Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSP disputes claim of cigarette 'glamour'

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

Published Date: 28 May 2009
By Katrine Bussey
AN MSP brandished a packet of cigarettes in front of an anti-smoking campaigner yesterday in a row over tobacco advertising.
Conservative Mary Scanlon held up the packet in front of Ash Scotland chief executive Sheila Duffy at a meeting of Holyrood's health and sport committee, which is considering proposals aimed at curbing sales of tobacco and cigarettes, including a ban on displays in shops.

Ms Duffy backed the plans, arguing that cigarettes should be "put out of sight and out of mind". In a written submission to MSPs, she said there was "compelling evidence" that tobacco companies' marketing was "heavily geared to presenting smoking as a glamorous, aspirational and youthful lifestyle choice".

But Ms Scanlon held up a packet of cigarettes and pointed out that one side had the message "smoking kills", while the other side had the warning "smoking while pregnant harms your baby".

The Conservatives' health spokeswoman challenged Ms Duffy and said: "About three-quarters of the packet is non-advertising and a sick baby on one side and 'smoking kills' on the other – do you really think that's glamorous?"





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 May 2009 6:40 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

helend498,

28/05/2009 00:54:06
Let's face it - Sheila Duffy is an extremist. I'm surprised she didn't throw up with the sight of a packet of cigarettes.
If Scotland wishes to agree with the views of extremist groups, then so be it. I will never agree though; I will continue to support those who believe in a democracy, diversity, opportuntities and choice for all.
2

Riverkidca,

Swan River 28/05/2009 05:27:59
It's about time someone cut Duffy down to size. She seems to be operating under the delusion that she, and only she, can set policy for the Scottish government so far as smoking policy is concerned. Well done, Ms Scanlon!
3

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 28/05/2009 08:55:19
print MPs expenses on the packets,enough to give anyone the urge to stop
but pray where will the revenue that every chancer has increased at will,on the smokers come from,should say 90% smokers gave up?
duty on booze a well,if everyone stopped drinking where would that tax come from?
duffy is one of those who attack nazi style on those she hates ie smokers
why should she get to act like some MP/MSP or even worse a lazy git Lord
i started smoking at 19 and stopped smoking at 48yrs of age
so like when one is unemployed,can i claim my ciggy tax back as a non smoker just like being on dole lol
4

BeeGee,

28/05/2009 08:56:24
She is not a patch on that old warhorse and former smoker Maureen Moore. At least Maureen was willing to enter into correspondence unlike her successor who is frightened to enter open debate as she know she would lose.
5

english charlie,

28/05/2009 09:06:28
If Ms Duffy had 'compelling evidence', why didn't she submit that evidence to the committee?
If the health warnings and graphic pictures are attractive to youngsters, they should be removed.
6

BeeGee,

28/05/2009 09:12:08
Serious consideration must now be given to the removal of the public funding of £938000 enjoyed by ASH Scotland as they came to the table with NO evidence, a week after the other side had presented their case and with sufficient time to counter the argument. Complacency, complacency
7

Yurk,

28/05/2009 10:30:46
Having just watched the feed of the session, most of these comments are disingenuous. Evidence was presented, and it was already available to the committee members in the written submissions (which have been available online for ages). Mary Scanlon looked to be enjoying a day in the sun getting the boot in, without really being interested in actually engaging in discussion or critiquing the evidence already presented.

Makes fun viewing though, no mistake. But shouldn't politicians be interested in actually understanding the issue on its merits rather than flexing their muscle in cross-examinations that show that, basically, they haven't done their reading?
8

BeeGee,

28/05/2009 10:38:02
This depends on whether the evidence submitted by ASH Scotland was factual and cound be backed up with appropriate data from Government. To date this organisation has not provided any credible evidence that can be backed up by similar legislation introduced in other countries.

They were unaware that electronic and token regulated vending machines were in use throughout Europe yet there has been ample evidence presented only 7 days previous.

Look at this article that shows the facts as presented by a Professor in Health Government.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6613/

ASH Scotland had time to prepare counter debate after the evidence from last week but they failed to deliver
9

english charlie,

28/05/2009 10:52:34
We need some MPs in the UK parliament like Mary Scanlon, who read all the presented evidence and questioned them.
In Last week's session Trading Standards, Scotland said that they had little evidence of underaged youngsters buying from shops or machines.
10

BeeGee,

28/05/2009 11:22:12
As Article 14 of the European Human Rights Convention has been upheld in the Dutch Courts in relation to small pubs, this may have a bearing here as small shopkeepers will find that they are discriminated against while carrying out their business in comparison to supermarket chains who have the funding and can create space for under counter sales.
11

Yurk,

28/05/2009 12:32:26
Rofl rofl number 9.

It was apparent that she wasn't even aware of the existence of the evidence, despite the fact it's posted in the Scot Gov website for the committee in the numerous submissions of evidence they received, never mind having read it.

If she actually had read it, or even was able to give a distilled critique of it as number 8's link gives, then maybe it'd have been actually worthy of some news.

But otherwise, meh.

