Do I make myself clear?
Thursday, November 5, 2009 Yesterday the (Glasgow) Herald reported that "Adults could be prosecuted for buying cigarettes for under age smokers under new Scottish Government proposals."
The move has the support of ASH Scotland, the Scottish Grocers Federation and the Association of Convenience Stores which wants the Department of Health in Westminster to follow the Scottish example.
The paper added that:
"The Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest), while supporting moves to cut youth smoking rates, seriously questioned how effective such a move would be.
Forest director Simon Clark said: "The problem about bringing in a law like this is that it will be almost impossible to enforce. Enforcement is clearly a major problem and introducing laws reeks of grandstanding.
"If you criminalise adults in this area, it opens up a can of worms. What about adults who don't feed their children the right food?"
Writing on this blog on another thread, someone queried this last comment and said that it made no sense and sounded, well, odd.
He is absolutely right. When I read it I too thought that it sounded ridiculous. To be honest, I don't remember saying those exact words, but the error is entirely mine.
The main point I made was to do with enforcement. How on earth do you prove that an adult has bought cigarettes for someone who is under age? Another point I stressed was the need to enforce existing laws (ie cracking down on shopkeepers selling cigarettes to under 18s) before introducing new laws.
In the course of a three or four minute conversation, I then speculated that if you make it illegal for adults to buy cigarettes for children, what is the next step? Do we make it illegal for adults to buy alcohol and share it with their teenage children? And should we prosecute adults for buying the "wrong" type of food and giving it to their potentially obese offspring?
When you speak to a journalist and you know that they only want a soundbite, it's important to keep your comments short and to the point. In this instance my mistake was to speculate about wider issues rather than sticking to the core question.
Part of the problem is that, on the subject of proxy purchasing, I am torn. I believe it is wrong to buy cigarettes for children but I don't believe that large numbers of adults are doing it. (Why would they?) And if it's not a major problem, why go to the trouble of introducing yet another new law? Haven't we got enough already?
Another problem is this. It's not illegal for teenagers to smoke yet for someone under the age of 18 to possess a cigarette politicians want to create a world in which someone, somewhere, will have to commit a criminal act. This seems to me excessive.
The truth is, the only way to really crack down on adolescents smoking is to make it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to light up. And do we really want our children prosecuted for such a minor offence? I don't.
It's not illegal (yet) to drink alcohol under the age of 18. Nor is it illegal for adults to give their children alcohol. Personally, I believe it is stupid and irresponsible for an adult to give a child cigarettes, but should it be made illegal? I'm not so sure.
The police and the courts are already fully stretched. Do we really want to get them involved in issues such as this?
Simon Clark
In today's Scottish Daily Mail, I am quoted as follows:
"Bringing tobacco into line with alcohol laws does not, on the face of it, seem unreasonable. Our worry is that this is the government using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The number of adults actually buying cigarettes for youths must be very small. We would much rather see them concentrate on enforcing existing laws. There are very few prosecutions of shopkeepers caught selling cigarettes to youngsters."
Simon Clark
Ann Coffey, Labour MP for Stockport, yesterday posted the following written question: "To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of creating an offence for a young person aged under 18 years to attempt to buy cigarettes and tobacco in preventing such behaviour; and if he will make a statement."
This is how campaigns begin. Watch this space.
Reader Comments (13)
I must say this is the least odious of ideas from the anti smoking lobby. I believe smoking is an adult activity and it is the nuances that the argument fails or succeeds.
Certainly giving cigarettes to under 16s is wrong imo, but to a 16 or 17 year old when it is legal to smoke? They can get married, have sex and join the army, but can't smoke and I believe it is double standards.
Also who is giving under 18 year olds the cigarettes, parents, siblings or Big John from the pub? After all Big John and his mates are always in court for pushing class A drugs, eh?
Alas, yet another initiative that will make smoking more attractive to younger people.
The whole things sounds like a bad joke. 'Buying cigarettes for an under 18' seems to be the proposed offence. Does that mean that if you buy them for yourself and then offer one to a 16 year old you are not committing an offence? As Dave says you can marry under 16s, have sex with them [Gay or heterosexual], send them to their death in war,tax them, teach them to drive etc but give one a cigarette and you will have a criminal record.
