Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Cigarette machines ban may be unlawful

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.

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: 20 May 2009
ONE of the Scottish Government's last remaining flagship bills is in trouble because of a lack of consultation and poor research, it has been claimed.
The Tobacco and Primary Services Bill aims to abolish cigarette vending machines in Scotland, but it is facing a fierce challenge from the industry, which could end up in the courts.

The National Association of Cigarette Machine Operators (Nacmo)
has claimed that it was not consulted before the bill was brought forward.

In addition, its representatives have said that the Scottish Government has used incorrect data on the number of vending machines in Scotland and jobs affected.

The Scottish Government regulatory impact assessment claimed only 14 jobs were supported by cigarette machines in Scotland, yet there are actually 45 jobs.

And it overestimated the number of vending machines in Scotland, claiming there were 6,522 when in fact there are around 3,500.

The organisation has also attacked the Scottish Government for using English data about underage smokers to back up its arguments, and not collecting Scottish figures.

McGrigors, the legal firm representing Nacmo, has warned that if the measure goes ahead in the bill and is passed by MSPs then there would probably be a legal challenge through a judicial review.

Paul Mair, chairman of Nacmo, is due to give evidence at Wednesday's Health Committee meeting in Holyrood.

"The trouble is that vending machines were just seen as an easy target," he said.

"There was no consultation until we found out what was going on."

He added that any decision, even if it was delayed, would lead to the 14 companies operating vending machines in Scotland going bust overnight.

"The banks would immediately withdraw their credit and that would be it," he said. "These are family companies not big conglomerates."

He said that a radio frequency system can be attached to machines that forces purchasers to prove their age.

The Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison, has already had to write to the Health Committee admitting to masking mistakes. Now she has also admitted that the ban on vending machines, one of the headline measures of the bill, will have to be reviewed.

"The proposed ban on cigarette vending machines needs to be viewed within the context of the impact the business has on the nation's health," she said.





The full article contains 391 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 May 2009 9:58 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 00:19:39

As usual, and like the soo called alcohol abuse issue, the Scottish Government have acted like a,...
....'Bull-in-a-china-Shop'!
Instead of thought and the realisation, that the removal of "Cigarette machines", will make no difference, no difference atall, to the one who want to smoke, furthermore, "Cigarette machines", do not make you want to smoke.

You either smoke or you do not smoke, the ones who want to smoke will do-so, 'come hell or high water'!
Removal of the "Cigarette machines,...
..Yet another misconceived idea of grotesque stupidity.

2

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 09:10:48
So where's the surprise here then?

The vasty majority of everything that comes out of the mouths of MacAskill and Robison is ill-thought-out, poorly researched claptrap.

Charles is spot on. "grotesque stupidity" is a very apt description for this proposal... along with the proposed banning of tobacco displays. No-one ever in history has taken up smoking because they like the look of shelves in shops with packets of fags on them.
3

Captain Flint,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 09:14:37
Firstly, Charles has got the wrong end of the stick. Again.

He's right in saying that you either smoke or you don't (it wasn't a particularly controversial statement by Charles' standards) but that's not what this legislation is all about.

It's about trying to prevent young people from becoming smokers. And in doing so, radically improving their life prospects. I'm sure that even Charles can see the logic here. (I must confess that I enjoyed the irony of him using the term "grotesque stupidity" to describe the actions of somebody other than himself)

Secondly, and more importantly, what NACMO don't tell you is that the Scottish Government tried very hard to get in touch with them to find out their views. But NACMO played hard to get and steadfastly refused to return the government's calls, and are now bitterly complaining that they weren't consulted ...

Honestly, you couldn't make it up. No wonder the tobacco industry has absolutely no credibility.
4

Captain Flint,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 09:16:46
Petrol head beat me to it! Except that he's indulging in grotesque stupidity all of his own!

Charles L + Petrol Head = the nuttiest comments on this board. Hugely enjoyable, but nutty as a fruitcake.
5

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 09:38:58
Capt Flint:

"It's about trying to prevent young people from becoming smokers."

And seeing as the vast majority of cigarette machines are in pubs and clubs, where young people tend not to go, why is there a need to ban them? It seems that you may have been reading the Robison/MacAskill book of "Crass Stupidity and Knee Jerk Reactions".