12

english charlie,

28/05/2009 12:38:54
#11 Yurk. When Ms Scanlon asked Ms Duffy for the evidence, Ms Duffy said she could send it. So Ms Duffy hadn't sent it.
13

Charles IIIX,

28/05/2009 13:02:33
This debate is very important for the average man in the street - relating to ALL debate on the smoking issue, not just the display element. It highlights their 'compelling evidence' to hide cigs - evidence that is non-existent but hyped and selectively produced by anti tobacco to try to force their view. This is the hallmark of all issues on smoking particularly the 2nd and 3rd hand smoke invention. It is also typical of their, rapidly wearing thin, dependence on an 'appeal to authority' - "Believe us, we are the experts ... everyone else is working for the tobacco industry".

The problem is that this is nothing but a 'show trial' meant to satiate the public and have them believe the government is 'listening'. I am hopeful that the public will see through the anti-tobacco mask of respectability this time. However, I will be extremely surprised if the consultation changes even one small aspect of the proposed legislation.

It is interesting that it is usual in any trial for the prosecutor to lay the charge and evidence first with the defence producing their case last to give the defence a better opportunity to refute the allegations. This ‘trial’ appears to be contrary to this. It would be nice to think that this means ASH et al are the defendants’ here - but common sense tells me that it is merely to give them the advantage!

If any decision was to be based on the evidence and the alleged purpose of preventing youth smoking, there is no way the laws would get any further. The purpose, however, is nothing to do with this - it is about maintaining the smoker de-normalisation, stigmatization, and isolation agenda.

Allegedly some 80% of the pubic still believe that 2nd hand smoke is harmful on non-existent evidence!! The evidence has been discredited time after time, but pure ‘appeal to authority’ has consistently swayed the public – I hope that this consultation may be different as anti-tobacco malicious misrepresentation, misinterpretation, lies and dece
14

Charles IIIX,

28/05/2009 13:04:36
cont; I hope that this consultation may be different as anti-tobacco malicious misrepresentation, misinterpretation, lies and deception is laid bare to the open mind?

I suspect my hope will be in vain!
15

mr broon,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 13:30:03
"On 22nd May, a US Federal Appeals Court dealt a blow to US cigarette makers by upholding a 2006 landmark ruling that American cigarette manufacturers lied for decades about the dangers of smoking.

Under the decision, cigarette makers will no longer be allowed to label brands, "Low Tar", "Light", or "Mild", and will have to clearly explain the health dangers of smoking, and also purchase ads in newspapers, and in TV and on radio slots that explain the serious health implications and addictiveness of their products"

It was proved that, since the 1950s, US cigarette makers have known about the dangers of smoking but deliberately concealed their own research findings from the public, medical establishment, AND the Federal government.

Tobacco makers have already spent tens of millions of dollars in appealing the original decision, and intend to spend more on appealing to the US Supreme Court.

Cigarette companies found that more smokers turned to alleged "milder" brands and they deliberately switched higher nicotine tobacco content to these brands."
US Surgeon General
16

jock,

east kilbride 28/05/2009 14:42:10
its about time the cigarette companies gave some support to their customers.
by placing a petition form in ciggy packets similar to the gift tokens of old it would let smokers and friends amount a petition of over a million to be presented to our rulers in holyrood .
they could be gathered en masse in pubs ,clubs, etc.
this surely can be achieved.
any body agree?
17

english charlie,

28/05/2009 15:21:31
#15.We all know about the dangers of cigarettes. All smokers die before the age of 40 and a non-smopker can be killed by one wisp of smoke from 20 metres, but this story is about a proposed display ban.
Ms Duffy has failed to give evidence to the committee that a display ban would deter under 18s from smoking.
I believe that if it was to be made illegal for under 18s to buy cigarettes, this would deter the majority from trying to purchase them.
18

BeeGee,

28/05/2009 20:41:28
Within Written Answers (01) on 31st March 2009-04-06

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con): To ask the Scottish Executive what its rationale is for it being illegal for under-18s to buy alcohol but not cigarettes.

(S3W-22174)

Shona Robison: The Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill includes a number of measures to reduce the attractiveness and availability of tobacco to under-18s, such as the ban of the display of tobacco products and tobacco vending machines. These measures are based on international evidence and extensive consultation with stakeholders. The Scottish Government also raised the minimum age of purchase of tobacco from 16 to 18 in 2007. Whilst I have not been made aware of an appetite to extend the legislation in this way, I would be happy to meet with the member to discuss this matter further.
19

Rollo Tommasi,

28/05/2009 22:28:00
But the minimum age for buying tobacco IS ALREADY 18!!! Shona Robison's answer says so.

It is illegal for a retailer to sell tobacco products to someone under 18. A retailer who does so is committing an offence.

Mary Scanlon appears to be asking if the law should also mean that a person under 18 would be committing an offence if they tried to buy tobacco.
20

english charlie,

29/05/2009 07:59:05
I believe that making it illegal for under 18s to buy cigarettes will reduce the number trying to purchase them. I cannot understand why anti-smoking groups do not want to make it illegal. Do they want to reduce the number of 18s smoking or not?
21

Did I just read that !,

Corby 29/05/2009 08:21:53
I believe Ms Duffy gets £65,000 a year of taxpayers money.
Nice little earner.
Her job ?
Upsetting people, closing busineses ,creating divisions between smokers and non smokers.
Your verdict.
That's for you to decide.

22

Rollo Tommasi,

29/05/2009 08:44:21
Chas: For once in your life you make a reasonable point. Criminalising youngsters for trying to buy tobacco might make a difference.