Does the under 18 have to give you the money and then wait outside the tobacconist while you go inside to buy them? I remember doing that outside off licences when I was under 18. Another stupid idea and a further waste of public money.
Surprised that my little note got a full post, so genuinely many thanks Simon, I can see where you are coming from now, though I disagree somewhat. I think that your position just got mangled by the Herald journo; not very surprising when you try to provide and explain a relatively complex message to a writer looking for a quick canned quote.
I disagree because I think that if shopkeepers, Gov stats, trading standards reports and other sources all say that proxy purchase is a significant source of cigarettes for under-18s, it's as good an indicator that you're going to get that it is a genuine problem. I remember pestering people outside of the local shop to buy fags for me at 13ish also, so I can fill out the stats with personal experience.
Absolutely agree that it's meaningless without enforcement however, and that enforcement for this (as it currently is with alcohol proxy-purchase laws) seems very very difficult. There are few ways to do it apart from surveillance, which is obviously costly and time consuming. I suppose it's more about sending a message about what is acceptable.
(Junican, I tried to get LOGICAL as you urge but am still unable to understand your argument in the previous thread - more than happy to continue the discussion here.)
Note to Peter Thurgood: Peter, some time ago I wrote that comments in excess of 350 words may be deleted. Nothing personal, but I am sticking to that policy. (Your last comment was 750.)
I know someone who is a single parent and sees his fifteen-year-old daughter twice a month. He knows that she is a smoker. He would rather supply her with cigarettes than see her go to dealers who would sell her the hard stuff without any scruples at all. He does not 'approve' of smoking but cannot influence her daily choices as she doesn't live with him.
This is all starting to get a bit silly, frankly.
I well remember going to the shops to buy a packet of fags for my mum in the Sixties, and nobody batted an eyelid. I preferred sweets, and thought smoking was just one of those silly things that adults did.
Now, she eats sweets, and I smoke.
I was in Tesco a few days ago, and the young (18-ish) checkout girl was having problems deciding whether the customer (a Middle Eastern guy) 'looked over 25' - in accordance with the company's weird policy on alcohol sales. He very obviously 'looked' at least in his early thirties, and seemed quite upset not to be believed. Even I felt embarrassed.
Dafter by the minute...............
Belinda, that's obviously a shame but I don't think you can base laws on exceptional circumstances that aren't desirable anyway (your friend presumably doesn't want any of that for his daughter - either her to get cigs from him or from the street corner guy).
Good law should be proportionate and balance responsibilities. At present the sale of tobacco is the only thing that is illegal (the burden of responsibility is on the shopkeeper). If under-18s are to be criminalised for buying (as is proposed in Scotland), then surely ensuring adults can't buy fags for under-18s without committing an offence is balancing the equation of responsibility.
Besides, given all practicalities of enforcement, your friend isn't really the target of the law, it's the people who hung around the off license who were willing to take my £5 tip to go buy a 12-pack of Tennent's and 10 Lambert and Butler when I was 15!
Blueblackjack ... I tend to agree, However people like that will fall foul of the law and I expect they exist in their thousands.
Simon Clarke, This is your blog, and you can decide which posts you want to allow on here, and which posts you want to delete. BUT please play the game Simon, you say that my post was deleted, because some time ago you wrote that comments in excess of 350 words may be deleted. Nothing personal, you say, but you are sticking to that policy. (My last comment, which you deleted was 750 words.)
If that policy is going to be adhered to regarding all posts on here, then fair enough, but yesterday, the very day in which you decided to delete my post of 750 words, you allowed another post, on the "P-P-P-Pick up a penguin" thread, which was written by Martin V, and contained 1,069 words.
Was there some special reason why Martin's post was allowed, even though it broke your rule, and mine was not?
I have made some observations on youth smoking here after being confronted by 8, 10 and 14 year old smokers during a recent campaigning day
http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/louth-and-horncastle-campaign-kicks-off.html
Congratulations Pat, on your UKIP decision I mean. I can't say I hope you will win, as that would be going against the grain for me wouldn't it, but I do wish you well, and congratulate you for putting your money where your mouth is.
p.s. Congratulations also, on finding a way around the word-count taliban on here.
Pat, if I were to ask you some questions on UKIP policy (as if I was a local constituent) would you be up to answering them on here?
No answer from Pat?
No answer from Simon?