Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Proposal to ban tobacco displays an 'unproven gimmick'

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 The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Sign In
Register
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: 17 June 2009
By Katrine Bussey
THE Scottish Government's proposal to ban tobacco displays were yesterday branded an "unproven gimmick" by retailers.
Members of the Tobacco Retailers Alliance hit out at the proposal as the results of a survey were disclosed.

The survey suggested 75 per cent of small shopkeepers in Scotland believe the display ban will directly threaten their business, while 89
per cent said they believed the government had not listened to their opinions.

And six in every ten retailers are worried that the display ban will take trade away from them to larger stores.

The poll questioned 83 Scottish retailers, as part of a wider UK study, and found 54 per cent of them believe the display ban may increase retail crime.

The ban proposal has been put forward by the Scottish Government in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill, which aims to curb sales of tobacco and cigarettes to young people.

But Fiona Barrett, a shopkeeper in Glasgow and a spokeswoman for the Tobacco Retailers Alliance in Scotland, said the survey backed their argument that "a ban on tobacco displays will put many independent shopkeepers out of business".

Ms Barrett said: "If the government is serious about tackling youth smoking, it should not be wasting time on unproven gimmicks like banning tobacco displays as it is preposterous to state that young people take up smoking because they see it on display in shops. They start smoking because they want to look older or because of peer pressure."

If the bill is passed, large retailers will have until 2011 to implement the ban, while small stores will have until 2013.





The full article contains 277 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 June 2009 10:25 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 00:27:00

"unproven gimmick"! Is that what you call it!!?, you are far to kind by far, so let me tell you what it really is!!
The, 'Hide_Them_Under_The_Counter', Is the most grotesque proposal, of sheer lunacies, that are an insult to our Intelligence, and furthermore has the dammed atrocity of treating Adults as 3year Olds!!

2

fife runner,

17/06/2009 07:17:03
#1 adults who smoke are like 3 year olds. just watch them stand in freezing conditions outside pubs or walk out of hospitals still in nightclothes for a fag. now what kind of mentality is that?
3

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 17/06/2009 08:03:59
#2

Well it could be said that watching 22 or 30 grown men running up and down a muddy pitch chasing a ball is a "mental" act too.

Depends your stance and point of view. Live and let live, no?
4

Davy,

Peterhead 17/06/2009 09:33:18
#2fife runner
What an idiotic slanders statement to make.
That situation was in forced by idiotic people whom you seem to admire.


5

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 09:48:54
Yet another Scottish ban...

Let's hope that common sense prevails and the antis are put in their place.


#2:

It's called the result of nazism.
6

english charlie,

17/06/2009 10:47:21
The Health and Sport committee were told by Trading Standards, Scotland that they had no proof that many under aged children were buying cigarettes from shops. ASH Scotland also failed to produce evidence to the committee.
7

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 10:48:36
#6:

ASH Scotland consistently fails to produce evidence about anything. Lies, yes. Evidence, no.
8

soapy1,

17/06/2009 11:36:41
#2 you describe smokers as children for standing outside smoking, I remind you that they are actually conforming to the law, a law that you support,they are not there through their own choice!

Since you object so strenuously to smokers obeying the law let us change the law to allow landlords to provide smoking rooms in pubs, it gets smokers off the streets, creates less noise and litter, it also puts smoking out of the line of sight of children killing three birds with one stone.

You see that the application of a little common sense actually solves three issues that would not exist were it not for the law!
9

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 13:05:41
#8:

Or better still, scrap the whole damn lot and revert to the way things were a few years ago when freedom of choice and tolerance prevailed.
10

fife runner,

17/06/2009 14:14:51
my my, all you smokers must be getting jittery -its called addiction. if you pay extra taxes ( and keep the NHS going single handed) , stand in the cold because you need your next fix, put something between your lips and set fire to it spending £1000,s each year (40 a dayer will spend that much) for the priveledge you must be bonkers. Or are you right and it is me that is out of touch with reality? I wonder.
11

fife runner,

17/06/2009 14:16:30
I am afraid that given you smokers do the above are you sane enough to post any comments on this site. given your lack of reality after reading what you have written I wonder
12

soapy1,

17/06/2009 15:29:21
Thank you for paying the extra taxes would be nice but courtesy and anti smoking are as close as chalk and cheese.
How much alcohol do you pour down your throat?
Can we crticise that?

What is really insane is the expenditure of £43million on anti smoking when nurses are underpaid, wards and causalty wards are closing, filthy hospitals that are a greater risk to patients, staff and visitors that smoking ever will be! You advocate all of that and call smokers insane?

It would be I suspect closer to the truth to say that you have a completely indefensble position so you have to fall back on what the anti smoking lobby do best, hurl abuse, muddy the waters and hope that rational argument goes away.