But don't assume that it definitely would. It's one thing criminalising a 16 or 17 year old. But a 12 or 14 year old?

And your idea might even be counter-productive at penalising adults. Imagine police discover someone selling ciggies to a 16 year old. They can decide whether to charge people or warn them or do nothing. Suppose they decide that the youngster is doing this for the first time, so they just warn him or her. That would actually make it more difficult for them to justify pressing charges against the adult selling the tobacco. The adult may say they're being singled out unfairly, when the police didn't charge the youngster.

And at least the present law makes clear that full responsibility rests with the adults providing the tobacco. If a court decided that legal responsibility was "shared" with the youngster, you might well find they issued smaller penalties against the adult. That would actually hinder efforts to cut off the supply of tobacco from under 18s.
23

english charlie,

29/05/2009 09:23:40
Why shouldn't a 12 or 14 year old be penalised? They can be fined and given criminal records for other offences, so why not for buying cigarettes? I strongly agree with people and children being given verbal warnings instead of fines and criminal records.
Your last paragraph is typical of anti-smoking groups. More concerned with penalising selling than stopping children from buying cigarettes.
24

BeeGee,

29/05/2009 09:34:26
New Study ... disected

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-study-concludes-that-enforcement-of.html

New Study Concludes that Enforcement of Tobacco Sales Laws Reduces Smoking Among Adolescents: But How Good is the Science to Support its Conclusion?
25

Rollo Tommasi,

29/05/2009 17:03:17
Chas - you're contradicting yourself. At post 20 you were questioning whether anti-smoking groups want to reduce the number of 18s smoking or not. Then you wanted stronger action taken to tackle numbers of youngsters getting hold of cigarettes.

Now, suddenly at post 23, you're no longer interested in steps to reduce smoking by teenagers. You're more interested in protecting adults who supply them with tobacco!
26

Tim85,

Lancs, England 29/05/2009 17:37:19
Rollo #22 - is the situation you imagine would occur if u-18s purchasing tobacco were guilty of an offence, as well as the adults that supply them with it, why has this not occured with alcohol?

I also postulate that it is easier for u-18s to buy tobacco than it is for them to buy alcohol. Yet the responsibility is 'shared' as regards alcohol and the penalties just as stiff.

In conclusion, the position of anti-smokers doesn't make sense. Not that I support making it illegal for u-18s to buy cigarettes illegal. It's just a non-sensical contradiction from anti-smoking groups based around the legal requirements in selling other age-restricted products.

Did javascript:__doPostBack('wctlAddComment1$ctl00$btnPost','')I Just Read That !#21 - The gov't have announced that private sector or third sector bodies carrying out work on behalf of government will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. If ASH are included in the list of authorities covered (and I expect them to try and worm out of it, despite receiving extensive funding from the Dept of Health) the fun will really start ...
27

Tim85,

29/05/2009 17:47:02
#23 - agreed Chas. There's no real justification from anti-smokers for not making it illegal for u-18s to buy tobacco. If a child of over 12 is Gillick competent, surely they would be able to decide whether or not to break the law by trying to buy tobacco?
28

english charlie,

29/05/2009 18:25:46
#25. Rollo. You are the one who is contradicting himself. You say that you support the idea of making it illegal for under 18s to purchase cigarettes and them say only for 16 and 17 year olds. Surely it is far more important to stop really young kids from smoking.
29

David from New Mills,

Ever fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 29/05/2009 20:12:46
#28, chas.w.
I am delighted to note that chas. advocates education of the young to avoid their becoming nicotine addicts. However, in the past I asked chas. to clarify just just what form this education may take, as I did recently when Charles Linskaill spoke of "Desperation, instead of Education". Is either of the two Charlies, namely Linskaill or Winfield, capable of defining this "education", or are they both simply guilty of emitting so much hot air?
30

english charlie,

30/05/2009 10:17:50
#29. Do you agree with Rollo that it should be an offence for only 16 and 17 years to purchase cigarettes or do you agree with me that it should be an offence for all children over the age of 12?
Surely, making it an offence would deter children for trying to buy cigarettes.
31

David from New Mills,

Ever fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 30/05/2009 11:22:54
#30, chas.w.
Not sure Rollo actually made the statement chas. is claiming. As the pro-smokers' lobby is always keen to point out that tobacco is a perfectly legal product, why is chas. so keen to make purchase of it by minors a criminal offence, especially as he's so fond of pointng out that most minors begin smoking by the encouragement of older "mates", so no purchase is likely to take place.
He still seems unable to expand on his much loved solution of education, as requested in my #29.
32

english charlie,

30/05/2009 12:19:38
#31. I have not mentioned education on this story. I want it to made a criminal offence for children over 11 years old, to reduce the number of youngsters buying cigarettes. Don't you agree that making it offence, would reduce the number of children trying to buy cigarettes?
33

Rollo Tommasi,

30/05/2009 13:52:35
David - You are quite right to point out that Chas did not accurately reflect my comments. But then, we're both used to that from him, aren't we?

And isn't it odd that Chas claims he wants to reduce the number of youngsters smoking, but he also states that adults who sell cigarettes to children should be protected from the law?
34

english charlie,

30/05/2009 14:24:40
#33. Rollo, where did I 'state that adults who sell cigarettes to children should be protected from the law'?
Why dodn't you answer my question in #30?
35

Rollo Tommasi,

30/05/2009 15:23:51
Chas: You said so at post 23.

