Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

SNP plan to ban cigarette displays in shops



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

PLANS to outlaw displays of cigarettes in shops have been outlined as part of a range of measures to tackle smoking across Scotland.
Public health minister Shona Robison also said a ban on the sale of cigarettes in packets of ten will be considered as part of an action plan to "denormalise" smoking.

Other proposals include updating statutory controls on the sale of tobacco pr
oducts, including the introduction of cautions and fixed penalty notices.

Ms Robison said: "Reducing the number of smokers in Scotland is a key part of our drive to turn the tide of Scotland's poor health record.

"We simply can't afford to ignore the damage that smoking does, as both the human and economic costs are horrendous."

Ms Robison said she hoped the measures would build on the success of the ban on smoking in public places and would help discourage youngsters from taking up the habit.

She added: "Smoking is dangerous at any age but the statistics are stark. Eighty per cent of smokers start in their teens. Someone who starts smoking at 15 is three times more likely to die from cancer as a result than someone who starts in their mid-twenties."

Smoking is responsible for around 13,000 deaths and 33,500 hospital admissions each year in Scotland.

It costs the NHS more than £200 million a year for hospital treatment for smoking related illnesses.

Today's proposals are being backed by an additional £9 million worth of funding over three years.

Laurence Gruer, chair of the Smoking Prevention Working Group whose recommendations informed the content of the action plan, said: "I am very encouraged that the Scottish Government has acted on our advice.

The action plan is exactly the package of tough but sensible measures we need to cut the number of young people in Scotland who become addicted to this toxic substance."

Sheila Duffy, of anti-smoking group ASH Scotland, said: "We warmly welcome the publication of the action plan today as a framework for debate and a chance for real progress in Scotland's health.

"At present, nearly a quarter of adults in Scotland die early from tobacco related diseases. Taking action now will help to ensure a healthier future for our children."





The full article contains 379 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 May 2008 3:44 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

21/05/2008 15:56:25
I wonder what Petrolhead has to say about this.
2

Big Fi,

edinburgh 21/05/2008 16:06:34
If smoking is such a big problem, why not ban cigarettes all together? This is just fiddling round the edges.
3

Liz,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 16:12:40
#2
I agree, they really should just get on and ban it - they have banned far less damaging things in the past.

It is curious that no mention is made of the amount of money the Treasury makes from the tax that cigarrettes attract.
4

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 16:21:57
#1:

I'm sure you can guess what I have to say about this Mario.

It is about time that these nazis got their just deserts and supposedly intelligent people stopped believing all the unadulterated rubbish that is spread about smoking. Yes, it can kill if done to excess this has been hyped up beyond all belief since Obersturmbahnfuerher McConnell took over and the hype has been carried on by the SNP.

If anyone wishes to smoke, it is THEIR OWN BUSINESS and none of anyone elses business. Liz mentions tax. The government are hypocrits of the highest order if they continue to take tax off people and then have the audacity to try to prevent them from using the product.

Smokers should have the right to smoke when and where they choose. They have paid dear for that right and anyone who tries to take that away is a nazi --- plain and simple.
5

Royalty,

Zandvoort 21/05/2008 16:22:47
Will alcohol be next?

Lets face it, alcohol abuse causes many problems in Scotland, esp the younger elements or the "buckfast brigade".

Dont hold your breath.
6

Publius,

London 21/05/2008 16:24:44
If people are going to be forbidden to die from smoking, what will they die from instead? And will that be forbidden too?
7

alex paterson,

Sevilla 21/05/2008 16:24:48
Great idea, the less people exposed to adverts or smoke the better for everyones health worldwide.
8

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 16:31:54
#5:

The answer to your question is of course "yes". The nazis have already started on that. And the British public don't have the bottle to get their act together against them.

All this madness started with the election of the stupid labour party in 1997 and has snowballed since then. When are people going to wake up to the fact that our fathers and grandfathers spent years fighting the tyrranny that was nazism. A great many made the ultimate sacrifice.