Once again, in these proposals we have the capability to make life difficult for law abiding people, with no potential gain whatsoever. Why is there a need to legislate all the time? They've got their stupid, brain-dead smoking ban. Now leave us alone.
6

english charlie,

20/05/2009 10:09:17
All youngsters get their first cigarette from their friends or nick them from their parents. Machines do not encourage youngsters to start smoking.
7

SandyBottoms,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 10:10:58
You all have missed the point completely. The issue is not whether or not smoking is good or bad, it's the way that the Scottish Government conducted itself when putting forward this legislation. Faulty numbers made to fit their theory, borrowing of stats from England without knowing how relevant they'd be, failing to announce consultations and publications of documents (except internally and occassionaly to the Scotsman)... Secrecy and manipulation, this is typical of how the Scottish Government chooses to "interact" and "represent" the Scottish people.
8

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 10:23:26
#7:

I don't think I missed the point. I said:-

"The vast majority of everything that comes out of the mouths of MacAskill and Robison is ill-thought-out, poorly researched claptrap"

I think that about sums the point up. Then I went on to explain the reason why it was a usuless piece of proposed legislation in any case.
9

IanW,

Somewhere 20/05/2009 11:04:28
Does anyone know if the Scottish Government has a statutary obligation to consult NACMO over banning vending machines or not?

If there is no obligation then NACMO do not, as far as I can see, have a leg to stand on.
10

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 12:02:37
#9:

If you are planning legislation that effectively will wipe out a significant chunk of a perfectly legal business then I would imagine that you would need to be able to justify it pretty damn well from a legal perspective.

You can't simply ride roughshod over people's legitimate livelihoods on a whim just like that. I am astounded that the various licenced trade bodies didn't take more direct action over the smoking ban, looking at the damage it has done to their industry. I wish the NAMCO good luck and hopefully this will put a stop to the tide of anti-smoking neo-nazism that is coming in at present.
11

IanW,

Somewhere 20/05/2009 12:14:54
Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head #10 - As you rightly point out there could have/should have been more direct action following the smoking ban. However sadly governments don't always consider the needs or wishes of those they are supposed to serve.

I doubt whether or not NAMCO will win any case and even if they do the government will introduce other steps to kill off smoking.
12

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/05/2009 14:11:42
IanW:

"...the government will introduce other steps to kill off smoking."

And with it, a substantial part of their tax revenue. Sometimes I wish that everybody stopped smoking tomorrow. That would teach them a lesson that they wouldn't forget.
13

Yonthing!,

20/05/2009 14:28:40
Only place I've ever seen fag machines is in pubs, and under 18's aren't meant to be there anyway!!!

Once again politicians making big public promises to win votes without considering the consequences.
14

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia, USA 21/05/2009 09:32:23
Funny how the "mistakes" always seem to favor the antismoking side in these things isn't it? Funny, that is. Not that I'm implying anything of course.

There was another funny mistake a little while ago when a major study claimed a significant reduction in heart attacks after the Scottish ban. Turned out that a few months later official government data showed the researchers had made a massive mistake. Funny eh? I'm sure the pub owners must be laughing uproarously. You can see the full funny story and laugh yourself at:

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1

If you know any pubowners who've been around for more than two or three years you might want to print it out and share the joke with them too.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
15

english charlie,

21/05/2009 10:43:45
#14. It's easy to make 'mistakes'. Just ask our MPs.
16

mandyv,

banitland 21/05/2009 20:05:47
Michael# Is it still called a "mistake" if they keep doing the same thing though? They made the heart attack reduction mistake, in Helena and Pueblo as well, didn't they?
I call them "lies" now, nobody can make that many "mistakes" surely.
17

Rollo Tommasi,

22/05/2009 11:06:48
It seems Michael, Chas and Mandy has been rather premature to leap to referring to "mistakes". According to this letter, the "mistakes" were actually made by the National Association of Cigarette Machine Operators: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Vending-cigarettes.5293320.jp. The letter states the Scottish Government made several attempts to contact NACMO, but they consistently failed to respond.

