Home
May 13, 2008 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper
‘Take tobacco off shelves’ says Ash
Call for cigarettes to be sold under the counter

THE NEW head of Scotland's leading anti-smoking charity has called for cigarettes to be taken off shop shelves as part of efforts to dissuade the next generation from taking up the habit.

In her first interview as chief executive of Ash Scotland, Sheila Duffy also warned plans to expand smoking cessation services were at risk because of inadequate government funding levels.

And she cautioned tobacco should not be seen as a "done and dusted" health issue following the implementation of the ban on smoking in public places.

Duffy, who took up her new post this month after the retiral of previous chief executive Maureen Moore, told the Sunday Herald one idea which should be examined is the selling of cigarettes "under the counter".

"Some countries have experimented with the idea of taking tobacco off the open shelves, so you are not just going and buying it like you would buy bread and milk," she said.

"In the longer term, I think it is something we should seriously consider because this product is so dangerous it would never be allowed to be sold openly if it came on to the market today."

The legislation on smoking in public places - which came into force in Scotland in March 2006 - has been followed by further measures aimed at curbing the nation's nicotine habit. In October last year, the legal minimum age for buying tobacco was raised from 16 to 18, bringing it into line with alcohol.

Other plans which may soon come under consideration include a licensing system for shops selling tobacco, proposed by SNP MSP Christine Grahame.

Last month the government pledged £11 million a year for smoking cessation, to allow health boards to continue services and develop new ones in settings such as workplaces and social clubs.

But Ash Scotland has raised concerns that - taking inflation into account - this level of funding will represent a reduction of nearly 6% by 2010. And, while the overall budget for tackling smoking has increased by £2.5m to £13.8m, Duffy argued it was still inadequate.

"Alcohol is receiving three times as much funding as tobacco control," she said. "We are not saying don't tackle alcohol abuse - you need to tackle alcohol - but tobacco is no less dangerous."

Her comments yesterday met with a mixed reaction from politicians and campaigners. The British Medical Association has also called for a ban on displaying cigarettes at the point of sale. A spokeswoman for BMA Scotland said the practice "normalised" cigarettes, especially when they are placed next to every day items.

"Research has found young children become more aware of tobacco brands when cigarettes are on display and they are more likely to express an interest in buying named brands," she said.

Labour's health spokeswoman, Margaret Curran, pointed out tobacco was still a major killer in Scotland and added: "It would be a disaster if the good work of encouraging thousands of Scots to quit tobacco was damaged by a lack of investment."

Mary Scanlon, health spokeswoman for the Conservatives, agreed cessation services and support were vital, but said selling cigarettes "under the counter" was a simplistic approach that would have little impact. "It is not the display of cigarettes that makes you want to buy them, it is because you are addicted to smoking," she said.

Neil Rafferty, of pro-smokers' rights group Forest, argued: "Cigarettes are a perfectly legal product and as long as they are a legal product then adults should be able to make a normal consumer choice."

He added: "It is typical anti-smoking hypocrisy. We are told in Scotland that alcohol is doing our country enormous damage, but no-one is going to suggest alcohol be hidden under the counter."

The Scottish government is due to publish a five-year smoking prevention action plan this year, which will draw on 31 recommendations made by experts in a report published in 2006.

Public health minister Shona Robison said: "Proposals for under-the-counter sales will be considered within this action plan.

"I am confident the £11m a year I announced last month for smoking cessation will allow boards to continue existing services and develop new ones."