You have two hopes of that, Bob Hope and no hope!
13

english charlie,

17/06/2009 18:30:27
The first thing anybody going to a corner shop will see, is a cigarette (smoking ban notice) on the shop door. The next thing they would see is counter full of sweets and chocolate all wrapped up in pretty packaging. Cigarettes would be the last thing they would see, unless they were looking for them, as they are behind the counter.
14

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 17/06/2009 19:28:27
#13, chas.w.
As the sign to which chas.w. alludes refers to not smoking in enclosed public places rather than some complete ban on smoking, just what is his point, or hasn't he thought one through? What's the connection with sweets and chocolates, then? Why not bring chewing gum and expectorants into the lack of argument?
15

David from New Mills,

,Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 17/06/2009 19:37:08
#8, soapy1 of Rainworth.
Soapy apparently acknowledges the fact that smokers create noise and litter, as if we hadn't noticed already.
Hasn't it occurred to him that young, innocent children, seeing these haggard fugitives puffing away outside pubs might ask their parents why they're there sucking so frantically on the white sticks, only to be told "Because they're very silly people, harming themselves for no good reason, and when you grow up perhaps you'll avoid their silliness, dear"?
16

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 17/06/2009 19:45:34
#12, soapy1 of Rainworth.
Perhaps soapy expects eternal gratitude towards smokers for puffing their way to an early grave, saving years of pension payments and pumping all that money into the economy at the same time?
Smokers don't seem to realise that they don't even have two saving graces, either life saving or face saving.
17

english charlie,

17/06/2009 20:23:19
#14. Sweets and chocolate cause rotten teeth and obesity. Obesity isn't only a bigger health problem than smoking, but also costs the health service more.
18

soapy1,

17/06/2009 21:14:16
I acknowleged that the law brought this problem into prominance David were not not for the law the problem would not be as bad a fact that anti smokers would rather not be known!

One complaint is that children see smokers at all would you not agree that if they were inside the pub they would not be seen and that it is another by- product of this law?

I keep on offering middle of the road solutions and David offers nothing, just like all the other anti smokers.

#12 surely the aim is to reduce costs to the government not increase them?

Not only will more money have to found for pensions owing to longevity but the anti smokers are wasting £43million of NHS money, the Anti smoking lobby don't care about that, they prefer to see real people die because the money is not there to save them what does that teach children about the value of life?

Last I heard you prefer to be in your little world than here in the real world, is it raining in Fug Free Pleasantville? Perhaps thats why you are here?
19

english charlie,

17/06/2009 22:17:23
#18. Most places in Britain were like Pleasantville in the 1950s. No nanny state and the freedom to choose how we lived our lives. Smoking in pubs and all other public places. I had great times back then.
20

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 18/06/2009 11:12:59
#17, chas.w.
Not with proper dental treatment, such as regular application of a toothbrush. Over indulgence in any foodstuff, together with a lack of exercise, will lead to obesity, hence the term "couch potato".
21

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 18/06/2009 11:19:47
#19, chas.w.
Chas. should maybe remove his rose tinted spectacles and move into the 21st century. Perhaps he also recalls the dreadful smogs and shorter life spans of people in the 50's?
Is he also familiar with the saying about one man's meat etc.?
22

soapy1,

18/06/2009 11:59:01
Would you not agree David that smoking helps reduce obesity? It appears that in in Hamsters experimented on the ones subjected to smoking lived longer and were 20% slimmer than those that were not! The same it appears is true of people, completely remove smoking and obesity rates rise, could that be due to the fact smokers generally eat less than non smokers?

It allegedly appears then that you may have your heart attack through smoking or obesity either way you risk an heart attack! can you tell us what is the point of spending £43million stopping smoking in order to reduce heart attacks when it is likely you will get one because of the extra weight you are carrying?

This comment in no way implied or in actuallity, expresses the view that people cannot excercise their right to eat what they will, the persecution of people with fuller figures is just as abhorant as the persecution of smokers!
23

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 18/06/2009 12:04:50
#18, soapy1.
Soapy's syntax puzzles me. If "were not not for the law the problem would not be as bad a fact that anti smokers would rather not be known!" is intended to mean that smoking restrictions simply highlight smokers' anti social noisiness and littering, then I can scarcely disagree.
Soapy would seem to be advocating that smokers be swept under the carpet out of the sight of children, a bit like some kind of unsightly carbuncle, or suspect literature. So what happened to all those smokers, happily "smirting" away outside pubs?
Soapy will be heartened to realise that a compromise already exists for smokers. Rather than be swept off to the death camps for being in possession of tobacco, they are free to puff away in the privacy of their own homes, or in those of a similar mindset, with all those cut price tinnies, and to move about the country freely, even being allowed to smoke in most public open spaces.
Soapy's penultimate paragraph contains an oxymoron, with "money have to found for pensions owing to longevity" and "they prefer to see real people die because the money is not there to save them" in the same sentence. Just why is soapy so confused?
Soapy may be pleased to learn that it's not raining here in fug free Pleasantville, and that I'm keying here at the moment because I can restrain myself awhile before an outing to fug free hostelries, in contrast to the nicotinic, who may wake up and instantly feel the need for one of his supportive, but highly addictive, poison sticks.
Have a nice day!
24

