoker would never even know that anything had changed. Yet raising the price even $1.00 a pack forces poor people to re-arrange their entire lives in response to other peoples’ legal violence against them. Where is the autonomy in that? Where’s the dignity in that? Where’s the justice in that?
You can create abstract lists of benefits using pencil and paper all day long, but how are these forced income reductions benefiting the working poor, exactly? Especially when their effects are imperceptible to the rich?
Why is cancer regarded as such a horror because it “shortens” life, yet a life of poverty becomes more and more acceptable the deeper they are pushed into poverty, and the longer their poverty (life) is prolonged? There’s nothing to debate here if you’re concerned with real, living human beings at all, rather than “10.73%”, “340 kids” and “400,000 dead”, “an average reduction of 3 cigarettes per day” and other symbols and statistics written on pieces of paper. These are real human beings who are being devastated by these taxes.
These outrageous tax increases transform smoking into an exclusive privilege of the rich. Any poor smoker who attempts to simply do what they have always done, and nothing more (which is absolutely, positively as much their right as it is for the rich), is utterly devastated by these extortions. Is there any humanity at all in this tobacco debate? My God, I wish I did have cancer, just to escape so much inhumanity. I would bow before God in gratitude for taking me away from so much hate and human stupidity.
Anti-smokers make this world such a miserable place to live in. They portray the world, and life itself, as a dangerous and miserable place, yet they endlessly pursue a longer life. I have never witnessed a movement in my lifetime that is permeated with so much evil, stupidity, and sheer inhumanity, no matter how much rhetoric it spews about trying to prevent suffering.
Just open your door and look outside. Feel the sun on your face. Listen to the birds. Splash around in a stream or lake. We are privileged to live in a truly gorgeous world. And anti-smokers turn all of this beauty and joy into something more sickening than a black lung.
Anti-smokers CREATE misery, and suffering, and conflict, and guilt, and shame, and oppression, and stress, and segregation, and isolation, and so many other horrific things that did not exist before they began devoting their lives to worrying about what other people were doing with theirs. Meanwhile, cancer exists even without tobacco. Who is really creating a preventable problem here?
My God, a poor man works his ass off all day, and doesn’t ask for anything more in return than the pleasure of a good smoke as his only “luxury” in a lifetime of hard work. Yet while he’s at work, his income is reduced by arbitrary taxes that are sent directly to his persecutors. Meanwhile his children are at school being taught that their father, who loves them dearly, is “killing” them. You call that a movement that benefits society, in any way, shape or form? How can you find benevolence in this? This is human evil at its most obscene, and absurd. Again I ask, what is the matter with you people?
And I say this giving you, Dr. Siegel, full credit for being one of the good guys, as far as anyone who devotes their life to the concept of “control” can be regarded as a decent human being at all. For my part, I’d prefer a world where nobody was concerned with “control”. Just live your life the best you can and be grateful for it every day, rather than wasting your life mourning the fact that it will one day end.
The lack of gratitude for life I witness among anti-smokers is just astounding. They always want more, more, more, and then still more. More control over other people. More laws. More regulations. More taxes. More studies. More grants. More publicity. More time on television. One more day added to their life. More money siphoned off of hard-working smokers. More, more, more. This is the most deranged group of people I have ever seen. Why isn’t mental illness at the top of anyone’s priority list, rather than tobacco control?
How dare you make a tame suggestion that these taxes “may have a disproportionate effect on the poor”. These taxes are utterly devastating to poor people, and the sadistic anti-smokers who imposed those taxes are laughing at their victims’ suffering, all the way to the bank. Stop writing academic arguments in your sleep, and wake up to the obvious reality of what the anti-smoking movement is really all about. These people are sociopaths”.
“the children at my school all buy the holographic packs, which they find attractive. When they were first produced my pupils told me they were swapping information on where to get them locally on their facebook and myspace pages.”
DON’T TELL LIES Amy Thompson. please check tour facts and nationwide statistics, not just your area …I HAVE.
“If you really believe that a few laws on smoking are the same as the murder of millions of people under the Nazis, and use terminology such as “persecution” as if you are some ethnic minority group, then you really need help.”
Oh dear !! Someone who doesn’t know their history !!
Smoking Bans and the Third Reich
http://sadireland.com/smoking1.htm
I won’t bother to discuss further with people that are not too bright and I am off to join the freedom2choose as they sound a much more intelligent and better informed organisation than a few people here.
Maud (about to become a member of freedom2choose)
Two penneth – Declaration of interest. I detest tobacco smoke.
I detest more the idea that advertising of a legal product should be banned – this is police state stuff. What will be next? Banning the xxxx wing press? (Replace xxxx with left, right, middle etc depending on your persuasion)
Is this where we are heading, bans are like “forbidden fruit” to the youngsters. Illegal drugs cannot be brought under the counter, no advertising, no shops, but the kids would know how to buy them before the adults. We all know the black market will expand as I am sure the Lords/Ladies and MPs and the antis do.