It would be nice if Michael, Chas and Mandy acknowledged that they themselves made the "mistakes" of jumping to conclusions on the back of half a story. But I'm not exactly holding my breath....
18

english charlie,

23/05/2009 11:22:29
Rollo. Where have I jumped to conclusions? What I said about mistakes was 'It's easy to make 'mistakes'. Just ask our MPs'.
Do you disagree with this statement?
19

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 23/05/2009 18:50:19
#17,Rollo Tommasi.
Rollo has displayed his usual perspicacity in sussing out the standard refuseniks and apologists of F2S, and authors perpetually plugging their novellas.
20

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 23/05/2009 18:56:01
#6, chas.w.
"Machines do not encourage youngsters to start smoking."
Perhaps not, but do they not encourage them to continue buying the addictive product into and through adulthood?
21

english charlie,

23/05/2009 19:36:25
#20. Rollo's little helper. Trading Standards in Scotland admit that there is little or no evidence of under 18s buying from shops or from machines in Scotland.
22

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 24/05/2009 11:44:10
#21, F2S's little mouthpiece.
I think I said at#20 "into and through adulthood".
Does chas. really believe that few, if any, shopkeepers are liable to be snared by "sting" operations, and that they have no interest in taking a risk and increasing their sales? Of course not, as they're all whiter than white, with illicit profit making being the least of their motivations.
23

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia, USA 24/05/2009 19:17:44
Why hello again Rollo! You wrote, "It would be nice if Michael, Chas and Mandy acknowledged that they themselves made the "mistakes" of jumping to conclusions on the back of half a story. But I'm not exactly holding my breath...."

Rollo, you speak as though you've noticed earlier postings where I made mistakes and refused to acknowledged their correction. Want to name two or three, or did you "make a mistake" ?

As for the mistakes I was referring to, I was looking at the government saying 14 jobs were supported when there were really 45, and their over-estimating the machine numbers not by just ten or twenty percent, but by a HUNDRED percent.

You don't feel those are "mistakes" ?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
24

english charlie,

24/05/2009 20:14:45
#22. David please learn to read. Trading Standards in Scotland, found little evidence of shops selling to under aged persons or of buying from machines.
25

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 24/05/2009 23:49:32
#24, chas.w.
At #21, chas. refers to "little or no evidence", whereas at #24, it has become "little evidence". Perhaps chas. is liable to progress to "some evidence"?
My reading skills were honed decades ago, and I did enjoy chuckling at his "Rollo's little helper" allusion at #21, indicating his having gained a certain talent for imagination and entertainment, as he enters his dotage, but does he hopefully realise, at his stage in life, that "there ain't no sanity clause"?
26

Rollo Tommasi,

25/05/2009 01:46:47
Well Michael. If you think I unfairly fail to recognise where you acknowledge where you have made mistakes, here is your chance to prove me wrong – based simply on 4 things you have said on this very board.

1. NACMO made a mistake by claiming the Scottish Government had failed to consult with them – as the letter I referred to in post 17 demonstrates. You could have acknowledged YOUR mistake in believing what NACMO said in your latest post. I see you failed to do so.

2. In your latest post, you accuse the Government of making mistakes about numbers of cigarette machines and related jobs. If you read the early stages of this Parliamentary evidence session (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/hs/or-09/he09-1502.htm#Col1901), you will find that the Scottish Government was actually using the best available evidence (pro rata of English figures), precisely because NACMO had failed to respond to their requests to get involved in the consultation. AND, even when NACMO did eventually get involved, they couldn’t even quote consistent sets of figures themselves. So any inaccuracies in these figures were not the result of mistakes by the Scottish Government. As a result, YOU are mistaken to accuse the Government in this way.

3. In post 14, you claimed “Funny how the "mistakes" always seem to favor the antismoking side in these things isn't it?” How is the Scottish Government (which is what I assume you mean by “the antismoking side” – another erroneous statement on your part, by the way) favoured by stating that there are almost twice as many cigarette machines than there actually are? It should surely suit the Government’s case to suggest that there are few cigarette machines in Scotland – as the fewer the number of machines, the lower are the economic and social effects of their removal. So YOU are mistaken to claim that “mistakes” always favour the Government.

4. From what I have read of your contributions, it seems that in any argument ab
27

Rollo Tommasi,

25/05/2009 01:47:41
4. From what I have read of your contributions, it seems that in any argument about any form of smoking, you feel the need to refer to studies which deal with a very narrow element of the debate – i.e. the acute/immediate effects of exposure to passive smoking on health. So it is again here that you refer to the Pell study, even though it had nothing to do with the issue at hand – assessing the effects of banning vending machines/tobacco advertising in shops on levels of youth smoking. So YOU are mistaken to refer to a study which is unrelated to this issue.