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 18/06/2009 12:18:00
#22, soapy1.
Perhaps the reason that smokers eat less is because the tobacco masks their olefactory senses, hence they are unable to savour and enjoy food to the extent that they might.However, non-smokers are not necessarily obese or even overweight. Everything in moderation, as they say.
Smokers may find their imagined persecution "abhorant", or even abhorrent, but then they may just have a guilt complex arising from their being in denial about their addiction to nicotine.
25

soapy1,

18/06/2009 14:09:40
Do you really consider persecution in any form acceptable David?

That is what your post admits to!

oh and by the way correcting grammer or spelling mistakes does not contribute anything to debates except to demonstrate that the person has nothing to contribute but wishes to belittle other people.

The point on about money is so very simple David, £43million will buy a lot of time, equipment and facilities to save real lives not stastistical ones which one do you want to save a real life or a figure on a piece of paper?

Your attitude about smoking outside pubs displays a complete lack of interest in not promoting cigarettes to children! Especially when the money could be used to prevent this:

Children are mistakenly being given doses of powerful drugs in hospital that are 10 times higher than they should receive, according to a report published on Thursday by the National Patient Safety Agency.

At least 60,000 children suffer from medical errors every year, the NPSA says in its first review of patient safety among under-18s. It states that this is certainly an underestimate because it relies on voluntary reporting by NHS staff.

According to the NPSA, 33 children and 39 babies less than a month old died as a result of avoidable harm in the period from October 2007 to September 2008, although its reviewers cannot be certain that they would have survived if errors had not been made.

The same principle applies to smoking related diseases, smoking may or may not cause disease and no one can be certain that they do because:

A survey of science researchers has come out in the mainstream press this week claiming that at least 1 in 7 of all science researchers are producing "studies" based on falsified data and manufacturing misleading results in order to create outcomes favorable to whatever special interest or corporation is funding the research.

The article notes that in the fields of pharmaceutical and medical research are where the largest
26

english charlie,

18/06/2009 14:10:26
#21. David. Then why do keep going on about Pleasantville in the 1950s?
27

soapy1,

18/06/2009 14:11:18
The article notes that in the fields of pharmaceutical and medical research are where the largest amount of this abuse is taking place, in fact almost entirely.

By being careful not to say anything non-favorable about their paid corporate advertising sponsors, the major lying, cheating, filthy pharmaceutical companies - they carefully avoid saying - is that a very real highly probable reason WHY it is the pharmaceutical and medical researchers who are MOST at fault for lying and mis-using data to manufacture outcomes favorable to pharmaceutical sponsors is that it is within this field from which comes ALL the anti-smoking, anti-smoker and SHS Fraud "studies" used to endorse smoking bans in order to promote pharmaceuticals.

If it is within the field of pharmaceutical and medical research it is now verified the highest amount of outright FRAUD is being commited in regard to throwing the outcomes of "studies" - and if it falls within the field of pharmaceutical and medical research to being the ones doing all the anti-smoking hack work - then it falls to logic that it is BECAUSE of the anti-smoking lies being manufactured - then pharmaceutical and medical research is what is being cited as the MOST untrusthworthy by all peers working in the science fields these days.

Thus, following that logic one step further one could say that anti-smoking, anti-smoker and SHS Fraud "studies" are basically being admitted by research scientists in the field to be rife with false data and unverifiable results - by the science community's own admission.

Therefore - the Headline of this story could truthfully have read:

"Anti-Smoking Big Pharma Research Scientists Lie As Per Consensus Of The General Scientific Community Of Peers"


Link to article below:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 425036.ece

Notable Quote:

"...
Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the
28

soapy1,

18/06/2009 14:12:32
"...
Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests.
..."

June 4, 2009
One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data

Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study suggests.

One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in “questionable practices”, such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source.

However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2 per cent admitted to having faked results.

Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who carried out the investigation, believes that high-profile cases such as that of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean scientist disgraced for fabricating human stem cell data, are less unusual than is generally assumed. “Increasing evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered,” he said.

The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One, are based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct surveys carried out between 1986 and 2005. The results paint a picture of a profession in which dishonesty and misrepresentation are widespread.

In all the surveys people were asked about both their own research practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct was divided into two categories: fabrication, the actual invention of data; and lesser breaches that went under the heading “questionable practices”. These included dropping data points based on a “gut feeling” and failing to publish data that contradict one’s previous research.

