I have no issue with government or other agencies seeking to discourage children and teenagers from smoking, after all, we all know that it is a lot easier to start than it is to stop. Therefore, I would actively support any education programme that is designed to achieve this objective, but banning the display of cigarettes, does anyone really think that this will have any affect whatsoever? Well clearly yes, this out of touch, politically correct Labour government.
This is political tokenism at its best, removing cigarettes from display will not reduce the number of young people from smoking, in fact it may provide a perception of something illicit, which I feel sure, will appeal to some youngsters. The claim is that there are up to 200,000 11-15 years olds smoking. Okay, so given it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children of this age, where does the government think they get them from. Maybe it is via vending machines or an older mate, or perhaps a ‘friendly’ local store. Either way, it is claimed that some 200,000 youngsters have found some method of feeding their habit. So, what really encourages them to smoke, is it peer pressure, something to do, the fact that it is illegal or because it makes them feel grown up? Maybe is is a combination of all these factors, but it can hardly be said it is because they have seen them displayed.
The problem with political tokenism is the knock-on effect or consequences of the action. For example, did the banning of cigarette sponsors for Formula 1 lead to a reduction in smoking? I don’t think so. But now, at a time when the likes of Honda are looking to put as many as 800 people out of work because they cannot afford to continue their race team, cigarette sponsors could have been a lifeline.
Take a look at the pub trade. Some 5 pubs are closing every week in this country; many landlords have put this down to, amongst other things, the ban on smoking. Yes, I accept that it is also as a consequence of the alcohol duties and competition in the supermarkets, but many landlord place the lion share of blame at the smoking ban. So, at a time when people need jobs and accommodation, 5 pub businesses are closing every single week. And, of course, it is not just pubs that are being affected, even beermat manufacturers are finding it tough. A few weeks ago there were 4 UK based manufacturers, now one has transferred manufacturing to Germany and another has closed its doors for good, halving the capacity overnight and placing people out of work.
What is not evident is whether this government simply couldn’t give a toss about collateral damage, or if they just didn’t bother to look any further than political tokenism and a positive set of headlines. Government should act responsibly, which means that if they intend to introduce new legislation, they should look at the potential consequences of their action, not just the headlines. A failure to do so, is a gross dereliction of their duty and of course, there have been many examples of this over the past 11 years. I am personally sick to the back teeth of this politically correct government, their sledgehammer to crack a nut approach to every problem and their insistence that stick is better than carrot. The bottom line is we are all being treated like children by New Labour, and I for one, have had enough.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:23 am
The thing that baffles about this whole thing is how on earth they’re going to be able to make it work in practice. Sure, a large newsagent or supermarket could probably find a novel way of coping with it, but a few years ago I worked in a small place where there just wouldn’t be enough space to conceal all the cigarettes they kept in stock. There are thousands of these small-time newsagents which obviously need to keep selling cigarettes, but probably won’t have anywhere to stock them. Like you said, the problem isn’t the government trying to do things to tackle smoking - it’s that they choose to do such daft things which don’t seem to have much effect.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:13 am
This is a real problem - and one that neither this or a conservative government take into account - they are, as always, reading The Sun and Daily Mail way too much.
THAT is the problem - and now they want people on benefits to work for their welfare? I have blogged and blogged and better-blogged about the need for manufacturing jobs in the UK - and no one is doing anything about it at all!
December 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
@ Neil: I agree, they have not considered the practicalities from a small shopkeepers pespective. This would include how to find out what they have in stock, where to find enough space below the counter and stock rotation. It really makes me angry when tokenism just makes life more difficult for people trying to make an honest living.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
@ Will Rhodes: This government is completely oblivious to the affects or consequences of the mistakes they make. All they want are positive headlines, irrespective of how short-lived they are and the underlying consequences of their actions of business and employment.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:51 am
I agree with everything you say and with your commenters, but I thinkl you’re all missing the point! THIS GOVERNMENT DOESN’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU, ME, OR BRITAIN! Yes they are so into tokenism most people would find it incredible. Yes, they want to make yet another of their daft politically correct points, but the fact is that GB’s bloody awful NHS kills more people through dirty wards, poor service, inadequate record keeping, failed computer systems and so much more, than cigarettes ever will - and WE’VE all paid a fortune for it to happen!
This is the worst government the UK has had since the labour governments of Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan and the Tory one of Edward Heath. Believe me, that’s REALLY BAD!
December 11th, 2008 at 9:57 am
@ CJ: I agree completely with your sentiments with one notable exception. Even taking account of the ERM fiasco, the winter of discontent, party in-fighting and so on, I believe that historians will look back and judge this government to be the most incompetent, overbearing and inward looking in history.
December 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I agree with CJ, government is not interested in anything other than being politically correct and appeasing some pressure groups for good headlines. Shame on them.