And your question at post 30 was directed at David, not me. Added to which, as I've already said, you did not accurately represent my comments in that post.
36

english charlie,

30/05/2009 18:08:18
#35. Rollo where in post 23 did I 'state that adults who sell cigarettes to children should be protected from the law'? Maybe another ASSUMPTION on your part.
37

Rollo Tommasi,

30/05/2009 18:15:01
You said "I strongly agree with people and children being given verbal warnings instead of fines and criminal records." By people, don't you mean adults? You surely can't mean children as you refer to them separately.

Your final para described "anti-smoking groups" as being "More concerned with penalising selling than stopping children from buying cigarettes."

If these comments were not about protecting adults from the law - i.e. not penalising them for selling cigarettes to children - I'd be very interested in knowing your alternative explanation.
38

english charlie,

30/05/2009 18:56:51
#37. Since when do comments like that mean that adults shouldn't be prosecuted?
I believe that adults who sell cigarettes to under 18s and the children buying them should all be guilty of committing an offence.
Why do you disagree with making it illegal for under 18s buying cigarettes?
39

Belinda-2,

30/05/2009 22:00:17
Any transaction involving the sale of cigarettes to under 18s is illegal. If the transaction is illegal, then any consenting party to it is in breach of the law. As Ross Finnie pointed out in the hearing, if a youngster pretends to be of age when s/he is not, this is fraudulent (especially if it involves fake ID).

A transaction like this can cost the retailer his livelihood. Yet the person who initiates the transaction is the underage buyer, and it seems unbalanced for this person to not carry any liability. A 16 or 17 year old is criminally liable. What makes it right for this person to escape liability for attempting to deceive a retailer about his age?

A person who is under 16 is less likely to pass for 18 even with fake ID and will have to be supplied by adults if he wishes to smoke. There is a better case for adults being 100 per cent liable here.





40

english charlie,

30/05/2009 22:44:21
It was said at the Health and Sport committee that it is legal for an adult to buy cigarettes and hand them immediately to a youngster. If it was to be made illegal for youngsters to buy or be in possession of cigarettes then this would stop.
41

Rollo Tommasi,

30/05/2009 23:34:48
Chas asks "Since when do comments like that mean that adults shouldn't be prosecuted?"

Answer - It is when you suggest that adults should be given "verbal warnings" instead of being prosecuted - leading to fines and criminal records.

I neither agree nor disagree with whether youngsters (including 16 or 17 year olds) should be open to subject to penalties if they try to buy tobacco. In principle, it seems sensible that they should. I just don't know enough about how it would work in practice to form an informed view.

Belinda - the issue for the adult is taking all reasonable steps to be satisfied that the person is over 18. As a result, many shops don't sell tobacco or alcohol to people under 21 or even 25, just to be safe. If the youngster produces fake but believable ID, then potentially the retailer may have taken all reasonable steps before agreeing to sell tobacco, but everything would depend on the circumstances of the case.


42

Belinda-2,

30/05/2009 23:57:03
Rollo, I am working (part time) in a supermarket and we operate a 'think 25' policy, meaning that anyone under 25 should be challenged to produce ID if buying age restricted products. They certainly don't tell us that 'everything would depend on the circumstances', they just say if we get caught out the consequences are dire!

Police checks are I believe meant to catch people out who are obviously not trying to ensure their customers are of age. That is why failing police checks is a serious matter, even for checkout staff (whose income is not sales related).

I didn't support the raising of the purchasing age but if the transaction is illegal, it should be illegal for everybody involved. The youngster is the one who creates the problem by attempting an underage purchase.
43

Rollo Tommasi,

31/05/2009 00:53:20
Belinda - And so your supermarket's "Think 25" policy effectively takes any doubt matter. I don't know if there is a problem with under 18s producing realistic looking official ID, but it would be very difficult for them to produce realistic looking ID which would fool you into thinking they were over 25.

But it seems to me what you're talking about if imposing penalties on the juvenile in order to reduce the penalties on the shop (or staff) who sell cigarettes to the juvenile. I do see there is some logic in the argument but I'm not sure if it would work to drive down sales of tobacco to youngsters in practice. After all, if youngsters were penalised and it meant that shops could argue for lower penalties because the youngster was also culpable, would the supermarket you work in bother to keep its "think 25" policy going?
44

english charlie,

31/05/2009 07:59:00
Rollo. So a drug dealer would get a lesser penalty if caught selling drugs, as the buyer would be also be culpable? Both would be penalised and the seller would get a stiffer penalty than the buyer. The same with cigarettes.
So what have you got against younsters 12 to 17 yo, buying cigarettes getting a lesser penalty?
45

soapy1,

Rainworth 31/05/2009 08:27:51
Hello Rollo!
46

Belinda-2,

31/05/2009 09:16:57
They don't have to prove that they are over 25, Rollo. They have to prove that they are over 18. The 25 age is to give a margin of error because people can (try to) make themselves look older than they are. (Personally I think people mature rapidly between their late teens and early 20s and much less rapidly after that. With practice it is not difficult to distinguish late teens from people who are clearly of ago.)