Now nazism in this country is nurtured and looked upon by the sheep-like population as "for our own good". It is far from that. The evil scum that wish to take away all our freedoms should be eradicated as they are a cancer in our society.
9

Angus R,

21/05/2008 16:40:24
It costs the NHS more than £200 million a year for hospital treatment for smoking related illnesses.

if thats correct then thats a tiny amoount compared to the revenue the tax on cigarettes must bring in therefore surely the answer would be to advertise more.
10

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

21/05/2008 17:18:58
No4 Fuel Head

One wonders if your 'its their own business' attitude also extends to Alcohol / Marijuana?

Tobacco and Alcohol do more damage per capita than any 'soft' drug, and, using the same criteria as was used to move marijuana to a Class B controlled substance, should be Class A Drugs!

And yes, I do partake of all 3 substances . . .
11

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

21/05/2008 17:20:10
And not neccesarily in moderation either Lol
12

Bravetart,

21/05/2008 17:42:28
Interesting, but while all you MSPs are looking over there the rest of the population, we mere mortals, are more concerned with what is going on over here in the corner with trying to afford to simply live. Priorities people, priorities.

Why not just put them up the top shelf with the old men's dirty magazines.

Smoking would be fine if it wasn't for the cancer and the fact it stinks of all things putrid, eh? Having said that cigar and pipe smoke remind me of my grandfather if you have the energy to get yourselves to the newsagent without coughing up a lung you could try that, smells nicer than cigarettes which are about 90% chemicals anyway.

13

DeniseX,

21/05/2008 17:55:28
'At present, nearly a quarter of adults in Scotland die early from tobacco related diseases'.
At present, just over a quarter of adults in Scotland smoke.
This means that nearly every smoker dies early from tobacco related diseases.
What rubbish.
14

tumshie heid,

21/05/2008 18:11:27
Surely this is a reasonable compromise? Every one knows the damage that tobacco does but people will always want to consume it.If this helps to dissuade anyone else to start smoking then thats no bad thing.
I agree that the right to smoke is an individuals choice but the right not to breathe other peoples smoke in a closed enviroment is also a non smokers right so I agree wholeheartedly with the smoking ban as well.
15

an interested party,

21/05/2008 18:19:14
hyperbole

this i found amusing on the bbc website

"A lifetime addicted to tobacco is a death sentence"

a lifetime NOT addicted to whatever also results in death
16

Euan,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 18:40:27
Just can't agree with Fuel Head on this one.

I think this an excellent move.

It is plainly obvious that behind-the-counter cigarette sales are influenced by the logos and displays in retail outlets.

It will help prevent youngsters from associating with cigarette brands and hopefully stop them from starting smoking in the first place.

Also, the sooner fag machines in pubs are outlawed, the better - they look awful and are just another temptation to any weak-willed smokers whilst having a drink.
17

,

21/05/2008 19:31:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

,

21/05/2008 19:33:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

John Blackley,

Florida 21/05/2008 21:07:53
#17 The Genuine, etc. - Quite right. That would reduce every major supermarket's stock by at least 50%
20

MasterXX,

21/05/2008 21:22:05
^^make that 95% the whole industry is off its rocker
21

Julian,

EDINBURGH 21/05/2008 22:47:32
Liz and bigfi,

And why exactly should people be banned from doing something they enjoy?
22

Julian,

EDINBURGH 21/05/2008 22:56:10
Mario,

So the guy dying of lung cancer should just be told, "sorry mate, we won't treat you and you're going to die because your disease was self inflicted"

I've got a better idea. People with views like yourself should be thoroughly questioned when presenting themselves with a medical problem to see if any of their lifestyle choices caused it.
23

antz the angry wester hailes resident,

edinburgh 21/05/2008 23:08:22
#16 how many smokers do you think started smoking because they walked into a shop and saw a pretty display and thought ooooooohhh i need to give those a try , not many i expect
24

antz the angry wester hailes resident,

edinburgh 21/05/2008 23:11:04
#18 and if you get knocked down by a bus because you were not paying attention , should you be refused treatment too because it was self inflicted?
25

Alex Patterson is full of smoke,

Edinburgh 21/05/2008 23:13:24
I would support this idea, if and when,

it also becomes law for MSPs to declare if they have smoked a tobacco product in the past 10 years - Why not

As the wisest men and women in the land, surely they will never have done something so fool hardy as smoking.

