Tobacco displays to be banned from shops

nuffingmannuffingman Posts: 3,014
edited March 2011 in A Moving Train
Tobacco displays in shops will be banned in England as part of a package of measures to discourage smoking.

Instead, cigarettes and other products will have to be kept under-the-counter from 2012 for large stores and 2015 for small shops, ministers have announced.

I've no problem with this. I admit I like a cigar now and again always smoked in the garden so nobody can complain about second hand smoke. I just laugh at the narrow mindedness of it all. According to figures available, and I admit they seem to differ wherever you look the NHS spends more on obesity and more on alcohol related health problems than it does on smoking related problems. Where though are the "alcohol can kill" labels on alcohol bottles, or fast food packaging. Smoking adverts are banned but the alcohol adverts still keep rolling along.

I think we've become so conditioned to the evils of the dreaded ciggy preaching that it's probably a better vote earner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12680815
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    nuffingman wrote:
    I think we've become so conditioned to the evils of the dreaded ciggy preaching that it's probably a better vote earner.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12680815


    i think you nailed it.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    nuffingman wrote:
    Tobacco displays in shops will be banned in England as part of a package of measures to discourage smoking.

    Instead, cigarettes and other products will have to be kept under-the-counter from 2012 for large stores and 2015 for small shops, ministers have announced.

    I've no problem with this. I admit I like a cigar now and again always smoked in the garden so nobody can complain about second hand smoke. I just laugh at the narrow mindedness of it all. According to figures available, and I admit they seem to differ wherever you look the NHS spends more on obesity and more on alcohol related health problems than it does on smoking related problems. Where though are the "alcohol can kill" labels on alcohol bottles, or fast food packaging. Smoking adverts are banned but the alcohol adverts still keep rolling along.

    I think we've become so conditioned to the evils of the dreaded ciggy preaching that it's probably a better vote earner.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12680815


    I wish that politicians anywhere would grow the balls to just make it illegal to smoke. Seriously, they keep putting all these regulations out there...wouldn't it just be easier to prohibit smoking?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • loadedgunloadedgun Indiana Posts: 1,390
    mikepegg44 wrote:


    I wish that politicians anywhere would grow the balls to just make it illegal to smoke. Seriously, they keep putting all these regulations out there...wouldn't it just be easier to prohibit smoking?

    This should be done, but it never will.

    Or, people could just be smart enough not so smoke.
    Midwest. Indy/Lafayette.
  • nuffingmannuffingman Posts: 3,014
    mikepegg44 wrote:

    I wish that politicians anywhere would grow the balls to just make it illegal to smoke. Seriously, they keep putting all these regulations out there...wouldn't it just be easier to prohibit smoking?
    Ah! but think of the lost tax revenue.
  • bennett13bennett13 Posts: 439
    Ban smoking outright? Really? Maybe next we should outlaw donuts...or Twinkies....or Oreos....or rock concerts for that matter (they do get awfully loud and could damage your hearing). Or how about this novel idea: We let people make their own decisions about how to live their lives. Of course, the catch is that they have to live with the consequences of those decisions. It's a little thing I like to call freedom.
  • brandon10brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    bennett13 wrote:
    Ban smoking outright? Really? Maybe next we should outlaw donuts...or Twinkies....or Oreos....or rock concerts for that matter (they do get awfully loud and could damage your hearing). Or how about this novel idea: We let people make their own decisions about how to live their lives. Of course, the catch is that they have to live with the consequences of those decisions. It's a little thing I like to call freedom.


    I sure would have liked to have freedom from all the second hand smoke I endured as a child.

    I sure would love to have freedom from the lung issues I deal with now.

    One's freedom is another's death sentence.
  • bennett13bennett13 Posts: 439
    So ban smoking around children. There are plenty of things that can be reasonably regulated without being banned outright. I think marijuana should be legal, but not smoking it around children. There is a happy medium that can be reached to preserve liberty and at the same time protecting people from the idiotic actions of others.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    weve banned all tobacco advertising at point of sale here in oz.

    im thinking about taking up swinging a spiked ball on a chain around my head. i know it might hurt some people near me... but whatever... i like it and they can stand somewhere else. 8-)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • tinkerbelltinkerbell New Zealand Posts: 2,161
    It is about to be banned here in NZ too. I think the huge taxes on tobacco are more likely to discourage people from smoking rather than displays. Since I quit 7 years ago the cost has risen by $5 a pack and our government has said that the tax will go up substantially in the next 2 years.
    all you need is love, love is all you need
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    i've gotten to the point wehre i don't care if people smoke as long as they don't do it around me.
    unfortunately the latter is never the case... bus stops, outside my store where it bothers my customers too, wherever... i'm so sick of it. people's right to not smoke should trump those who want to smoke. i'll prob get flamed for that but whatever.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • nuffingmannuffingman Posts: 3,014
    haffajappa wrote:
    i've gotten to the point wehre i don't care if people smoke as long as they don't do it around me.
    unfortunately the latter is never the case... bus stops, outside my store where it bothers my customers too, wherever... i'm so sick of it. people's right to not smoke should trump those who want to smoke. i'll prob get flamed for that but whatever.
    Nobody should ever have to suffer someone elses smoke. If it was banned worldwide from all public places that would be fine by me. It's just that it's often treated as the world's greatest evil.

