Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Plan to extend tobacco laws

Premium Article !

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

Options

Premium Article !

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

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

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: 11 June 2009
PROPOSED new laws on tobacco could be extended to stop adults buying cigarettes for underage youngsters.
Public health minister Shona Robison said she would consider if such a measure should be introduced.

She gave the pledge when she was questioned yesterday by MSPs on Holyrood's mealth and sport committee on new laws being put forward by the Scottish Government aimed at curbing sales of tobacco and cigarettes to young people.

Ms Robison also defended plans to ban tobacco displays in shops – another of the measures included in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill.

Ms Robison told the committee that some 15,000 young Scots take up smoking every year and said: "The potential impact on their health is frightening."

As well as setting out to ban the display of tobacco at the point of sale, the Bill also proposes a ban on selling cigarettes in vending machines, along with a new registration scheme for tobacco retailers.



The full article contains 163 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 June 2009 9:26 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 11/06/2009 12:47:56
Welcome to Nazi-state Scotland! Leave your rights to freedom of speech and action at the door.

All this insane anti-smoking rubbish has gone way too far. It's about time it was relegated to the butt of jokes, all it's accompanying fascist legislation cast aside and ordinary people left to get on with their lives un-molested by the actions of a minority of nazi bigots.
2

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 11/06/2009 12:59:36
#1 A right old rant mate, all because you have not got the backbone to quit smoking yourself.Make as many excuses as you like. "minority of nazi bigots" etc,etc. Pathetic, Fuel Head indeed.
Even the "minority nazi bigots" in China are beginning to crack down on smoking. Try it on a bus here and see how far you get. On trains at the end of coaches only. Not many nazi bigots here Fuel Heid either. Were it only affecting you, fine, but it doesn't.Why should my clothes reek of stale cigarette smoke? In denial dross like you sport deny every study done.It is a proven fact that second hand smoke kills.So do us a favour up your intake and do the planet a favour in the process.
Insane anti-smoking rubbish? If you want to get on with your life un-molested, don't molest others with your foul habit.
3

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 11/06/2009 13:14:44
#1, Petrol bonce
When will p.b. realise that it is he who's the butt of jokes and so much derision, as he condemns any attempt to save others from his his nicotine directed existence?
4

Charles IIIX,

11/06/2009 14:37:47
What a farce this consultation has been, what’s more It was obviously ever going to be nothing more that that. The outcome was pre-determined and only 'put on' for show. Fascism in action and a total waste of taxpayers money!

The consultation was given NO credible evidence that hiding tobacco would have anything other than adverse consequences - Youths the world over have NOT been put off by this with inevitable increases in prevalence - ALL proved! The inevitable measures were about de-normalising a quarter of the population, nothing more, nothing less. All the ‘reasons’ put forward by the anti-smoking Nazis were only ever window dressing.

Small shops will of course close as fast as pubs have since the smoking ban- More bankruptcies, More unemployment, More people on benefits AND More youths smoking - But bigots like D'Head, fuggy Dave and other weak willed individuals who haven’t got the sense to understand the implications due to the ease of their indoctrination, will feel good about themselves. Sad specimens in this sad sad country where we now live!

One ray of hope is that not everyone is like these people - there are still people with the balls to stand against this creeping fascism - and as the deceptions used by anti-tobacco continue to be unmasked one by one in the future, there will eventually be a backlash! It has happened in many other countries and it WILL happen here too.

If you want the reality - read up on 1930's Germany - What happened then and there is happening here and now! We may not yet have reached the final solution - but... who knows?(links not allowed here)
5

soapy1,

RAINWORTH 11/06/2009 15:05:19
When are the anti smokers going to stop advertising cigarettes to our youngsters, every statement they make encourages more to take up smoking, every smoker forced onto the street puts it in plain view of our youngsters, put the smokers back into the pubs out of sight of the kids and stop advertising smoking to them, you will then have a better chance then of stopping under age smokers starting which is what everyone wants!
6

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 11/06/2009 15:19:17
#2:

"Try it on a bus here and see how far you get."

Errm... last time, I got all the way home. Try it sometime. Go on... I dare you!
7

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 11/06/2009 15:25:18
#2:

"Why should my clothes reek of stale cigarette smoke?"

So it reminds you to change them.

"It is a proven fact that second hand smoke kills."

Name six people who have died of it then.
8

english charlie,

11/06/2009 15:33:51
The same committee want to change the law so that the police can confiscate cigarettes from 16 and 17 year olds. How can they confiscate the cigarettes when it is legal for 16 and 17 year olds to smoke?.
9

Watch Us Wreck The Mic, Psyche.,

11/06/2009 15:41:53
7 I'll start you off with Roy Castle...