The discrepancy between the number
29

soapy1,

18/06/2009 14:13:49
The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning up to misconduct and those having been observed by colleagues is likely to be in part due to fears over anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. “Anyone who has ever falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it despite all guarantees of anonymity.”

The study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although higher than most previous estimates, is still likely to be conservative.

Another explanation for the differences between the self-report results and colleague-report results could be that people consider themselves to be more moral than others. In a marginal case, people might characterise their colleagues’ behaviour as misconduct more readily than they would their own.

The study included scientists from a range of disciplines. Misconduct was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical research is being biased by commercial interests.

Which pretty much condemns all you, your friends at ASH et al stand for as completely fraudulent
30

english charlie,

18/06/2009 14:50:12
#20 So smoking and eating sweets do not cause tooth decay. It is the lack of cleaning teeth that causes tooth decay.
There are far more obese non-smokers than obese smokers. While some enjoy smoking others enjoy stuffing their faces with food.
31

David from New Mills,

Fug ree Pleasantville, U.K. 18/06/2009 21:09:32
#30, chas.w.
So, who claimed smoking causes tooth decay? Chas. has managed to grasp the truth in his second sentence. While "some enjoy stuffing their faces with food", others choose to fill their lungs with toxic substances. "One man's meat etc."
32

David from New Mills,

18/06/2009 21:14:41
#26, chas. w.
If chas. hasn't noticed, I only "keep going on about Pleasantville" in the twenty-first century. Perhaps chas. would care to move on, and join me in the present, rather than persist in living in the past?
33

english charlie,

19/06/2009 13:46:12
#32. Good to see that you are back in New Mills.
34

David from New Mills,

Fug ree Pleasantville, U.K. 19/06/2009 18:58:23
#33, chas.w.
It's certainly good for me, but then I was never away from either New Mills or fug free Pleasantville.
However, it's so sad to see that chas.' imagination is still firmly stuck in the smoky, fug filled, 50s.
Perhaps he's a steam train enthusiast as well? Or did he just love "Brief Encoumter"?
35

David from New Mills,

Fug ree Pleasantville, U.K. 20/06/2009 17:29:18
#25 & #27-29, soapy1.
"correcting grammer or spelling mistakes does not contribute anything to debates except to demonstrate that the person has nothing to contribute but wishes to belittle other people."
Soapy has forgotten some elementary rules of debate, namely make it constructive, intelligible, concise and relevant. If he can't be bothered to frame his comments in standard English, why should I take the trouble to decipher his postings, let alone plough through four lengthy tomes.
Oh by the way, let him try spelling "grammar" properly for starters, before launching into some long pretentious rant.

36

grafiger,

23/06/2009 15:32:20
31
"So, who claimed smoking causes tooth decay?"

Try the Australian Government for starters.
37

David from New Mills,

Fug ree Pleasantville, U.K. 23/06/2009 20:14:33
#36, grafiger.
As chas. w. never mentioned any source for his allegation, perhaps grafiger could fill us in? Obviously, no pun was intended.
38

english charlie,

25/06/2009 10:29:52
Pictures on cigarette packets show rotten teeth caused by smoking, but as David has stated with eating sweets, cleaning teeth will prevent tooth decay.
39

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 25/06/2009 18:09:25
#38, chas.w.
The pictures may actually be displaying rotting gums rather than teeth, but either way I've a new reason not to take up smoking. I shall also continue to brush my teeth regularly. Hope chas. does the same, even if he can't give up smoking.
40

Rollo Tommasi,

26/06/2009 22:14:53
Good grief. Soapy - what nonsense are you spouting in your posts 25 and 27-29? Are you seriously trying to suggest that, because a study suggests that around 2% (or 1.97% to be precise) of studies involve some fabrication, that means that all studies relating to passive smoking must be bogus??!! How utterly ridiculous!!!!

Where is your evidence that ALL of the studies showing dangers from passive smoking fall into the 1.97% "bogus" category and not the 98.03% "clean" category? You have none, of course.

And I'm also pretty clear that - not for the first time - you have come to a viewpoint based on a press story and have not bothered to read the actual source (in this case, Fanelli's paper) for yourself. If you had, you'd know that the 14% figure relates scientists who knew at least one colleague who had fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once. There's a world of difference between that and what you try to suggest - that 1 in 7 studies may be unreliable.

Why don't you take the time to read and consider material properly before spouting off???
41

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay, Canada 18/08/2009 02:37:38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1-bX2SmU-c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbanthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F11%2Fsecond-hand-smoke-bs%2F&feature=player_embedded
42

Scottish Eric,

23/09/2009 13:54:21
Channel 4 news with their assessment of the evidence for a display ban.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck%20tobacco%20ban%20evidence/2879692

 

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.