    In the US cost of obesity $147billion per year
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/ ... 975&page=1

    Cost of smoking $157billion
    http://ww2.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/conte ... h_Year.asp

    I've no idea what the attitude is in the States but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the smokers that are targetted the most.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    as a smoker I agree that smoking around a non smoker is rude, it really don't take much to smoke away from the crowd but......if I am alone having a grit and you don't like smoke stay the f#@k away from me and I will stay away from you.

    Godfather.
  • Break The SkyBreak The Sky Posts: 1,276
    bennett13 wrote:
    I think marijuana should be legal, but not smoking it around children.

    I think public masturbation should be legal, but not around children of course. It's not hurting you any. If you don't like me wanking in public don't come around me.

    Now clearly I'm being sarcastic, but golly, what a slippery slope with the marijuana talk. If it's not broke don't fix it, and right now I'd say things are getting along swell without marijuana or public masturbation.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me ...
  • ed243421ed243421 Posts: 7,672
    why do tobacco rights
    and anger go hand in hand?
    is it that the smokers know that they were targeted and caught
    like fish in a barrell
    by an industry that created a product
    that was "enhanced" with many poisons
    that will drastically reduce the life-span of its users,
    but they can't stop using it?
    smokers, please do not get angry at non-smokers,
    focus your anger on the truth,
    a product you buy everyday is killing you
    The whole world will be different soon... - EV
    RED ROCKS 6-19-95
    AUGUSTA 9-26-96
    MANSFIELD 9-15-98
    BOSTON 9-29-04
    BOSTON 5-25-06
    MANSFIELD 6-30-08
    EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
    BOSTON 5-17-10
    EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
    PJ20 9-3-11
    PJ20 9-4-11
    WRIGLEY 7-19-13
    WORCESTER 10-15-13
    WORCESTER 10-16-13
    HARTFORD 10-25-13









  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    While were at it, we should also ban perfume / Fragrances.
    Anytime me and my wife go out and someone is wearing perfume / fragrance she get a serious asthma attack, a couple of times we have had to use an empi pen.
    Ones freedom is anothers death sentence :roll:
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    nuffingman wrote:
    Cost of smoking $157billion
    http://ww2.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/conte ... h_Year.asp

    I've no idea what the attitude is in the States but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the smokers that are targetted the most.

    I am always curious about those studies regarding the cost of smoking. I mean sure it is easy to say that the medical bills from smoking related illnesses are this much and therefore that is how much smoking costs. But at the same time the life expectancy for a smoker is significantly lower than for that of a non-smoker. So sure while a smoker might have medical costs associated with lung cancer or emphysema at 50, they are probably not going to live until they are 80. So if they don't live unto their 80's they aren't going to collect as much security and retirement benefits from the government that they have paid into, and they probably aren't going to be hospitalized for other old age related problems like dementia or a broken hip (which are a big cost, especially since if the elderly are admitted to the hospital for something it takes a long time for them to recover) or having to live in a nursing home. So if you deduct those costs, that wouldn’t be spent on a smoker who dies before he or she retires, what is the real cost of smoking?
  • Break The SkyBreak The Sky Posts: 1,276
    nuffingman wrote:
    Cost of smoking $157billion
    http://ww2.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/conte ... h_Year.asp

    I've no idea what the attitude is in the States but I wouldn't be surprised if it's the smokers that are targetted the most.

    I am always curious about those studies regarding the cost of smoking. I mean sure it is easy to say that the medical bills from smoking related illnesses are this much and therefore that is how much smoking costs. But at the same time the life expectancy for a smoker is significantly lower than for that of a non-smoker. So sure while a smoker might have medical costs associated with lung cancer or emphysema at 50, they are probably not going to live until they are 80. So if they don't live unto their 80's they aren't going to collect as much security and retirement benefits from the government that they have paid into, and they probably aren't going to be hospitalized for other old age related problems like dementia or a broken hip (which are a big cost, especially since if the elderly are admitted to the hospital for something it takes a long time for them to recover) or having to live in a nursing home. So if you deduct those costs, that wouldn’t be spent on a smoker who dies before he or she retires, what is the real cost of smoking?