Share this story on: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | NowPublic | Yahoo!
Posted by: Crieff resident, Strathearn on 8:31am Sun 6 Jan 08
I don't know abt anyone else but I for one am sick of people and organisations pushing their own agendas down our throats. People are responsible for their own actions.
Posted by: DaveA, Forfarshire on 1:18pm Sun 6 Jan 08
I would like to ask Ms Duffy does she think alcohol should be taken off the shelves too? Lets not stop there, what about blackened windows on car showrooms as they kills thousands on the roads too. The air in Glasgow is the equivelent of smoking 23 cigarettes a day, for example 3% of petrol is make up of Benzine a known carcinogen. The average cigarette contains 1/15,000th of a gallon of petrol. So should your unleaded and diesel be taken off the shelves as well? Also do you drive Ms Duffy? Perhaps Ms Duffy should be taken off the shelf along with ASH. Me it would not affect as I have not brought any tobbaco from a shop in years and my health warning is in Spanish.
Posted by: Saul Tyre, Germany on 2:35pm Sun 6 Jan 08
And what about cream cakes and sticky buns? Not exactly health food. I mean, take a look at Jackie Baillie for God's sake.
Posted by: William M, Sheffield on 2:54pm Sun 6 Jan 08
I second the motion that if you are going to take cigarettes off display, you must do the same with alcohol, anything containing sugar as it leads to obesity, remove all open air coolers in supermarkets as they increase the carbon footprint and waste valuable energy. When will somebody wake up and realise that adults have a right to choose for themselves in this country. Or have ASH and AHA sunken to the depths whereby they have determined that there is not a single person in this country that is capable of thinking and choosing for themselves. These people are the fuel of inflation, forcing their views on HMG and costing us all tons of £ with their do-good rubbish.
Posted by: Belinda on 7:51pm Sun 6 Jan 08
Where are tobacconists and kiosks expected to put 80+ varieties of tobacco? In the cleaning cupboard under the till?
Posted by: David, New Mills, U.K. on 8:38pm Sun 6 Jan 08
How about in the skip, Belinda, which is where they'll end up in the long run.
Posted by: Belinda, Edinburgh on 9:04pm Sun 6 Jan 08
Like banning drugs has eliminated them, or prohibition got rid of alcohol? ah, yes of course.
Posted by: Rich Lady, USA on 9:44pm Sun 6 Jan 08
"Alcohol is receiving three times as much funding as tobacco control," she said. "We are not saying don't tackle alcohol abuse - you need to tackle alcohol - but tobacco is no less dangerous."


Huh? We're all so used to seeing this kind of inaccurate hyperbole, do we even notice it any more? Even if we agree that smoking is as dangerous as the health pushers say, it doesn't impair a persons ability to function on a day to day basis, or serve as a root cause domestic violence (the list goes on) the way alcoholism often does.

Maybe you should all use the energy you are spending bashing smokers and get really involved in helping people like alcoholics who really are having an awfully hard time of it.

You should be spending no money bothering smokers and even more helping alcoholics. In my state in the US, they've shut down all treatment facilities for alcoholism, though here just like everywhere else, they badger smokers to pieces.

That, as a result, we don't go to pieces or even become alcoholics, for that matter, is proof smokers don't need your help at all. As long as it's tobacco is a legal product, it deserves a rightful place on a market shelf.
Posted by: mandyv, banitland on 11:12pm Sun 6 Jan 08
Where do they hide the cocaine,pot,heroin.O
h no,they are illegal aren't they. Everyone knows prohibition creates criminal gangs who pay no taxes. Yet those who become ill, will get treatment on the NHS.
I agree with the majority of others, hide the cakes, fatty foods, alcohol ect.
freedom2choose.info

Posted by: tracerace, nazi land on 11:38pm Sun 6 Jan 08
I have lost 3 immediate members of the family to 3 different sorts of cancer, in the last 2 years...i too was helpless to do anything to help them!
BUT ONE BIG LESSON I LEARNT FROM THEM IS:-
THIS IS YOUR LIFE...STAND UP FOR YOUR PRINCIPALS, FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS; AS LIFE IS VERY SHORT!
All ANTIS argue that Smoking is terrible, unjust and unfair on other peoples health.....but thats your OPINION!
THINK LOGICALLY....what about things that are Far worse than Smoking....
*nuclear power
*Diesel fumes
*petrol fumes
*BBQ SMOKE..2hrs breathing smoke from BBQ'S, equivalent to smoking 220,000 cigarettes!.....thin
k on!!!!!!
TERRORISTS/MURDERS/R
APISTS....ALL THESE HAVE FADED INTO THE BACKGROUND SINCE THE SMOKING BAN.....