I am not trying to reduce the penalty on shopkeepers but I think that the law should recognise it is the young person that is initiating the crime, not the shopkeeper. Young people (old enough to get married or decide to join the forces) should be capable of understanding that pretending to be 18 when you are not 18 is fraudulent and has very severe consequences for the shop. Why should checkout staff or shopkeepers be completely liable for someobe else's wrongdoing?

I am not sure how the last part of your question follows.
47

soapy1,

Rainworth 31/05/2009 09:35:07
I would actually endorse Blindas comments, an id card is absolutely no guarentee that someone is either who they say they are nor how old they are.

A case in point is the old service gag of slipping onto stations with strange I.D cards, if the gate guard is distracted, bored or busy then you could slip on board with a photograph of a gorilla on your id, it has been done quite frequently too. Granted kids are not that resourceful but the real point is is a cashier is distracted or busy there is often only time for a glance on an ID just same a military base, in fact I went for over six months without ever being asked for ID and it was not until a major exercise that anyone did! I was drinking with the best of them at sixteen in pubs and clearly under age, just flash sevice ID and more often than not they see what they expect to see, a serviceman! Same is true of any other other ID it is why little old ladies get conned by bogus gas meter readers they see what they expect to see!

As regards the law then the law must show equality, when you buy a packet of cigarettes you are making a contract you agree to purchase and the vendor agrees to sell them, if both party's break the law then both party's should be prosecuted equally under the law so if it is illegal to sell cigarettes to under 18's then equally it should be illegal to purchase cigarettes under 18, that is the position with alcohol so why not cigarettes?
48

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 11:14:43
Chas.w. is one of those tiresome people in debate who repeats the same question, hoping to wear down his opponent, sometimes by subtly changing the wording of his question.
When his opponent doesn't roll over and submit in canine fashion, he then in desperation moves on to an entirely different question. Another ploy is to make assumptions about what his opponent believes, or to misinterpret what he has said.
I note that his original crime for minors was to attempt to buy cigarettes, but that at #40 it now encompasses possession of same. Why not make smoking them also a crime?
To answer his question at #30, I don't concur with his solution of making purchase of cigarettes by minors a criminal offence. As he's so keen on the proposition, what penalties would he advocate? Time in clink, 50 lashes, or ten years' hard labour on Rockall, Dunwich, or some other colonial outpost? Just what would accord him gratification?
And would chas. then also have been criminalised in his distant youth, if caught behind the barnacle sheds?
49

Rollo Tommasi,

31/05/2009 11:23:30
Belinda - Like I said earlier, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. But I'd like to know what the "official" reasons are for justifying different approaches in order to form a judgement on whether I think they are reasonable or not.

I'm glad your motives are to further reduce the supply of tobacco to youngsters and not to reduce the culpability of retailers (although I do appreciate that it can be hard for shop staff).
50

Rollo Tommasi,

31/05/2009 11:31:59
Soapy: Having criticised you on another post for constantly debating on irrelevant and pretty tasteless points, I am happy to acknowledge that you are actually debating on the issues here. In fact I was interested to read about your case in point. It's another reason for making me sympathetic to the idea of treating youngsters in the same way, whether they're trying to buy alcohol or tobacco.

If you don't mind my saying so, I disagree with your last para. I don't think the law can or should show equality. In the case of alcohol, if a youth tries to buy booze, the retailer faces a larger penalty than the youth (a larger fine, and possible jail time, and/or loss of their off-license). The retailer is only allowed to sell alcohol if they can demonstrate that they are responsible. Selling booze to youngsters is a breach of that duty of responsibility.

See? This is the way debates should run.
51

english charlie,

31/05/2009 11:50:25
So David wants it to remain legal for under 18s to buy cigarettes. The main reason for putting cigarettes under the counter and banning cigarette machines is to deter youngsters from buying cigarettes. What sort of deterrant is that?
52

english charlie,

31/05/2009 12:14:12
Rollo. So why shouldn't the buying and selling of cigarettes be the same as alcohol? Both being an offence.
53

Tim85,

Lancs, England 31/05/2009 12:43:23
Going back to the original debate, it's people like Sheila Duffy that make smoking seem glamorous.
54

Belinda-2,

31/05/2009 14:24:31
#49

I am not sure that either the tobacco control department or ASH was able to answer questions from Ross Finnie about the differences between sales of alcohol and sales of tobacco to youngsters or indeed why ban displays of tobacco and not alcohol. Like you I would like to know what the official reasoning is for the differences but I am not sure that the officials know it yet!

#50 the penalties may not be equal but I fail to see how a law can fail to consider that unless the youth decides to buy tobacco no offence would be committed. Why should the young person escape all responsibility?

It is made very clear to us as shop staff that inattention/distractions etc are not an excuse for an underage sale. We have to be vigilant. If we fail a police test sanctions are imposed on our supervisors too. I don't accept that means that kics should get off with trying to deceive us. The law is the law and should apply to all parties to illegal transactions.
55

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 14:32:33
#51, chas.w.
Chas. has amply demonstrated one of his debating flaws that I pointed out in my #48, namely that I didn't say that I wanted it "to remain legal for under 18s to buy cigarettes", rather than that I didn't agree with his criminalisation proposal for attempting to buy cigarettes, which he seems to advocate for kids as young as twelve.
Again, he has chosen to ignore my question as to whether smoking by minors would per se constitute an offence, and what punishments he would advocate for either "crime" of purchasing or possessing tobacco.
Nor has he advised us at whether he would have been criminalised if caught behind the sand dunes.
The position of not having cigarettes on open display or available from machines is not so much a deterrent as a disincentive, as the whole point of easy access and point of sale or any form of advertising is to persuade the viewer to purchase the product.
Perhaps chas. could take the trouble to answer some of my questions, rather than flit about, trying to create new threads.
56

soapy1,

Rainworth 31/05/2009 14:47:14
Thanks for the invitation to duplicate an debate on another thraed Roll but no thanks, I would agree that it is not revelant here up to this point and I hope will not become so.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing it is a basic right and who am I to deny that?