    I think that assessment is a little off the mark. The ones that usually die young from a single attack, like a heart attack or stroke are usually people that are morbidly obese. Smoking deteriorates the body and smokers on average do die younger than non smokers, but the average smoker isn't dying at 50. Usually their bodies act just like an old car and nickel and dime their way into old age. No immune system from smoking equals more colds, more infections, emphysema, clotting problems. Smokers can live to an advanced age, their quality of life is usually just very low. I'd say the whole die young and take what's left off the top from my hospital bill is a bunk theory.
    If hope can grow from dirt like me ...
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    ed243421 wrote:
    why do tobacco rights
    and anger go hand in hand?
    is it that the smokers know that they were targeted and caught
    like fish in a barrell
    by an industry that created a product
    that was "enhanced" with many poisons
    that will drastically reduce the life-span of its users,
    but they can't stop using it?
    smokers, please do not get angry at non-smokers,
    focus your anger on the truth,
    a product you buy everyday is killing you

    could be because of the constant bashing smokers receive from alot of the non smokers.
    so if you non smokers will get off our (smokers) ass's we can all play together nicely. :lol:

    Godfather.
  • lukin2006lukin2006 Posts: 9,087
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    nuffingman wrote:
    Tobacco displays in shops will be banned in England as part of a package of measures to discourage smoking.

    Instead, cigarettes and other products will have to be kept under-the-counter from 2012 for large stores and 2015 for small shops, ministers have announced.

    I've no problem with this. I admit I like a cigar now and again always smoked in the garden so nobody can complain about second hand smoke. I just laugh at the narrow mindedness of it all. According to figures available, and I admit they seem to differ wherever you look the NHS spends more on obesity and more on alcohol related health problems than it does on smoking related problems. Where though are the "alcohol can kill" labels on alcohol bottles, or fast food packaging. Smoking adverts are banned but the alcohol adverts still keep rolling along.

    I think we've become so conditioned to the evils of the dreaded ciggy preaching that it's probably a better vote earner.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12680815


    I wish that politicians anywhere would grow the balls to just make it illegal to smoke. Seriously, they keep putting all these regulations out there...wouldn't it just be easier to prohibit smoking?

    I don't think it would be better. Look at the amount of taxes made off of tobacco products, it'd be a major loss of revenue, which would have to be made up somewhere.
    I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin

    "Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
  • nuffingmannuffingman Posts: 3,014
    ed243421 wrote:
    why do tobacco rights
    and anger go hand in hand?
    is it that the smokers know that they were targeted and caught
    like fish in a barrell
    by an industry that created a product
    that was "enhanced" with many poisons
    that will drastically reduce the life-span of its users,
    but they can't stop using it?
    smokers, please do not get angry at non-smokers,
    focus your anger on the truth,
    a product you buy everyday is killing you
    You're missing the point of my original post. It's nothing to do with the harm caused by smoking. Any smoker knows the risk they take and don't need top be told. It's simply that in the UK we have anti smoking groups, nobody can smoke in public but the government just to pander to public opinion more and more rules are made.

    However obesity and alcohol which cost our NHS more than smoking are mentioned almost as a side issue. Nobody has ever explained to me why cigarette packets have "SMOKING KILLS" printed on them and pictures of diseased lungs etc but a whisky bottle doesn't have health warnings and pics of knackered livers printed on them. Binge drinking and alcoholism is a major problem over here.
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    HeidiJam wrote:
    While were at it, we should also ban perfume / Fragrances.
    Anytime me and my wife go out and someone is wearing perfume / fragrance she get a serious asthma attack, a couple of times we have had to use an empi pen.
    Ones freedom is anothers death sentence :roll:
    Actually I think a lot of places are starting to do this.
    At least around where I live, I see it a lot. Which is good... This whole saturating yourself with Axe is really getting old.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    haffajappa wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    While were at it, we should also ban perfume / Fragrances.
    Anytime me and my wife go out and someone is wearing perfume / fragrance she get a serious asthma attack, a couple of times we have had to use an empi pen.
    Ones freedom is anothers death sentence :roll:
    Actually I think a lot of places are starting to do this.
    At least around where I live, I see it a lot. Which is good... This whole saturating yourself with Axe is really getting old.
    Really???
    hopefully they won't take away my Old Spice "Afterhours" spray away from me. :D
  • tinkerbelltinkerbell New Zealand Posts: 2,161
    nuffingman wrote:

    Is this the true cost of smoking? Meaning is this the amount of money it costs after you take into account the tax revenue made on cigs? In most countries the cost to the tax payer is less than the tax revenue made...
    all you need is love, love is all you need
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Blockhead wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    While were at it, we should also ban perfume / Fragrances.
    Anytime me and my wife go out and someone is wearing perfume / fragrance she get a serious asthma attack, a couple of times we have had to use an empi pen.
    Ones freedom is anothers death sentence :roll:
    Actually I think a lot of places are starting to do this.
    At least around where I live, I see it a lot. Which is good... This whole saturating yourself with Axe is really getting old.
    Really???
    hopefully they won't take away my Old Spice "Afterhours" spray away from me. :D
    yeah people can be badly allergic, and if they have to stand next to captain cologne on the train i'm sure its not too pleasant...
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
Sign In or Register to comment.