These links are some I saved (Cananda)
http://calsun.canoe.ca:80/News…..6-sun.html
August 26, 2008
We’ve spent a lot of money trying to eradicate smoking with limited success, so it’s about time we put our dollars elsewhere
By MICHAEL PLATT Smoking was supposed to go the way of eight-track tapes and rotary phones. snip~
So healthy, so promising, except the future generation isn’t quitting.
Indeed, as Health Canada’s most recent survey on tobacco use shows, cigarette use isn’t declining at all and has remained stagnant for three years. One-in-five Canadians smoked in 2005 and one-in- five Canadians smoke now.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7ac9ff81-d3c4-4974-9b11-1780451ac9e6&k=41274
Contraband smokes common among teens
An “alarming” number of Canadian teens are smoking black-market cigarettes, new research reveals, raising fresh concerns about the accessibility of the unregulated smokes and the impact that could have on teen smoking rates.
By CanWest News ServiceNovember 2, 2007
Snip~
“We have to have a huge concern,” said association president Dave Bryans. “Nobody knows what’s in these products. There’s no government overseeing. There’s nobody watching. We’re just closing our eyes and now they’re infiltrating the high schools.”
Interesting last para “we’re just closing our eyes”.
It should made an offence for under 18s to purchase cigarettes so that children will be less inclined to buy them.
Lord Norton: If you plan was to show the readers what it is like to be intensely lobbied on a hot issue then I think it a roaring success 😀
A few points in response to the comments so far.
1. I’m very disappointed that none of the Freedom to Choose representatives have addressed the difficulties that shop displays cause for people who want to give up smoking. As a group that seems to be concerned with freedom of choice, I would have thought that this was a subject that they would want to address.
2. I think that the arguments about the Government not having the right to place restrictions on products that cause health problems needs to be rejected. This argument might have some validity in a normal society, but in one like the UK where the people want the Government to provide free healthcare, haven’t they implicitly given the Government the right to deal with health issues as it sees fit.
3. Could someone please explain to me how the display ban will cause both
I find it hard to believe the Cancer Research UK asked 11 year-olds (as part of their research) for their opinions on this. Smoking is an adult activity, not an 11 year old activity.
There are already mechanisms in place to prevent the purchase of cigarettes to under-18’s, just as there is with alchohol. So why the need for new laws which would create a considerable cost burden on our retail sector? Just enforce the existing laws.
But isn’t the real problem here that, yet again, the victims are the small corner shops and post offices ?? One hates to cast these aspersions, but Tesco and the like have the gargantuan profits to be able to lobby Government on other legislation, and thus we see the inability of the Competition Commission to stop them buying the chains of ‘convenience stores’ which have given supermarkets such a stranglehold over the food chain and the supply chain.
I wouldn’t put it past the supermarkets to set up an ‘offshore operation’ to allow cigarettes to be purchased on the internet, pay the ‘UK Duty’ as they were shipped in, and transported to the doors of consumers, as the ‘media tycoons’ are now doing with the newspaper deliveries, to cut the retailers out of the supply chain to stay in business.
So the ‘media conglomerates’ and ‘tobacco companies’ are not the ones who will suffer – it is the ‘small corner shops’ which are the ‘endangered species’ which will be pursued to extinction by this Government.
But then these are ‘small businesses’ and small businessmen do not always ‘Vote Labour’ so they are not worth pleasing. Mark my words, if this legislation goes through, and the newspaper supply market disappears, it won’t be long before the Labour PM finds ways to ban them selling fizzy drinks and ice creams and sweets on the basis that they contribute to obesity and thus cost the NHS too much money.
And then when they all close down we shall have no choice but to go to TescoMorrisonBury’s for all our food, drink, clothing and newspaper requirements. But then they all donate healthily to the political parties, thus negating the need for ‘state funding’ of political parties and it will be ‘cash and carry’ government like in the US of A.
I hold no brief for the evil tobacco companies, but anyone who thinks that this legislation is anything other than NewLabour spin to cover up health inequality needs to look at it a lot more closely.
Assuming retailers will still stock tobacco if this clause is passed, has anyone for one moment thought where they will store cigarettes and tobacco safely and securely, and in a way that is accessible for retail workers to find and sell to the buying public (on demand).
Lack of storage space is already a major problem for many small shops and larger stores alike, without inflicting on them the added burden of trying to find somewhere – off the shop-floor – where cigarettes abd tobacco can be held, without multiple cases of the same line being opened by different staff at different times to sell stock to their customers, which will cause more stock to be damaged and a nightmare for stock-control staff and customer sales assistants.