Any chance of some acknowledgements here???
28

english charlie,

25/05/2009 10:25:10
David. This story is about cigarette machines. Do you have any proof that there is widespread use of cigarette machines by under 18s? Trading Standards, Scotland haven't.
29

english charlie,

25/05/2009 10:26:55
Rollo. You haven't answered my question in #18.
30

Rollo Tommasi,

25/05/2009 11:23:43
Chas: If you thought Michael's reference to "mistakes" was misplaced, you could have said so. But you didn't. You simply jumped on Michael's comments about "mistakes" and ran with them.

If you actually disagree with Michael's comments, all you need to do is tell me and I will happily apologise for linking you with him and Mandy.
31

english charlie,

25/05/2009 12:04:13
Rollo. What kind of answer is that? If you are asking me if anti-smoking groups make mistakes, then the answer is yes. Do you disagree that anti-smoking groups make mistakes?
32

Rollo Tommasi,

25/05/2009 16:28:37
Here we go again. Chas - you are nothing if not predictable in your refusal or inability to follow an argument.

Michael J McFadden was commenting that the Scottish Government made mistakes by failing to consult NACMO and by using erroneous figures for cigarette vending machines and associated staff.

I asked you if you agreed with MJM's claim that these were "mistakes" by the Scottish Government.
33

english charlie,

25/05/2009 16:57:28
Here we go again. Rollo - you are nothing if not predictable in your refusal or inability to follow an argument. I told you that if it's about anti-smoking groups making mistakes, then the answer is I agree, yet you refuse to agree or disagree that anti-smoking groups make mistakes?

34

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 25/05/2009 21:35:29
#28, chas.w.
As chas. is so keen at #24 to refer to correspondents' reading skills, might I remind him that it was he in that posting who referred to "shops selling to under aged persons or of buying from machines". As he had chosen to expand the original topic of cigarette machines to encompass "shops selling to under aged persons". I simply followed the avenue he had opened up.
Perhaps chas. could exercise his reading skills and tell me in which posting I had claimed that there was "widespread use of cigarette machines by under 18s"?
I would look forward to his elucidation on this point.
35

english charlie,

25/05/2009 21:48:53
#34. David said 'Perhaps chas. could exercise his reading skills and tell me in which posting I had claimed that there was "widespread use of cigarette machines by under 18s"? Where did I claim that?
36

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 25/05/2009 22:35:19
#35, chas. w.
At #28, chas. requested that I provide proof "that there is widespread use of cigarette machines by under 18s". As I'd never made such a claim, I can scarcely be expected to substantiate this hypothesis, apparently existing purely in chas.' confused mind.
Hope he's successful in enrolling in classes in basic English, as Suffolkspeak is patently not very succinct.
37

english charlie,

26/05/2009 08:47:38
#36. So you have NO proof of widespread use of cigarette machines by under 18s.
38

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 26/05/2009 10:26:22
#37, chas.w.
None whatsoever, but then I never claimed to have any, as chas. seems to have great difficulty in grasping.
Hopefully he will be successful in gaining a place soon in his local classes in basic English. Who knows, he may even become competetent in the language before he goes.
39

english charlie,

26/05/2009 11:32:36
#38. I have never claimed that you did, but I'm pleased that you admit that you haven't any proof of widespread purchasing by under 18's. I imagine that you are still at school, judging by your schoolboy comments.
40

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 26/05/2009 11:48:58
#39, chas.w.
Chas. has succumbed to his old practice of employing imprecise English, viz. "widespread purchasing by under 18's". Of what-sweets? We can only assume he meant tobacco products? Where? Via machines or shops, as chas. has omitted to specify? I think it's too late for chas. to return to formal education, as his imprecise English is so patently endemic.
In case it's escaped his notice,I haven't actually admitted to anything, he has merely presumed such to be the case.
Perhaps he might have been the milk monitor in his schooldays?
41

english charlie,

26/05/2009 12:27:55
David. Grow up.
42

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 26/05/2009 19:29:43
#41, Old Cranky.
Chas. Lead the way, and I will follow, oh wise old one.
43

Farnham,

manchester 27/05/2009 20:52:26
Have your say :

www.uksmokingban.forumotion.com
44

Machine manufacturer,

Cornwall 20/10/2009 10:03:11
The figures for employment are not accurate. We have sent 100s of refurbished machines to Scotland over the years and employ 13 people as well as buying in steelwork, electronics and other services locally. Add to that transport admin etc. We now manufacture a radio frequency device in the uk. There is no real problem with under age purchases from machines for one they are too expensive. Political point scoring is what you are seeing. Ask yourself do they get their drugs from a corner shop or a vending machine? People of this calibre should be running whelk stands not be MPs

 

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.