MSP being the finest leaders in the land,would not wish to burden the Scottish people with the stupidity of their mistakes and therby declare to decline any NHS treatment in the unlikley event this might be required

26

Endangeredscot,

21/05/2008 23:27:00
I can see their point, to a degree. But there is a real danger here. If their thrust is to prevent young people seeing tobacco products as enticing, then they are going about it the wrong way. In fact, if I had shares in tobacco companies I'd be rubbing my hands together.

Hiding them away will make them MORE enticing and 'cool' to young people!!! For God's sake, has no-one any sense left?
27

Julian,

EDINBURGH 21/05/2008 23:42:43
#26,

By that argument we should just allow cigarettes to be advertised and available everywhere.

Do you really think they would do this without any hard evidence that it discourages people? Do you have any hard evidence that it encourages them or is your statement just supposition?
28

Elaine Wilson,

Dunfermline 21/05/2008 23:58:35
How many violent incidents happen because of smoking? Should they Government not ban alcohol sales or hide then below the counter? As a smoker I will feel like a criminal buying cigarettes.
29

Elaine Wilson,

Dunfermline 22/05/2008 00:03:51
In response to #17 should shops stop selling crisps, chocolate, sweets, alcohol, ready meals, sugary drinks and yoghurts,etc?
30

celtic4,

USA 22/05/2008 00:13:02
You nearly feel criminal buying cigs in America! Smoking was first banned in cafes and restraunts, then in any Federal building, then in shops and markets, and now in taxi cabs! It is infringing in people's rights. Soon it will be illegal to smoke on the street, then in their homes. Good grief. No one likes it but it is a Federal Law. We must comply.
31

jimb4abobor2,

edinburgh 22/05/2008 03:11:12
smoking ban well then will anything be free for our own choice anymore? the goverment are they really worried about deaths or is it the overwhelming cost to treat someone from smoking related disease on the NHS. what about alcohol u dont have a cigarette and stick the head in someone or u dont shout abuse at our nurses and u dont cause disturbances when u have a ciggy so when are they going to reduce the drink related problems in our streets by selling drink in drink related places only and reducing the hours pubs & clubs stay open well i thought the snp were a good party but im having second thoughts now freedom of rite is a good thing lets keep it that way and dont cause anarchey in scotland over a few ciggy displays. get it right we are the people whom vote after all penalise us and well penalise you back
32

jimb4abobor2,

edin 22/05/2008 03:26:00
in relation 2 #17 I MUST say u r a bit out of it and unfair what if rich-list things were banned and they were refused treatment on the NHS as there income is over 10??? per year from selling products for the population to buy hear excuse me mate no poor people no income for you as it is us that keeps you people alive so dont forget that. and another thing who says smoking is bad for you there is no 100% proof of that what about all the polution from public service vehicles diesel buses you dont see them been hidden or banned and flying and need i go on. i dont think so
33

jimb4abobor2,

edin 22/05/2008 03:39:39
in reply to #14 i see ure point but im a smoker and used to goto college i would come out at the break 4 a smoke and to my suprise the people who complained about smoke gets in ure nose was the ones that stood in the shelter with me while i smoked and i said does it not bother you they replied no mate it's ok and most agreed that it does not have to be banned ther is worse things going around out there ie like no it alls whom dont really know what to do or who to please but what yous forget that without us poor population sales would be down by a whopping 80% and big business would be closing all over the country is this what u want to travel 30miles at todays fuel prices to buy your produce. i think anyway the more they ban an item the more tempting it becomes and the more angry voters respond after all there is more smokers and lower classes than the upper class in an election.
34

an interested party,

22/05/2008 07:56:26
cocaine, cannabis, ecstasy, heroin and all the rest of the illegal drugs get buy just fine with out any advertising, no point of sale gimmicks or anything