One cannot help feeling the clause is another prime example of empty vessels making the most noise, as one suspects many of its proponents have not worked in the retail industry and are therefore unfamiliar with the challenge of finding adequate storage space for stock not on customer display; but, rather, it is being pushed by those who are determined to extirpate smoking a;together and who care not one iota for the vast sums of revenue smokers contribute to the economy via tobacco duty and sponsorship of events which would otherwise be forced to seek alternative means of meeting their costs. For the record I no longer smoke but regard the relentless attack on smokers and the tobacco industry as an assault upon individual freedom and free enterprise.
Thanks for all the responses. I anticipated that the subject was one that would arouse considerable interest. As Croft put it, if the plan was ‘to show the readers what it is like to be intensely lobbied on a hot issue then I think it a roaring success’. It cettainly illustrates not only strength of feeling but the sort of material we receive when there is a campaign. I regularly check the blog stats: at the end of last week, most referrals to this site were coming from Freedom2Choose. In any event, it is not that difficult to recognise when people are encouraged to write. They are perfectly entitled to do so. I read each contribution on its individual merits, but I do take into account the fact that not all contributions are spontaneous.
In the event, I voted against the ban because I was not persuaded that the evidence was sufficient to merit it. I was in a minority. The Clause (to ban displays) was upheld by 204 votes to 110. I then voted for a complete ban on vending machines. Shopkeepers can police the sale of cigarettes in a way that vending machines cannot. Again, I was in a minority. The amendment was defeated by 134 votes to 86.
Lord Norton, I read that there was a three line whip in operation for this vote. Is that the real reason why both amendments were defeated, because the Government had its way? After all, the way you voted would seem the most logical middle ground.
I read yesterday’s debate in Hansard, as I sometimes do when issues that interest me are being discussed, and I have to say I was impressed by the quality of debate on both sites. I recommend other readers take a look.
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/health.html
Lord Norton,
Thank you for voting the way you did. Your reasons display an unusual amount of common sense. When it comes to smoking related prohibition, evidence is almost unrequired. Hard evidence is routinely ignored.
Those Peers that voted for the ban have made a mistake.
I predict the following:
Unprecedented closures amongst small shops.
An INCREASE in youth smoking
An INCREASE in smoking prevalence overall.
Freedom to Choose has an uncanny ability to spot these trends, and it isn’t because we have a crystal ball. We merely look backwards. History shows us the way, every single time. We were right about pub closures, we were right about increased smoking prevalence in Scotland, then in Wales, and then again in England. We challenge any and all data concerning smoking and second hand smoke and we know the anti-smokers display a zeal more common to religious fundamentalists.
We are aware also, that “outclicks” tell you where commenter’s come from, and we could have advised our members to pick a different route to your blog. We chose not to. We have nothing to hide. We openly campaign for change, and for choice.
Thank you again for displaying great wisdom.
A battle was lost last night, but the war continues.
The issue of people being encouraged to write cropped up in the Lords debate. For example, Baroness Northover commented:
“If I am wrong, then a small shopkeeper from Chiswick who wrote to me and my colleagues this morning has a very bright future at the very top of a public affairs agency.”
Noble lords, and indeed most people reading blogs, are intelligent enough to realise that the comments on smoking-related issues don’t reflect the balance of public opinion. In fact, the only people who seem to think otherwise are Freedom2Choose members, who manage to delude themselves into believing their own views are those of the majority, when in fact they represent only a minority of smokers, let alone the larger public.
They also peddle false facts. A quick Google reveals numerous articles from this January about the number of smokers being at its lowest ever level. Heat attack admissions dropped 40% after the ban.
Freedom2Choose: an organisation that looks backwards. You said it. Fortunately, most people are looking forwards to a healthier future.
Jonathan: I’d love to see your proof of heart attacks dropping by 40% after the ban, please do enlighten us.
The reason I ask is that the proof simply doesn’t exist. And you accuse others false facts? Jeez.
Admittedly the 40% figure looks a bit suspicious. However, there are many sources for a significant decrease of some amount, with data from Scotland, Ireland and Italy as well as England:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article4131177.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/11/health.smoking
http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/thefacts/italy-s-smoking-ban-cuts-local-heart-attack-rates-.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23411038-details/The%20smoking%20ban%20could%20cut%20heart%20attacks%20by%2032,000%20a%20year/article.do
You could still question the quality of the data, no doubt, but it’s more reliable than any data on reasons for pub closures – particularly as we are in a recession and all sorts of businesses are closing.
Jonathan: As it was a Government Bill, I presume that Labour peers were whipped in support of the clause. On the Conservative side, there was a whip for Conservative fornt-benchers to support Earl Howe’s amendment, but it was a free vote for back-benchers.
The distinction between a whipped vote and a free vote is not that apparent. If a peer disagrees with the party line, then issuing a whip may influence them to abstain rather than vote against the party line, but otherwise does not, or should not, have much relevance.