DoH proposes tougher tobacco controls
Sunday, June 1, 2008 I haven't blogged for a few days because I've been a bit busy. Yesterday was World No Tobacco Day. We were expecting a big announcement from the Department of Health and we got it. (Actually, we got it on Friday but it was embargoed until 00.01hrs Saturday morning.)
As well as proposals to ban 10-packs, cigarette vending machines, and the display of tobacco in shops (which we already knew about), the "tougher tobacco controls" promised could include (shock horror) plain packaging.
All this, we are told, is to reduce the number of people who start smoking in their teens, although there is little evidence to suggest it will make much difference. I won't go over all the arguments (been there, done that and I need a break!) but you can read Forest's response on our website. We were widely quoted by the British and foreign media including the BBC, Sun, Guardian, Independent, to name a few.
You might also like to read THIS post by Iain Dale.
It's worth noting that although we are only at the beginning of a three-month "consultation" period, health secretary Alan Johnson and public health minister Dawn Primarolo have already declared their support for a point of sale display ban and other measures. Surely they should keep their mouths shut until after the consultation period? Or am I missing something?
Reader Comments (12)
Simon - Even after the kicking at the local elections and the Nantwich and Crewe By-election, New Labour still display the arrogance of a government in power for over a decade. Consultation, what consultation! Pimarolo and Johnson have predetermined the outcome regardless of any consultation period. New Labour is a joke and it always suprises me that it has taken a decade or more for the apathetic British electorate to wake up and see what is being done to this country.
Perhaps you can answer these queries that I have with respect to these proposals. If cigarettes are going to packaged in plain packets and hidden under the counter, how the hell do smokers know what their brand is, the price per packet and what is on offer? Surely these measures contravene the Consumer's Rights Act or am I being naive? I despair of this country and, if personal circumstances were different, would not hesitate to leave these shores. Bill.
People such as Dawn Primarolo and Alan Johnson and their ilk are obviously insane. They should be certified, locked away and the keys thrown away. There's obviously something 'BIG' happening nationally which no one is telling us about because in the past week all they seem to have focused upon is banning cigarette vending machines, putting cigarettes under the counter and, now, taking brand names off. These people are, quite simply, lunatics.
How many kids buy their first cigarette over the counter? I would have thought that ALL kids get their first cigarette from their mates.
Am I thick or misunderstanding something? I thought that it had recently been announced that under 18s couldn't buy cigarettes over the counter so these measures should be utterly superfluous. What's more, if cigarettes are to be sold 'under the counter' the branding is not going to be seen either so plain packets are superfluous for that reason, too. Or are all smokers aged 20+, all retailers and all manufacturers to be inconvenienced so that 18 and 19 year olds are discouraged from smoking?
If I may, I would like to refer you to one of my youtube vids, "The Final Solution". Persecution of a sizeable minority who have an element in their lifestyle which is disliked by those who have the power to create discrimination can be seen many times in history. An ideal that some people are contaminating others can quickly become an obsession, and ordinary people with a dislike, can soon find that their dislike becomes abhorrence and hatred. I genuinly believe that what is happening to smokers follows the same pattern as other forms of persecution.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-1j3DMjnVv8
Let them know this on the Labour site.
http://www.labour.org.uk/discuss_smokefree_england
I'm going to get myself a 1960s cigarette case. Very 'Mad Men' and very cool indeed.
Simon, you're right about cool!
I don't find the proposals objectionable. It is perfectly reasonable for a government to control the display and sale of drugs or dangerous substances. It does not impact on the rights of smokers - unless of course there are ties of affection between a smoker and his packet.
Oh Maxwell dear boy, didn't you know that alcohol was a very dangerous drug. Would it be perfectly reasonable to sell that from under the counter!? The mind boggles.Reasonable behaviour? Actually it's called de-normalization.
You poor indoctrinated soul, tobacco is NOT a dangerous drug, hence the highest longevity rates in the countries with highest smoking rates, and funny enough some of the lowest in countries with low smoking rates.
Haven't you worked it out yet? The mortality rates of smokers are calculated from the percentage of smokers in a population. In other words divide the total mortality rate by that number minus a few for more authenticity. If your a smoker your NOT allowed to die, at ANY age, because it's logged as premature. It's scandalous,and the penny will drop one day.
Of course I'm sure you believe that with prohibition of smoking ALL disease would disappear, and a world of non-smoking clones would live in Nirvava. Dream on.
Maxwell: I suspect a perhaps disingenuous incomprehension in your comment: 'It does not impact on the rights of smokers - unless of course there are ties of affection between a smoker and his packet.' Anyone who remembers the old, pre flip top Players packet, with its bearded sailor and waves will know that it was a thing of beauty and a joy to handle, in its small way a work of art. It induced a sense of harmony. Smokers are now being hounded into a sense of dis-ease with themselves and the consequent destruction of peace of mind, I suspect, IS bad for health. I write as a non-smoker for ten years now. I wonder, may I say, whether there is a whiff of Ash about your contribution.
If we are to believe that this prats think that by banning anything that can be bad for, then I suggest that we add some others. e.g. Wasps. They serve no actual purpose in life and could cause Anaphalytic Shock which could cause death. Why not ban all motorised vehicles as they can cause death. If we lived in such a perfect world wouldn't it be totally boring. If these clowns want us to live in a perfect society why don't they go back to the planet they came from or at least, let us know when the next interplanentary spaceship is due so that I can book up for the return journey
I could not belive i was reading this parragraph in the consultation document.
"chances of being a smoker are substantially greater among people living in rented housing, receiving
state benefits, who don’t have access to a car, are unemployed or living in overcrowded accommodation."
The reasons why this should be the case are not well understood.
So there you have it. Smoking being associated with benefit claiments and the unemployed, two other groups of people the goverment love whiping up hatered towards. And what a lack of car access has to do with it I don't know.
And why is this not understood to be the case? Because it's total rubbish.