I agree with 4. Proposals like this should be torn up and binned.
10

MRab2,

11/06/2009 15:47:05
#2 "In denial dross like you sport deny every study done.It is a proven fact that second hand smoke kills."

You are delusional. Epidemiology is a form of statistical analysis and it can never EVER prove anything, nor can it's results be taken as factual. Given that you're ignorant to something as basic as "what is a fact" it's clear you're nothing useful to add to the debate.
11

MRab2,

11/06/2009 16:06:54
9# "I'll start you off with Roy Castle..."

That would be silly as Roy Castle simply guessed what caused his lung cancer. Do we assume the guesses of musicians/actors/TV presenters are automatically correct?


12

Watch Us Wreck The Mic, Psyche.,

11/06/2009 16:23:27
Very deep #11

"We" don't assume anything Rab.

5 more to go. Give us a name Rab...
13

english charlie,

11/06/2009 16:39:37
When Roy Castle developed lung cancer, maybe he opened up his body, disected his lungs and had them examined. He then had the lungs sewn up and replaced them into his body. Maybe he just assumed that lung cancer was only caused by cigarette smoke.
14

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 11/06/2009 17:44:54
Funny how when I ask the rabid antis to actually name some people who died of thie supposed cause of death known as passive smoking, one of three things happens...

1. They shut up and go away
2. They try to argue that there doesn't need to be proof of anyone actually dying of a given cause of death, for it to be classified as a common cause of death.
3. They mention Roy Castle and argue to hell about how his case proves their point, at the same time trying to distract attention away from the requirement to supply 5 more names. they then end up trying to argue the case outlined in number 2.

I really do find it difficult to believe that we've all been dumb enough to swallow oppressive legislation based purely upon these lies, on the whims of the rantings of imbeciles.
15

MRab2,

11/06/2009 21:45:15
#12 "Very deep #11"

No, just rational. You should give it a try sometime.

Why are you assuming Roy Castle was a victim of passive smoking? Even based on the most damning statistics from the most bias of sources it remains statistically unlikely. Do you have special knowledge the rest of us aren't privvy to?
16

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville,U.K. 12/06/2009 20:01:51
#14, Petrol Bonce.
Although I don't consider myself to be a "rabid anti":-
1.I'm not going away.
2.P.B. should recognise that death certificates never show "heavy smoking" or "struck by car or tramcar" as the cause of death.
3. I've never mentioned Roy castle, nor the cause of his death.
Speaking of "the whims of the rantings of imbeciles", has P.B. anything constructive to say for a change.
Oh, no mention of Nazis or allegedly draconian legislation? So, what's up, then?
17

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville,U.K. 12/06/2009 20:08:16
#13, english charlie.
So, which fairy tale has chas.w. been reading? Perhaps he's into the tooth fairy and the sanity clause as well?
18

soapy1,

Rainworth 12/06/2009 21:06:30
Finally an anti recognises second hand smoke and smoking are not lawful causes of death, Roy Castle to best of my knowledge was not a qualified doctor,he stated an opinion not a fact.

David in his own opinion says he is not a rabid anti, I wholeheartedly support his right to express his opinion, mine differs of course, I fail to understand why he wishes to debate Nazism or how draconian the law may be,it has been debated elsewhere comparisons have been drawn and the severity of this law is well known, just ask 100,000 ex bar staff!

On the subject of underaged customers buying tobacco products or proxy buying by adults for them which this article covers I personally would welcome legislation in line with alcohol despite the fact that it would be just as ineffective. That at least would be a more legitmate approach than the persecution of one fifth of the country.
19

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville,U.K. 14/06/2009 08:13:50
#18,soapy1,Rainworth.
David has pointed out on various threads that he's not an anti-smoker, rabid or otherwise, simply a pro-restrictionist. He has no problems with smokers puffing their way to an early nirvana, just preferring them to do so well away from his lungs.
As people like petrol bonce and others in the pro-smoking lobby are always so prone to employ terms like "Nazi", "fascist", "draconian", "stupid chidish law", "persecution", "denormalisation", "ostracism", "isolation", etc., I simply choose to highlight the irrelevance of such terminology.
Even if soapy can substantiate his figure of allegedly 100,000 redundant bar staff, by the nature of the trade the majority of these are probably part time and merely transient, moving between permanent jobs, and any number pales into significance compared with present national levels of unemployment.
20

soapy1,

14/06/2009 13:36:30
In short you really could not care less about the numbers put onto the dole, so what if if some are part time workers they have a right to earn a living too don't they? they have families to support too don't they?