I fail to see however, how you justify saying it is illegal to sell a product to a minor yet maintain that it be legal for for a minor to buy it, it is nonsense.

It puts the retailer in the position that if he sold a product that is legal for a minor to buy he is breaking the because it is illegal to sell it to them, ther is no logic there, it is legal to purchase but not sell?

In reality though it does line the councils pockets!

I would also be incline to agree with Tim85, the more you tell minors that something is not right for them the more they want to have it, it has been alleged often that smoking was on the decline before the restrictions on smoking, having forced it onto the streets and into the home smoking is now more visible than ever, confined inside pubs it was at least less visible to minors. Hiding any product promotes mystery, typcally if cigarettes were hidden and the packaging changed as proposed then one cancels out the other, Where is the point of hiding cigarettes if they are all in white boxes? it is a waste of money doing both.

For branding cigarettes as glamourous ASh merely promote that idea in childrens minds a form of advertising even and that is definately illegal! Pushing them under cover will only highten the mystery of smoking after all to a child, if adults hide from us then it must good and worth a go, children have always thought that way, they always will they love to experiment, they always will, every parent knows it.

Well it alleged that smoking is on the increase, judging by the fact the tobacco industry is still making profits where many other sectors are not would suppport that view one has to ask just how much influence has the smoking ban
57

soapy1,

31/05/2009 14:47:41
had on that rise?
58

english charlie,

31/05/2009 14:47:52
#48. David said 'I don't concur with his solution of making purchase of cigarettes by minors a criminal offence'. Doesn't this mean that you don't agree with making it a criminal offence?
A criminal offence doesn't mean that the offender is sent to jail or given a hefty fine. A verbal warning could be given for a first offence.
59

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 14:57:43
#54, Belinda C.
I never understood Belinda's difficulty in implementing her employer's "think 25" policy.
Whereas, she states at her #46 that is "the young person that is initiating the crime, not the shopkeeper." Not so, the young person is simply trying to encourage the retailer to commit the offence of serving him. The simple rule should be, if in doubt, seek i.d., and play safe, whether it's for tobacco, lottery tickets, alcohol, solvents, knives or tweenagers trying to avoid paying full fare on buses or trains.
I am pleased that she is willing to do her best to uphold the law in her personal circumstance.
60

Belinda-2,

31/05/2009 15:07:20
#59

since when has encouraging people to commit an offence been within the law?

The youngster sometimes seeks to deceive the shopkeeper into thinking he or she is of age. That can amount to fraud.

The age of criminal responsibility is about ten. Why this reluctance to admit that they should accept their responsibility in upholding the law?

61

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 15:13:33
#58, chas.w.
By saying "David said 'X', does this mean 'X'?" chas. has repeated himself unnecessarily. I'll reply with another example of tautology. Yes,yes.
Chas. should perhaps try reading what it says on the tin.
"A criminal offence doesn't mean that the offender is sent to jail or given a hefty fine." Chas. has omittd the word "necessarily".
His statement that "A verbal warning could be given for a first offence" doesn't tell us chas.' favoured punishment. Can he tell us just what he advocates, and maybe answer my other questions in #48 and 55.
62

english charlie,

31/05/2009 15:22:21
#60. Belinda. David is obviously a member of F2S.
#61. We are back to David not understanding English. A verbal warning means telling somebody that they have done wrong and shouldn't do it again. By keeping it legal for children to buy cigarettes, does that mean that you support children smoking and are really a member of Freedom 2 Smoke?
63

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 15:27:28
#60, Belinda C.
By serving the minor, the retailer is committing an offence, and, as I suggested at #59, sensibly covers himself by asking for i.d. where there is any doubt.
In the old days, there never seemed to be a problem as most shopkeepers would have simply sent obviously under age buyers packing with a flea in their ear, thus no fraud was committed.
But then, I suppose children were a lot more inclined to respect both the law and their elders then. Pity you can't just clip them round the ear these days without the risk of ending up in court.
64

Belinda-2,

31/05/2009 15:39:28
#63, you are the one evading questions now. What makes it right for a young person who encourages a shopkeeper to sell tobacco to him/her to evade his or responsibilities under the law?

The transaction is illegal so everyone who is party to it is liable.

An offence is still committed if the youngster produces ID that is not genuine.