THE GOVERNMENT HAVE INTRODUCED A LAW, WHICH HAS PUBS, DEADER THAN PEOPLE LYING IN A CEMETARY! ORDINARY FOLKS AT EACH OTHERS THROATS!
TOTAL MEDIA SILENCE....SO THAT PEOPLE ARE BRAINWASHED INTO THINKING THE SMOKING BAN REALLY IS WORKING.....WHEN ITS NOT!....ITS KILLING BUSINESSES OFF DAY BY DAY!
Finally, ADOLF HITLER was the last person to ban Smoking.....and we all know the attrocities he commited and what happened to him!
SO I SAY WHETHER SMOKER OR NOT....WHY ARE THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD, TAKING A NAZI APPROACH TO THIS WHOLE SMOKING BAN EXPERIMENT?
Britain used to be a democratic country, with freedom of speech.....
ALTHOUGH FRANCE SPAIN ETC HAVE THE EXACT SAME BAN....THEY STILL CARE ABOUT THEIR PEOPLE AND SMALL BARS/CAFES ARE ALLOWED A CHOICE, AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE FULLY SMOKING OR FULLY NON SMOKING! WHY DOES MR BROWN AND CREW THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY PEOPLES FREEDOMS? WHO MADE THEM GOD?
WHAT DID ALL OUR PEOPLE DIE FOR IN WW2?...IF THEY COULD HAVE THEIR TIME AGAIN, WOULD THEY REALLY WANT TO COME BACK TO THIS C**P?
HIDE THE BL**DY CIGS, BUT MARK MY WORDS...
SMOKERS ARE NOT LISTENING TO YOU!
SINCE THE SMOKING BAN, THE NUMBERS OF SMOKERS HAS INCREASED; WHILST 50OR MORE PUBS/CLUBS ARE SHUTTING EVERY WEEK!
Posted by: Emma Carter, Withernsea on 12:39am Mon 7 Jan 08
DOES MRS DUFFY THINK THAT THIS WILL STOP THE NEXT GENERATION FROM SMOKING IF IT IS WHAT SHE THINKS THEN SHE MUST BE LIVING IN COOKO LAND OR MUST BE FROM ANOTHER PLANET ALOT OF UNDER AGED CHILDREN ARE NOW BUYING FAGS FROM THERE LOCAL DRUG DEALERS AND MAY BE SOMTHING ELSE DRUGS OR STILL GETTING OTHER PEOPLE TO GET THEM FAGS
WHILE WE ARE AT IT WHY NOT BAN ANY THING ELSE THAT IS BAD FOR US WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH HUMAN RIGHTS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE WE ARE ADULTS BUT ARE TREATED LIKE KIDS BY THIS NAZI GOVERNMENT GORDEN BROWN AND THE OTHER PARTYS MUST RELIZE THAT THEY ARE ABOUT 12 MILLION SMOKERS IN THIS COUNTRY AND IS 12VOTES AT THE NEXT ELECTION AND THAT IS WITHOUT ALL THE NON/SMOKERS WHO IS ALSO AGAINST THIS BAN
Posted by: Derek Vaughan, Guaza, S Tenerife on 11:22am Mon 7 Jan 08
I am pleased that Ms Duffy is keeping the tobacco issue high profile. As an ex-smoker, who was addicted to nicotine, I know how difficult it is to break the habit.Smokers must realize that their freedom to smoke is not only unpleasant for others near them but damages other people's health and affects those with respiratory illnesses,is absorbed into clothes leaving unpleasant odours,spoils people's enjoyment when eating, not to mention the rest of their family picking up the peices when they die prematurely from lung cancer as did my mother!
Posted by: cliff, east london on 12:38pm Mon 7 Jan 08
(ASH) your organisation is becoming one of the most hated groups in the world. One thing the majority of people do not like is globel dictators and your sick group is starting to act like one, why dont group just not smoke and shut the f**k up. Your group along with the NHS and western polititions are getting a reputation as the real killers of smokers and other people, by adding stress, expossing people to cold weather and the injustice of this smoking ban is going to kill more people than a smoker having a fag. The majority of people are not going to be fooled by your phony statistics and so called research into how people die and what they die of.
Posted by: Shoona, Edinburgh on 12:42pm Mon 7 Jan 08
Creiff resident says
I don't know abt anyone else but I for one am sick of people and organisations pushing their own agendas down our throats. People are responsible for their own actions.

Can't you see that the tobacco industry's agenda is to market their products through these displays, including influencing children.
I have no problem with existing smokers continuing to smoke - that is their choice. But surely you don't need to see the goods on display to buy them?
And does anyone think it is a good thing for children to start smoking?
So, if smokers can remember what brand to ask for, and nobody thinks it is a good thing for children to be encouraged to start smoking, what is the problem with this suggestion?
Posted by: NoBanJan, Manchester on 1:17pm Mon 7 Jan 08
When will the bigots of ASH & co leave smokers alone. I am sick & tired of this relentless persecution. They are not content that we are currently banned from smoking in comfort, they want smokers exterminated altogether. Well, news for them! We are NOT going away, we are staying & together with many tolerant non-smokers are fighting to get democracy restored to this country! freedom2choosedotinf

o
Posted by: Dougie, Berwick on 1:39pm Mon 7 Jan 08
NoBanJan

I don't think ASH want to exterminate smokers.