It may all be irevellent to you David but it not to those who are suffering because of it, all your view does is prove the view of the smoking lobby correct that wether it be anti smoking pro restrictionist or anyany other title you care to apply to yourself you do not care who suffers as long as you get what you want. Time after time proposalds for separate facilities have been put on the table, proposals that would solve the problem, time after time people like you dismiss them out of hand and continue to bleat on about me ,me ,me! so go ahead provide a fair solution that will benefit all David instead of your selfish whinging.
21

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 14/06/2009 21:43:20
#20, Rainworth soapy.
Soapy has rightly spotted my indifference about the fate of the 100,000 ex bar staff, or whatever the real total is. "Use us or lose us."
I have what I want-fug free pubs and other enclosed public places.
Separate facilities already exist. No smoking inside-smoking out.
How about giving up the nicotine addiction?
I'm not whingeing.
22

soapy1,

15/06/2009 00:43:54
How does giving up nicotine help the 100,000 and growing thrown on the dole?
how does it help stop the destruction of the pub industry?

Your admission on behalf of the anti smoking lobby is accepted. It is now public record that this is the official position of the anti smoking lobby and their asociated charities. that the lack of smoking facilities is based on nothing more than I want! Not health, not science but I want, all smokers want is a level playing field, give the landlords choice and save our pubs, to get these former staff back to work providing the public service they have always provided. The charities, ASH, CRUK, BHF, and HMG may deny all they wish, even stay silent and hope goes away but the damage is done. You said it and said it not only well but publically. Thank you David.
23

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 15/06/2009 09:07:25
#22, soapy1.
By converting their nicotine pounds to pub pounds, and saving the 100,000(?) bar staff soapy pretends so much concern for.
Soapy wrongly assumes I am some kind of official spokesman for the anti smoking lobby, and that I have made some kind of admission or confession on it's behalf.
Smokers have a level playing field, in that all enclosed public places, which just happens to include public houses, are now smoke free, so what's he waiting for? Let him just swallow his pride, enter these hostelries and "save our pubs, to get these former staff back to work providing the public service they have always provided".
His freedom-his choice.
He's welcome to the free advice.
24

english charlie,

15/06/2009 20:43:56
I don't know why David would want smokers going to pubs, when non-smokers would be more to his liking.
25

soapy1,

15/06/2009 23:00:36
who said I do not go into pubs David I have never said that so your argument is moot simply because of your assumption.

Supply and demand are basis of any business, the pubs are not allowed to supply what the smokers want so smokers stay home with their friends , their cheap beer and cigarettes. Where is the promised anti smoking trade that would fill the pubs David?

You and your anti smoking crusaders promised the publicans there would be millions of non smokers filling the pubs, they are with the smokers David staying home enjoying cheap beer and a pub like atmosphere for a fraction of the price, a lot of them are visiting smokers, the pubs are dying because the likes of you lied to them. bring back the smoking rooms and what happened at the Cutting Edge will happen in every pub in the country that has one! The proof is there in the customer reaction to that one pub, quadrupled footfall in four days! Even you cannot deny that.
26

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 16/06/2009 09:34:36
#24, chas.w.
I've no preference for non-smokers over smokers in pubs, as long as the cigarette fumes remain outside.
After all, the more the merrier, as they say.
27

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 16/06/2009 10:29:57
#25, soapy1.
I'm glad that soapy is helping me to maintain employment for all those bar staff, and long may he do so.
However, his argument about smokers drinking at home is flawed, in that it's not quite clear whether the main attraction is supposedly smoking or cheap beer. Assuming that smoking was once more permitted in pubs, the beer would still be as expensive as before, and no longer "a fraction of the price". I could drink at home to save money, but cheap tinnies have no appeal.
The "likes of me" never lied about non-smokers returning to pubs, but this non-smoker is more than happy with the lack of fug.
The Cutting Edge ploy, if somewhat imaginative, was rightly nipped in the bud as an illegal practice.
My footfall's back out again to-day. Perhaps I should just drink four pints?
28

english charlie,

16/06/2009 10:41:56
#26. So you don't believe the rubbish about smoke going into pubs through opened doors and 3rd, 4th, 5th hand smoke?
29

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 16/06/2009 12:54:17
#28, chas.w.
I've never accorded much credence to most of the imaginative nonsense that chas. comes out with, and tend to sit out in the beer garden or similar when I can, upwind of smokers. It's a bit like doing a body swerve past people smoking in the street, and at bus stops. Chas. come to terms yet with the truth about the tooth fairy?
30

english charlie,

16/06/2009 13:58:55
#29. I'm pleased that you agree that smoke going into pubs through opened doors and 3rd, 4th, and 5th hand smoke are just fairy stories.
31

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 16/06/2009 22:10:48
#30, chas.w.
So where's chas. got these tales from? Can we have a link?
So does he believe in fairies now, of the tooth variety or otherwise?

 

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.