even making a drug 'more illegal' than it was before had little or no effect

so it seems this gimmick is a well considered peace of wishful thinking, not only that it is by far the cheapest and easiest way to appear to be doing something, whilst still attempting to maintain the moral high ground

banning 10 packs, which are the same price as smuggled 20 packs will work well, more cash for the underworld, way to go
35

an interested party,

22/05/2008 08:07:05
#18 what about fat people, should they 2 be denied a service they have paid for becuase they have over stressed there ickle bodies?
at approx 4 quid tax on a pack of 20 and with 25% of the population smoking, lets say 20 a day thats some £5 million in revenue a day times 365 = $1,825,000,000 (and even if its only 2 quid tax thats still nearly a billion pounds!*)

now consider this satement
'It costs the NHS more than £200 million a year for hospital treatment for smoking related illnesses.'
* 5 times the cost to the NHS

so in reality if someone presented to hospital without having been a smoker they should be turned away as they havent paid anywhere near enough tax to fund the system

damn tooting it would be good if nobody smoked, or stole, or evaded taxes, or lead us into illegal wars but that just isnt the reality in which we live now is it
36

tumshie heid,

22/05/2008 08:20:52
#33
Not sure I understand your point. Is it that if smoking is banned completely (which I don't support anyway) that most shops will close down?
As for your point about voters,most of the "lower classes" that you mention cannot be bothered to turn up for a school parent evening let alone to vote in an election.
37

Big Eddie,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 09:15:14
I smoke. Not very much, but now and again when I have a pint. Having to go outside for a fag is a bit of a pain, but I don't mind if it means a cleaner and healthier environment for everyone else. However, I would hate it if I was told that I couldn't smoke any more. As far as I'm concerned, it's no-one's business but my own.

So why has everyone got their knickers in a twist about banning smoking? That's not on anyone's agenda (not even ASH's) as far as I can tell. These measures won't affect existing smokers one jot, and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

The whole point of this policy is to help prevent children and young people from becoming smokers. Does anyone here have a problem with that? Adults who smoke already will be able to go and buy their fags as normal. Shopkeepers don't need to worry about their legitimate trade falling off - smokers are addicts (yes, even me) and they'll carry on buying fags whether they can see them or not.

There may be a small proportion of smokers who simply won't be able to make up their mind what to buy without being confronted by a wall of fag packets. Perhaps Petrol Head falls into that category, which is why he's frothing at the mouth (again) and ranting about national socialism (again). I'm a bit worried about his blood pressure.

Come on, Petrol. Deep breath in, count to ten and relax ....
38

Tellen1,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 09:41:27
Where are all the SNP supporters who normally come on these message boards complaining about 'nanny states' whenever labour try to implement something like the smoking ban - don't see them complaining now their party is getting involved in a 'nanny state' act too.

Alternative (High octane) fuelhead - you should be completely ashamed with yourself for trying to compare the current government to the nazis - you are an utter disgrace - the nazis murdered 6 million people. Anyone who actually fought against the nazis would find your comments utterly abhorrant - the nazis were a DICTATORSHIP who MURDERED millions of people - if you don't like what the government are doing you can vote them out - the two situations are completely incomparable - you really need to take a long hard look at yourself and get a sense of perspective before you make any more comments on here. A lot of people would agree with you when you talk about people's rights but when you start comparing things to nazism you completely lose respect and become an embarassment.
39

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 10:38:50
#27:

"Do you really think they would do this without any hard evidence that it discourages people?"

Well, they introduced the vile, mindless, nazi state smoking ban without any hard evidence that passive smoking existed---even though they put this excuse forward as the main reason for doing so. What would stop them introducing more stupid, opressive legislation on the back of yet another load of supposition and lies?

People like ASH should be incarcerated, not appeased. Isn't appeasment what Chamberlain tried with Hitler in the mid 1930s? Look how that ended up.

Euan,

Having a fag machine in a pub isn't a temptation to smokers at all. If you smoke, you generally make sure you have enough fags (or cigars etc) on you to last the evening because it is far cheaper to get them from a supermarket than to pay £6 (or more) for a packet of 16 fags from a machine.