65

english charlie,

31/05/2009 15:52:15
#63. David said 'Pity you can't just clip them round the ear these days without the risk of ending up in court'. Are you now advocating violence towards youngster? Typical bully.
66

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 19:18:02
#62, chas.w.
Perhaps Belinda can confirm that I've paid my subs?
David understands the meaning of a verbal warning, a bit like a clip round the ear, really. He also understands that chas. still declines to specify what level of punishment he advocates for minors, and whether it should extend to possession and / or actual smoking.
I do not advocate "keeping it legal for children to buy cigarettes" but "rather than that I didn't agree with his criminalisation proposal for attempting to buy cigarettes", as at my #55. Chas. wants to be careful with his terminology. Has he looked up "tautology" yet?
No, I don't support ( the idea of ? ) children smoking. Again chas. wants to word his questions a little more carefully.
The hon. secretary, whoever it is these days, should be able to deal with his last query.
67

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 19:25:19
#65, chas.w.
Chas. is perhaps unfamiliar with the old adage about "being cruel to be kind".
So, did he never get a clip round the ear from his father in his youth, for smoking behind the barnacle sheds or scrumping apples, perhaps?
68

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 19:40:06
#64, Belinda C.
No evasion was intended, I simply pointed out that the onus is on the retailer to take all reasonable steps to avoid selling age restricted products to those under the relevant age. If the i.d. appears at all suspicious, then the retailer is entitled to deem it unacceptable, and can refuse service.
Belinda talks at #60 of possible fraud. I think that would only be relevant in the case of attempting to obtain travel or entry to venues at reduced rates. Otherwise it's a case of deception, or intended deception. Whether that would constitute a criminal offence I do not know.
69

soapy1,

Rainworth 31/05/2009 19:49:31
As Illustrated previously an ID card is not a magic cure all for age issues, Who bothers to actually take the ID in their hand and examine it, who actually seeks confirmation that the bearer of the ID is in fact who he or she says she is by phone?

I could get onto most installations in the country, some without any legitimate ID at all and that includes military bases!

If you look and behave like you belong, people never check closely, generally once passed through the main gate you are never queried unless you are clearly out of character. A German speaking friend and I gained access to a German destroyer simply by berating the gangway sentry about how clean his rifle was before just walking aboard, We were sharing a beer on the messdeck when a P.O. doing rounds found us. After a short painful rocket by the destroyers captain and the navy patrol we were released, lessons learned and points taken.

It is that easy to fool professionals how much easier is it to fool little old ladies and no offence Belinda-2, cashiers. ID is not a complete solution neither is legislation, a combination of both ID and legislation to ensure that minors cannot buy tobacco would work better but no matter what you do there is no such thing as 100% success, anyone who believes there is deluding themselves. How many pubs have we been to that has a reputation for under age drinking, most modern teen magazines give lessons in make up, so young girls are now able to appear older than they are, if they behave older in a busy pub or supermarket they know that very often their ID will get a cursorary glance as the bar staff or cashier struggles to reduce the queue and sometimes just dont even look.

It happens even with the best training, the best policy, your common garden terrorist often defeats airport security systems that make supermarkets look like a shoplifters paradise! Only today some one bypassed security to put a bomb on an Iranian aircraft! Both being airside without authori
70

soapy1,

31/05/2009 19:52:14
authorisation and planting bombs are illegal, so much for ID's then.

As for clipping the little darlings around the ear well it worked for me, I was brought up in that era! Thanks to the same idiots who brought in smoking restrictions this is no longer an option.
71

english charlie,

31/05/2009 19:53:02
#66.David. Belinda and myself belong to Freedom2choose not F2S like yourself. Unlike yourself, I do not believe in violence towards children. You are just a bully, wanting to hit children. The law should be the same with cigarettes, as it is with alcohol.
I did not smoke behind the barnacle sheds or anywhere else, as I didn't start smoking until I was in my twenties.
Just because you do not like cigarette smoke you do not want smokers near you and you want to be able to hit children. You are a nasty piece of work.
72

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 31/05/2009 23:39:52
#71, chas.w.
Chas., Belinda, and their various cohorts are indeed members of F2S. They simply choose to label it as F2C for respectability's sake, as the only choice they wish to exercise is that of smoking freely, as in the bad old days before restrictions.
Chas. again makes false assumptions, alleging that I'm "a bully, wanting to hit children", and that "I believe in violence towards children".
So what lured chas. into the trap of nicotine addiction in the fifties, before the dangers were widely appreciated? Was he swayed by adverts into thinking it was "cool"?
I make no apology for not wishing to share smokers' obnoxious fumes, or experience their foul breath.
I'm really qute sweet, but still would wish to know chas.' preferred penalty for minors buying / possessing / smoking cigarettes.
Hope this posting has cleared up a few of chas.' misconceptions about myself.
73

Belinda-2,

01/06/2009 00:05:27
David

You still haven't explained why use of a fake ID does not amount to fraud, and why young people can initiate an illegal transaction or attempt to persuade a shopkeeper to commit an offence by selling to an underage person without incurring criminal penalties.

I know only too well that the onus is completely on the seller, although since the underage purchaser initiates the transaction by attempting to make a purchase I do not understand why the seller should bear 100 per cent of the responsibility.
74

soapy1,

Rainworth 01/06/2009 00:35:37
David I am a little confused, you clearly appreciate the need for ID, you clearly accept the principle that ID alone alone is not working yet do not seem to able to accept that equalising the law so that children under 18 cannot legally buy cigarettes would actually reinforce the ID scheme and not detract from it.