February 15th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
SMOKING should be banned. Even if it means people lose their jobs and companies go bust! That’s a whole lot better than people losing family members. Also, taxes should come down when the NHS isn’t paying for all the dieing smokers! But the most immediate effect is, I now go to pubs and clubs which previously I didn’t due to the smoky environment!
This is one ban the government got completely right, but the ban on ads will have no effect. When the government put warnings of health risks on packets, sales shot up. What is more rebellious for a teenager than to do something that might kill you?!
February 16th, 2009 at 9:53 am
@ Mark Firth: Thanks for your comments. The reality is, as soon as you introduce a ban, cigarettes become illicit and then the youngsters inevitably see it as a challenge against authority. Blanket bans however, in my view at least, are authoritarian, reminiscent of a nanny state and an attack on all our liberties. The bottom line is, if people know the risks, then they should be able to make their own choices.
I do believe in a workplace ban, but not in leisure places. Non-smokers always have a choice, they could elect to go to no-smoking venues, the rights of smokers are no less important than those of none smokers. In terms of the burden on the NHS, a recent survey indicated that the cost of smoking related illnesses in terms as a cost to the NHS, was less than 5% of the revenues collected. In truth, smokers make a massive contribution to HMRC, without them we would all see a massive rise in our taxes.
I just don’t like to see any sector of the community targeted in this way and made out to be lepers. In my experience, most smokers are considerate when in public places, or socialising. In fact, many ex-smokers or none smokers tend to be the agressors. Whatever the rights or wrongs, the attack on the liberties of us all with blanket bans and the government determining what is acceptable and what is not, is worrying.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Oh dear, someone who thinks smokers should have the right to choose where to smoke, or at least chose IF to smoke. And oh dear, someone who feels that their world would be better off if all smokers were herded up, shipped off to some lockup, entombed for an eternity of smoke-filled hell and the key conveniently thrown away.
The choice of the smoker versus the non-smoker has been used as the argument for this particular debate over and over, and you will always get those who profess their right to light-up, those who don’t give a damn if you do or not, and those who would scream blue murder for contaminating their air if you do so within half a mile of their nose.
People are always going to argue about it, but it comes down to our cultural freedoms at the end of the day. We grew up with the freedom of being able to smoke in bars, restaurants and other social venues. We did, however, respect the rules that were generally set in places where smoking was not allowed. No smoking on trains and public transport has been a factor of our lives for long enough. I remember being able to smoke on buses, trains and the tube, but I don’t have any issue with that being banned. I should explain, I am a smoker and will be a smoker until the day I decide that I no longer want to smoke. I will not be legislated against. I travel by air quite a lot, and have no issue with being prevented from smoking on airplanes.
I do, however, have issue with being able to smoke in the open. My place of work has no smoking signs in the car park - an outdoor, roofless car park. Ridiculous.
Moreso, I have issue with being able to smoke in a social environment. The law is an ass. The law has been used against us. The law says that smoking in a place of work is illegal, and bars, clubs and restaurants are all places of work for those that serve us there. That is the basis for non-smoking in pubs. Absolutely ridiculous.
The choice should be there. Either the venue should have the choice to impose a selective law or not. The law, selective like I say, should be able to be ’selected’ by the venue owner to impose the legislation on their premises or not. Once imposed, the business is labelled as ‘non-smoking’ or ’smoking allowed’ at the entrance, and the people make their informed choice prior to entering.
Non-smokers can go to ‘non-smoking venues’ if they object to the smoke, and their smoking friends can join them if they feel they can abide by the no-smoking rule. Similarly, smokers can enjoy the environment of smoking venues and can be joined by their non-smoking friends if they feel they can abide the smoke in the air. Good filtration systems, although expensive to install, could be used by the ‘better’ establishments to promote ‘clean air’ while allowing smoking.
Law rarely goes backwards, but this is one law I’d just love to see being recognised as having been imposed too strictly and in turn, be revoked.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
@ Steve: Thanks for your comments. The truth is if everyone gave up smoking, the biggest victim would be the Treasury. With around £4.50 going direct to the Exchequer, the average smoker is paying an extra £1600 a year in tax. That IS a considerable amount of money, amounting to £30bn per annum. I believe that the ‘old’ rules worked quite well, most smokers were considerate, at least the one’s that I know. Smoking bans have infringed the liberty of 17m people and in effect, ended up setting smokers up as something akin to a leper. It is discrimination and for a ‘PC’ government more than a little hypocritical. I would also like to see the ban repealed, but I suspect it won’t be.
September 30th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
not only this one but all goverments through the ages have been glad of the much needed tax, where thanks to them a large percentage of over 16 and 18 year olds have contributed only be turned away from treatment when needed and brainwashed the rest of society to look upon us like lepurs, but now this tax is only a pittence compared with their new landfil tax where and every living person from the day your born til the day you die contributes, its the biggest scam in living history