At the end of the day, if you are organised then these additional stupid restrictions will not really affect you. It is the whole principle of the thing that I find so sickening---even more so the fact that everyone is prepared to stand by and let the nazis take control of our lives... Just as they did in Germany in the 1930s.
40

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 10:44:14
Tellen,

I'm not comparing the current government to the latter stages of nazism where mass murder was involved. To do so would, as you say, be rediculous.

I am comparing them to the early stages of nazism when the seeds of hatred, bigotry, oppression and marginalisation were sown. If you read my posts, I keep referring to "Germany in the 1930s". Concentration camps, death camps, deporting etc, didn't come about until the early 40s in the main.

I think my comparison is actually quite accurate.
41

Tellen1,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 11:12:59
#40

So you are suggesting that putting cigarettes under the counter and implementing a smoking ban is comparable to the early stages of nazism in the 1930's?

In 1933-35 the nazis banned all opposition parties, suspended civil liberties, passed acts to allow Hitler to bring out laws without the need for a parliamentary vote, carried out a purge of political enemies resulting in the murder of hundreds, and declared Hitler as 'supreme judge' of Germany - allowing himself to rule on issues without the need to resort to the courts. 1935 also saw the passing of the Nuremburg laws which gave a legal basis for the systematic persecution of Jews, banning them from owning businesses, forcing them to wear the star of david and seeing the first Jewish ghettos being established.

By comparing the current democratically elected government with the totalitarian nazi regime of the 1930s you are completely embarrasing yourself and making your views utterly irrelevant. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence will understand that the two situations are uncomparable. Please try to express your opinions without comparing things today to the nazi regime,it merely exposes you as someone with no sense of perspective whatsoever who attempts to use sensationalist and utterly ridiculous comparisons.
42

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 11:36:48
#41:

There are a lot of parallels...

The government of today has swept away freedom of choice and lied about the reasons for doing so---just as the nazis did.

The government of today has actively spread propaganda demonising a significant sector of society---just as the nazis did.

The government of today uses draconian enforcement to enforce trivial laws and puts the onus on other people to do the enforcement for them---just as the nazis did.

The government of today uses propaganda and mis-information to create a climate of fear and hatred of significant minorities---just as the nazis did.

When they start using terms like "de-normalise" and "socially unacceptable" then what they are doing smacks of nazism. Another trait is very similar, that of no sooner have they sucessfully imposed one stage of oppression, they are actively working on the next stage.

Another significant aspect is that Hitler waged a personal war on smoking.

These are the reasons why I compare them to nazis. In many ways they ARE nazis. I only wish people would wake up to what is happening. I'm not suggesting that this is all going to end in mass murder but if things are allowed to continue, sometime, something you like to do is going to be attacked. And the way it's going, the machine will be so slick soon that nothing will get in the way of it and your rights/priviledges will be swept away overnight and you will be able to do nothing about it.

This isn't just about smoking. Smoking is merely an example.
43

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 11:46:01
(cont)

And what are you going to do when they do the same to drinking? And sugar? And fatty foods? And cars? And motorbikes? And sunbathing? In fact, anything that there currently exists a minority looney group to oppose it?

It's all very well for those who don't smoke to just sit back and let it happen at the moment. It's all very well for teetotallers to just not bother themselves about the current war being waged against people having a few pints. It's even all very well for the weak-minded amongst us to suck up all the propaganda like a sponge and allow it to formulate their opinions on the subject.

However, eventually we will all end up oppressed, cowed, restricted and with no individuality. Whether you smoke or not, whether you agree with smoking or not, we all need to band together and stop this nazi tide of woe NOW.
44

Mr Crisps,

Musselburgh 22/05/2008 11:47:08
Fuel Head - smoking isn't banned, just not allowed in places it affects others who don't want to inhale your fumes.

Is it not a bit over the top:

"The government of today has actively spread propaganda demonising a significant sector of society---just as the nazis did."

Smoking causes illness and disease, and can do so even in relatively light usage. We ALL pay for this as a society, and not just the financial cost via NHS before you start on about how much tax comes in from cigarettes.