Isn't it the tobacco companies who are exterminating smokers? (50% of smokers anyway)

Posted by: Kay on 2:55pm Mon 7 Jan 08
Second hand smoke is annoying, smelly and unpleasant, and even us smokers don't much like it, which is a good enough reason to segregate smokers from non-smokers.

BUT, working in a smoky pub for 40 hours a week is the equivalent of smoking 3 fags a WEEK, a vanishingly small risk compared to the risks from traffic pollution particularly diesel fumes. Annoying, yeah, risky, no, and if publicans wish to set aside a room/bar just for smokers, rather than try to make a living catering to just non-smokers, it's their right.
Posted by: Mandyv, banitland on 3:03pm Mon 7 Jan 08
Shoona posted "And does anyone think it is a good thing for children to start smoking?
So, if smokers can remember what brand to ask for, and nobody thinks it is a good thing for children to be encouraged to start smoking, what is the problem with this suggestion?

Why not ask the parents who have lost their children to herion, crack cocaine ect, if hiding things, banning things, not advertising things,actually keep their children safe.
Kids love things that are banned, have you not noticed? Where will hide other legal products, that you dislike?

freedom2choose.info

Posted by: Shoona, Edinburgh on 6:13pm Mon 7 Jan 08
Mandyv
If people were allowed to advertise crack and heroin, and sell it in attractive packaging in supermarkets there would be a thousandfold increase in deaths from them.
Why do you need to have cigarettes displayed?
Posted by: Des, Scotland on 6:47pm Mon 7 Jan 08
Taking cigarettes out of the public eye will not deter people from smoking or stop new recruits to it either..
Educate people, dont treat them like children..
Posted by: Belinda, Edinburgh on 9:38pm Mon 7 Jan 08
Shoona

If the other drugs were legally traded, the government could impose controls on their selling price via taxation, and so they would not necessarily be more attractive or affordable than at present. Hiding tobacco from the general purchaser means that would-be and actual smokers are more likely to go to illegitimate traders.
Posted by: Shoona, Edinburgh on 8:37am Tue 8 Jan 08
Belinda
Can you provide evidence to support your claims. They sound wildly inaccurate to me.

And I repeat, why do cigarettes need to be displayed?
Posted by: DaveA, Forfarshire on 8:49am Tue 8 Jan 08
Shoona, you are quite wrong in your 3 cigaretes a week. Professor Nilsson has done experiements that suggest it is between 1 cigarette a week to 2 per year. The New England Journal of Medicine in again 1974 produced scientific study that the passive inhales of 0.004% of an active smoker. The relative risk for lung cancer from passive smoking is a theoretical 1.25, and if you take out the confounders it is 1.05. Whole milk is 2.14. Therefore you 2.04x more likely to contract lung cancer from milk than you are from SHS.
Posted by: Shoona, Edinburgh on 1:01pm Tue 8 Jan 08
DaveA
I think you have me confused with someone else
Posted by: Elizabeth, California on 10:20pm Tue 8 Jan 08
I agree with most of you people, smokers have as much right to smoke, as non-smokers have their rights, seems to me discrimination is the factor here.

I did smoke years ago, but it was MY choice to stop smoking, everone has that choice, I bet the person telling the public to do this or that is collecting a great amount of salary, Tax payers money too.

Oh! they once tried that here in America, about not letting the drinkers have any more booze, and guess who got extremely wealthy on getting the booze to the drinkers, if the non-smokers do not like the smell of the second hand smoke then let them walk away, or are they just going to harp on about it.
Posted by: Fredrik Eich, London on 11:28pm Tue 8 Jan 08
Shoona,
If Heroin and Cocaine were legal, packaged and advertised - would you use them? Would any of your family use them? Do you know anyone who would use them? I assure you that if you do they are already using them. If they were legal I don't know if more or less people would use them but less deaths from them - with out a doubt. Tobacco is a different drug, if it kills anyone at all it is after a very reasonable life expectency - I have yet to here of someone over dosing on cigs. I like to see cigarettes on display so that I can see what I am buying.
Fredrik.
Add your comment
Name:
Email: *
Location:
**
Security Image. Registered site users are not required to enter Security Image Information.
 
 e.g. 123-123
Comment:
Please note: All HTML tags will be ignored.
Format Text:

 
By posting a comment, I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of use. Comments are not moderated but we will react if anything that breaks the rules comes to our attention and we may delete inappropriate postings. Please treat other people with respect. You must not post anything that is abusive, indecent, unlawful or defamatory. Remember, you are personally liable for what you post on this site. If you wish to complain about a comment, contact us here.
* Your email address will not be displayed
** To avoid register now or login