Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


New crackdown on cigarettes

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: 11 June 2009
By KATRINE BUSSEY
ADULTS who buy cigarettes for children could be prosecuted under proposed new laws.
Shona Robison, the public health minister, told the parliament's health committee yesterday that she would consider introducing the measure.

Ms Robison was being questioned by MSPs on new laws proposed by the Scottish Government to curb sales of t
obacco and cigarettes to young people. Nationalist MSP Michael Matheson said while it was illegal for an adult to buy alcohol and pass it to youngsters, there was no such provision for tobacco.

Ms Robison said: "I'm happy to give consideration to amending the bill to include this provision."

She defended plans to ban tobacco displays in shops, one of the measures included in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill. However, the Conservatives' health spokeswoman, Mary Scanlon, said: "Obesity is a huge problem – do we then say chocolate can kill and ban chocolate in glossy wrappers?"

Ms Robison said: "Point-of-sale advertising – and undoubtedly that is what displays are – are a powerful marketing tool, and it's totally inappropriate for such a uniquely dangerous product such as cigarettes and other tobacco products to be promoted in this way."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 10 June 2009 9:14 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Roy,

11/06/2009 09:08:11
Ban chocolate wrappers - Is this the best contribution that the Tory health spokeswomen could make to the debate?
2

Sgian Dubh,

11/06/2009 09:48:58
This is yet another common sense proposal from a progressive SNP administration aimed at protecting Scottish young people and is to be applauded.
Anyone who has a problem with this should have their head examined.
While teaching a group of young people in the 12 to 16 year group, many of them were asking for 'smoke breaks'! When we (instructors) asked where they were getting the cigarettes, we were told that there were houses in council estates where the young people could go and buy cut price cigarettes that had been smuggled from Spain in particular, and other parts of Europe. These adults responsible for this need prosecuted.
3

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

11/06/2009 10:59:04
Totally agree...they should be heavily fined....
4

english charlie,

11/06/2009 12:44:23
Cigarettes are usually BEHIND the counter, whereas chocolates and other sweets are usually ON the counter right in front of younsters. As Mary Scanlon said "Obesity is a huge problem – do we then say chocolate can kill and ban chocolate in glossy wrappers?"
5

Davy,

11/06/2009 13:58:09
Another, stupid law.
Adults in Scotland have far more things to do than buy fags for the bairns.
Also Scottish adults are far to caring, for the younger generation to even contemplate such a heinous act.
To even think such a thing should result in some serious psychological therapy.

6

Davy,

11/06/2009 14:15:19
What has been noted by NHS is that the majority of obese kids are none smokers.
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/
7

soapy1,

Rainworth 11/06/2009 23:08:55
In context the reference to chocolate in glossy wrappers is actually quite good, both come in highly coloured or glossy packaging, both are alleged to cause medical harm through their designed usage, both are alleged to cost the NHS significant amounts of money so in reality if it is true of tobacco products then it is also true of chocolate because the same criteria applies to both.

We would all agree the banning of the display of chocolate would be a major overreaction even stupid, this being true of chocolate and given the clear similarity to the case of tobacco then the banning of the display of tobacco products is also a major overreaction and equally stupid!
8

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 12/06/2009 19:48:38
#7,soapy1,Rainworth.
Difference is that choccies don't usually kill you quite so efficiently, surely?
9

soapy1,

12/06/2009 19:58:19
It is a direct comparison of two ideas David a Mamba will kill you quicker than a Rattlesnake but they are equally lethal!

It is merely the same principle applied to two products with similarities, one would be welcomed in in some quarters the other would be welcomed by no one. both are overreactions and stupid.
10

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 12/06/2009 21:50:16
#9,soapy1.
Is soapy really saying that choccies and rattlesnakes might be welcome in some quarters, but mambas and smoking by no one? I'd take my chances with the choccies, but none of the others.
11

soapy1,

Rainworth 12/06/2009 23:35:40
Clearly David is completely incapable of working with similarities, his mixing of the two comparisons displays a childlike grasp on reality.

Still the fact that he recognises that both the Mamba and Rattlesnake families are dangerous is at least progress!

Please allow me to simplify it for you! the neurotoxin venom in the Mamba family acts faster than the protein based venom in the rattlesnake! You can die from both! More so in the case of the central and south American variants of the Rattlesnake as their venom is more potent than it's North American cousins.

The principle of the alleged killing properties of chocolate and smoking is no different. It is alleged that smoking causes heart disease among other things, it is also alleged that chocolate through obesity also causes heart attacks, now you appear to have grasped the concept that the Mamba and the Rattlesnake are both lethal and possibly the fact that their respective venoms work at different speeeds.

It is not so different to accept that both chocolate and cigarettes are allegedly lethal via heart disease so David is taking an equal chance of contracting heart disease through chocolate via obesity as he would be smoking,(50/50 either he will or he won't contract heart disease and even then other factors may be the real cause) to quote your friendly local Meerkat, Simple!

Incidentally the neurotoxic venom in Mambas also cause heart failure as it affects the nervous system shutting organs down as it goes as well as the necrosis that the Rattlesnakes are legendary for.

I told you David I may have to fall back on the training the taxpayer paid for and not a gun or revolutionary in sight!

12

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 14/06/2009 07:53:05
#11,soapy1,Rainworth.
With the benefit of soapy's zoological treatise, I shall be careful where I tread, but Pleasantville is normally rather devoid of toxic serpents.
Apart from any aesthetic preference for not watching someone stuffing chocolates in his, or more likely her, face, consumption of these products by others causes me no great problem.
Smokers, however, are thicker on the ground than most other hazards, but, following the provisions of the Health Act, 2006, have been smoked out, and thus are thankfully easier to spot, and avoid.
13

soapy1,

14/06/2009 13:47:12
That is it? The best argument you can come up with David? Really I am disapointed but not surprised.

Because you cannot match reasoned comparisons you do what your kind do best ridicule, congratulations on a sexist comment regarding chocolate, I am sure the ladies will love you for it.

Instead of wasting time with ficticious locations, sexist comments and the 21st centuries answer to the Nuremberg decree which has already been debated and not up for discussion (that would suit you I know anyhting that diverts away from the issue and wastes time does) why don't you put a proposal on the table one that would benefit all people smokers and non smokers alike?

Lets see if you can come up with a humane answer to this problem.
14

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 14/06/2009 21:35:48
#13, Rainworth soapy.
Hadn't realised I was making any particular argument. Soapy should have noticed the ladies are much more prone to enjoy the choccies than the chaps.
Fugfree Pleasantville is a very real and pleasant place.
So what is the real issue?
Let all smokers have a brain implant telling them tobacco doesn't exist and never has done. Result, addiction gone and nirvana for all. Job done!
15

soapy1,

15/06/2009 00:47:49
So you have no proposals to table then , fair enough. If you cannot be bothered to look for an amenable solution why are you here?

16

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 15/06/2009 08:56:11
#15, soapy1.
Soapy didn't seem to care for my brain implant solution for nicotine addicts, but he's right in that I shouldn't be here when there's a sunny fug free day to be enjoyed in idyllic Pleasantville.
17

soapy1,

15/06/2009 23:02:51
Enjoy your days then David.

regards,
Soapy
18

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 16/06/2009 09:30:35
#17, soapy1.
As always, and hopefully for many more years to come.

 

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.