A significant minority drink-drive - should the 'nazi' government avoid demonising this too?
45

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 11:48:27
#41 Tellen1

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Adolf Hitler originally elected to power as the result of a democratic election?

Back to the business of the article and comments by Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head and others.

I must say I find some of the legislation passed re smoking and other things, e.g. the possible introduction of compulsory ID cards, enforced wearing of seatbelts while driving in town, etc as nothing short of dictatorial (I am a non-smoker by the way) and the whole thing could have been better handled with allowances/exceptions made for pubs, clubs, etc.

It can only be a matter of time before the 'dictators' in Scotland and the UK turn their attentions to alcohol, gambling, etc - of course purely in the public interest (and I don't think).

Fuel Head is quite right in the respect that we should all stand up for ourselves and sort these people out, because before you know it they'll have you forced back into attending church on Sundays.



46

Anonym,

somewhere 22/05/2008 11:50:43
Politicians of all persuasions these days all go on and on and on about what great work they are doing implementing policies and legislation 'DENORMALISING' smoking, but the fact is that smoking is actualy an everyday occurence.

Away and 'boil yer heids' with your social engineering, and your constant stream of legislation!
47

Big Eddie,

Edinburth 22/05/2008 11:58:52
Anonym, the fact that smoking is an everyday occurence is the problem. That's why the govt wants to denormalise it, so that it is no longer an everyday occurence. Is that too difficult for you to grasp? Or perhaps you think it's good that 15,000 young people take up such an unhealthy habit each year?
48

Anonym,

22/05/2008 12:02:27
# 44 Mr Crisps, "Fuel Head - smoking isn't banned, just not allowed in places it affects others who don't want to inhale your fumes."

Aye. It's also banned in places where nobody was bothered by the fumes.

You see, prior to the ban on smoking in public places, there was NOTHING to stop those people who are so concerned for their health that they couldn't tolerate other people smoking in their presence, from opening their OWN pubs or clubs or restraunts, etc.

No, they had to ban smoking from EVERY 'public' place, because otherwise most, if not all, pubs would choose to allow smoking, and to hell with the health police!



49

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 12:06:37
#47 Big Eddie

Eddie, I think it's really the question of freedom of choice which is under debate here.

Just look at the days of prohibition in the US for an example of how badly things can go wrong when you try to legislate 'habits' (or cravings) out of Society, it just doesn't work and ends up creating a worse situation.

Like you I am concerned about youngsters (or anyone else) taking up smoking (in the context of this article). The best chance of success is to persuade/educate people out of such activities.

50

Anonym,

22/05/2008 12:06:59
# 47 NO, Big Eddie I don't think it's a good thing that thousands of young people take up 'such an unhealthy habit' every year.

I think it is a good thing that people have the freedom to make their own decisions and mistakes.

Perhaps that concept is 'too difficult' for YOU to grasp.
51

Tellen1,

22/05/2008 12:09:16
#45

Yes the nazis were originally democratically elected but they then began a process of systematically dismantling the state apparatus of Germany, banning other political parties and appointing Hitler as supreme leader answerable to no one. Until either the SNP or labour governments attempt to do likewise the two situations are uncomparable.

#42 - So do you think people should have freedom of choice to do whatever they want? Should they be free to smoke wherever they want, take heroin, drink drive, have sex with children, rape, murder? Where do you draw the line?

52

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 22/05/2008 12:28:46
#49, Peter - very disappointed/concerned,Edinburgh.
"The best chance of success is to persuade/educate people out of such activities."
Sounds a good intent, but how do we go about it? A latter day Band of Hope against tobacco? A picture of Petrol Man on every cigarette packet as a warning of the results of nicotine addiction? Any one got any more ideas?
53

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 12:37:54
#51 Tellen1

Thanks for getting back.

Tellen1, although the situation is nothing like as bad as Germany in the mid - late 30s, don't you feel that many of our present politicians at various levels of 'government' are beginning to develope some Nazi traits?

We, the electorate were not consulted on the smoking ban and the introduction of trams into Edinburgh would be another example.

See "Scotland on Sunday" for another example of 'dictatorship', the proposal by the Government to keep a database of ALL calls made in the UK.