Further I would point out maligning organisations that defend civil liberties is the best way to gain support, it makes people think about said organisation, encourages them to take a look even, much in the same way that ASH advertises cigarettes, it was very charitable of them to describe smoking as glamourous certainly will go a long way to encouraging children to think about cigarettes. Well done David! Every time the negative issues of smoking is mentioned another child thinks about it, everytime civil liberties is advertised people think about it, your'e doing a great job carry on!

Of course no one wants you to have to breathe in obnoxious smoke David, thats why Freedom to Choose advocates landlords choice so that you may choose a smoke free pub to drink in and and smokers can choose a smoking pub to drink in, there now see how think of your welfare! such a pity you you don't want that it is after all the fair solution that will save pubs and give both sides what they want.
75

english charlie,

01/06/2009 10:30:44
Belinda. A person can join the army at the age of 16 and there are thousands of army personnel who look under 25. Would you be embarrassed at having to ask somebody in army uniform for their ID, knowing that they could be laying their lives on the line for their country?
76

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/06/2009 11:24:09
#73, Belinda C.
I'm sorry if my differention between fraud and deception wasn't clear enough. People buying, or trying to buy goods from Belinda's shop are guilty of being deceptive about their age. Fraud would only arise if they obtained goods without paying the full, or any, price.
As I am neither a lawyer nor a parliamentary draftsman, I cannot answer her second point. I simply point out the present situation, without necessarily approving of it.
As we both seem to be in agreement that the onus is on the retailer, perhaps she should refer the matter to her MP or MSP. She could even form a pressure group, but they're not always successful, as I'm sure she'll appreciate.
77

Belinda-2,

01/06/2009 12:08:23
#77

Chambers dictionary defines fraud as 'deceit; imposture; criminal deception done to gain advantage'. This covers using fake ID.

78

soapy1,

Rainworth 01/06/2009 12:22:08
David Fraud is actually a good possibility, myself I'd go for obtaining money goods or services by deception it is far easier to prove and the statute is already on the books! anyone attemting to purchase cigarettes under the legal age is clearly attempting to decieve or defraud the rightful owner of the property, the retailer.

A criminal test case would indeed prove interesting but is unlikely due to the council claiming it as a test purchase, however a civil test case would be harder to circumvent particulary if just the childs parents (who are responsible for their childrens actions until majority) and the child were sued for the value of the fines, damages to buisiness and reputation. The council would gladly throw them to the wolves if they could be kept out of the suit!
79

MRab2,

01/06/2009 13:20:24
#76 "I'm sorry if my differention between fraud and deception wasn't clear enough."

Whatever differentiation you explained is likely to be largely irrelevent. Cut down to basics, using fake ID to buy cigarettes is nothing short than obtaining goods under false pretences - a near dictionary definition of fraud.

Given we live in a society where children as young as 10 can find themselves in court for calling a classmate a "p4ki" making buying cigarettes by the same children a criminal offense seems perfectly rational by comparison.

Having read through the entire thread I;ve yet to see any coherent arguement as to why is SHOULDN'T be illegal.
As has been mentioned, it is always the buyer who initiates the illegal transaction, so why they should be immune to the ramifications mystifies me.

I suspect the anti freedom movement is against the move for strategic reasons. They're not done with their denormalisation campaign and I'm sure they don't want further proposals (which they claim are to protect the children) being counterd by "Isn't it already illegal for kids to buy cigarettes?"
80

english charlie,

01/06/2009 18:03:38
#79. They want it to remain legal for youngsters to be able to buy tobacco products and I wonder if they want proxy purchasing to remain legal, also.
81

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/06/2009 11:33:01
#77-79 inc.
As these correspondents seem to be strugglng with this whole concept, I'll go over it once more.
Apart from the case of obtaining reduced rate travel or entry to a venue when not entitled by to by age , the retailer is not defrauded of anything.
If a minor deceives, coerces, dupes or persuades the retailer to supply goods when he is under the relative age, the retailer has not been defrauded of anything. He still receives the same payment for the goods, and indeed has increased his turnover and, hopefully, profit, but has committed an offence in so doing.
Belinda has agreed at #73, that the onus is on the retailer, hence my saying at #68 "that the onus is on the retailer to take all reasonable steps to avoid selling age restricted products to those under the relevant age. If the i.d. appears at all suspicious, then the retailer is entitled to deem it unacceptable, and can refuse service."
If Belinda and others feel that this responsibility and risk are too high, then the retailer is always free to remove the relevant products from his ranges available, and concentrate on selling dolly mixtures and spangles.
82

Belinda-2,

09/06/2009 23:22:50
If a shopper produces counterfeit ID designed to fool him into thinking the shopper is of age, he has been deceived into breaking the law. The fact that the shopkeeper has suffered no material loss does not alter the fact that he has been deceived into breaking the law. There is absolutely no reason that a 17 year old should not bear any responsibility for this situation. It is more than being an accomplice to a crime, it is knowingly perpetrating a crime (or what would be a crime if there were any logic in the law), whereas the shopkeeper is unknowingly committing a crime - surely a lesser offence.
83

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 10/06/2009 20:48:57
#82, Belinda, C.
I'm not at all in disagreement with Belinda's viewpoint, simply with her concept of fraud. Should she feel that the law is unfairly loaded against the retailer, she is free to call for the balance to be legally redressed in order to be less prejudiced towards the retailer. However, in the meantime, the retailer, and his staff, are, unfairly perhaps, obliged to fulfil their statutory obligations.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


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.