Better watch or the Labour SS might come after me.



54

Tellen1,

22/05/2008 12:48:45
Okay I understand that a lot of you on here are advocating freedom of choice and suggesting that people should be free to smoke in public places, but as I asked earlier, where do you draw the line on freedom of choice?

Should people be allowed to drink drive, to take drugs like heroin and cocaine, to have sex with children? If not, why not? Why should people be allowed to smoke in a public place if they are not allowed to drink drive, or to take drugs? Or do you think people should be able to do whatever they like, whatever the consequences are?
55

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 12:58:00
#54 Tellen1

I think we would all draw the line at the crimes you specify, i.e rape, murder, child abuse. However, you raise a good point re drugs, again though I am not in favour of drug misuse, I feel that present policies/strategies are a complete and expensive failure and are only worsening the situation.

Where drugs (alcohol too) are concerned we can only try to educate/discourage people from becoming involved/letting addictions take control.

Re the question of tobacco, I thought I made my position clear in an earlier posting: I feel that pubs, clubs, social gathering places in general should have been ommitted in that specific areas should (where possible) have been made available for smokers (I am not a smoker myself).

56

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 22/05/2008 13:09:21
#53,Peter - very disappointed/concerned,Edinburgh.
There was a consultation period prior to the introduction of the Health Act, 2006, where opinions were invited and received from any interested party. I took the trouble to respond. I understand there was a similar process in Scotland.
In this non-Nazi state, be it Scotland or the U.K., the electorate has the ability to lobby their M.P.s, form pressure groups, hold protest marches, or spread dissent. Neither of these options gained favour in Nazi Germany, the old Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or present day Myanmar.
Ultimately they can vote their government out and choose a new one. If individuals like Petrol Man or groups like F2S can't muster enough support for their cause, perhaps they're just backing the wrong horse.
The results from Crewe and Nantwich later to-day might set an interesting example of democratic power.
57

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 14:17:35
#56 David from New Mills

Hi David,

"If individuals like Petrol Man or groups like F2S can't muster enough support for their cause, perhaps they're just backing the wrong horse."

Yes, admittedly that is proabably part of the truth. However, I believe the more likely and frightening reason is that most people don't want to be bothered to do much about things which they disapprove of or aren't happy with, hence 'government' gets away with a hell of a lot.

What is the saying? "Good men need do nothing for evil to flourish". While many of legislative points raised here are not exactly 'evil', it seems to me that they do not reflect the will/wishes of the majority.



58

Julian,

EDINBURGH 22/05/2008 16:06:55
Fuel head,

evidence of passive smoking is at the very least debatable. But the other reason they introduced the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces is that it was a popular move. I know you smokers and libertarians find that hard to believe but it's the truth. Why do you think most countries around the world are introducing these bans as well?
59

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 22/05/2008 16:48:19
#58 Julian


"the other reason they introduced the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces is that it was a popular move."

Julian, how do you know that? Were you asked? I certainly wasn't nor were any of my friends & colleagues. I am a non-smoker and I don't agree with the decision regarding pubs, clubs, etc.

This piece of legislation was about as popular as the decision (taken without public consultation) to re-introduce trams back into Edinburgh.


60

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 22/05/2008 20:13:17
#57, Peter - very disappointed/concerned,Edinburgh.
Peter would appear to be saying that we get the governments we deserve. In which case perhaps the malcontents, in the majority or otherwise, should get their rear ends off their barstools, and go out and express their choice for a perceived better way.
Wonder how Crewe and Nantwich will go to-day? Could be a portent.
61

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 22/05/2008 20:20:11
#60,Peter - very disappointed/concerned,Edinburgh.
Does Peter realistically expect every decision of the Scottish Executive or HMG to have to be ratified by door to door canvassing? If that were the case, nothing might ever change. I've no vested interest in Edinburgh's trams, but as they say "short term pain for long term gain", perhaps?
Perhaps in the coming years we'll begin to wonder what all the fuss was about re smoking restrictions, and Edinburgh's trams for that matter.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.