News: Scotland Observations Page 3

0

England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland

Scotland Updates…

Health campaigners fury as new e-cigarette advert to be first ‘smoking’ commercial shown in 49 years 

A WOMAN will appear to smoke in a TV ad tonight for the first time since 1965 after a screen ban on “vaping” e-cigarettes was relaxed.

Angry health campaigners think the 20-second clip will “sexualise and glamorise” the nicotine devices.

The ad for e-cigarette firm VIP will be shown during a break in ITV crime drama Grantchester.

VIP’s David Levin said: “This will mark the first time in almost 50 years that TV audiences see someone exhale what appears to be ?cigarette smoke on an ad. However, it is actually vapour from an e-cigarette.”

Before today, e-cigarette ads could not show people using the devices over fears it would encourage viewers to start smoking. Now they can show the vapour being inhaled and exhaled but ads must not target kids or encourage non-smokers to use e-cigarettes.

Deborah Arnott, of health charity Ash, said: “Vaping is safer than smoking but it’s not harmless.

“Ash are concerned that VIP’s ads sexualise and glamorise e-cigarette use and don’t make clear these products are for smokers.

“If these ads conform to new rules then we’re concerned the rules aren’t fit for purpose.”

E-cigarette sales soared from 44million in 2012 to 193million in 2013.

 

Originally written By Andrew Gregory


Cancer-fight Archie Macpherson wants smokers to be ‘terrorised’
8 October 2013
Veteran football commentator Archie Macpherson has called the smoking ban is the “greatest piece of public legislation ever passed” after he was treated for cancer caused by passive smoking.
The 78-year-old had a kidney removed after a tumour was diagnosed that is commonly found in smokers, even though he has never had a cigarette in his life.
Macpherson said: “”I suddenly felt a venomous hatred of the smoker and then bumped into one at the hospital. An old woman with her goonie on and with her drip behind her.
“She dragged it down like a shopping trolley, smoking away, under a No Smoking sign. And I thought, ‘What a problem we face.’”
Macpherson believes his illness was caused by spending time in smoke-filled rooms and press boxes during his long commentating career.
He added: “There are people who are getting into cancer for the first time and must grapple with it in the confidence that much can be done for them.
“There is no doubt that the smoking ban is the greatest piece of public legislation that’s been passed anywhere in the world.
“The ban on smoking in public places must go on and we must find some other ways, even in this era of human rights legislation and whatever, of terrorising smokers.”
Read and watch the video.


Smoking: a crime worse than urinating on someone’s shoes
August 10, 2013
By Mr. Eugenides
SMOKING, like politics, brings out the worst in people. But it’s not smokers I find objectionable; it’s the joyless bastards who are trying to drive it out of our society that I really hate. I’m not a smoker – my asthma won’t allow it – but there’s something about anti-smoking activists that boils my tits. (I did once light a cigar with a ?10 note, but in my defence, that was only to piss off Aamer Anwar, so I don’t really think it counts.)
Friends often ask me why I stand up for smokers’ rights when I’m not only not a smoker but actively suffer when people smoke heavily in my presence. Well, I’m not sure if it’s the sanctimoniousness, the thin-lipped puritanism, or the sheer pleasure they clearly take in telling others how to live their lives; but whatever it is when I hear the acronym ASH, it makes me want to puff on a fat stogie like it’s going out of fashion. Which it clearly is.
You can see it in the ridiculous article this week by the Independent cricket writer Stephen Brenkley, who lamented a trio of scandals that have hit the English game in the last few days. An England player had been accused of cheating by tampering with his bat; another got drunk and pissed on a nightclub bouncer in Brighton. But, for Brenkley, these were mere amuse-bouches for the main course: “Perhaps worst of the lot, three players who took part in the draw at Old Trafford… were photographed smoking outside a Manchester restaurant.”
Perhaps worst of the lot. Worse than cheating, worse than pissing on someone’s fucking shoes, was three grown men having a cigarette. Really, Stephen? Really? The head shakes at such idiocy. Allan Massie put it far better than I could, of course; “Ye Gods and little fishes! It is hard to believe that a grown man and experienced journalist wrote such poppycock.” Quite.
You can see it in the haste with which the EU has rushed to crack down on e-cigarettes, egged on by spurious “health campaigners” who are usually in reality little more than government-funded sock puppets. Despite the complete – complete – absence of any evidence that e-cigs cause even the slightest harm to their users’ health, the authorities decided to classify them as pharmaceutical products, vastly restricting their future availability.
Train companies, too, are quickly moving to ban the use of e-cigs by passengers and staff. And in New York, the increasingly authoritarian Michael Bloomberg – who never saw a pleasure he did not want to outlaw – is drafting tobacco control legislation which will almost certain reduce yet further the ability of law-abiding citizens to puff away on a fag, though of course they don’t call it a fag, as I found to my cost in a crowded Greenwich Village bar on one unfortunate evening many years ago.
I’ve never smoked an e-cigarette and don’t plan to in the future. But what I do find interesting about the campaign to ban e-cigs – because be in no doubt, that is the endgame here – is that it is proceeding apace despite the fact that the stated reasons for the original smoking ban – the risks of passive smoking, disturbance to other customers, and harms to health – patently do not apply to these devices.
In the case of e-cigs, campaigners have argued that they should be cracked down on because they have not yet been proven to be safe. The absence of evidence is now sufficient to have something banned. These joyless, spunk-gargling fucksticks have, successfully, inverted our traditional understanding of risk management.
What is most revealing is the language that these frenzied bansturbators are using, and increasingly persuading the rest of us to use as well. Transport for London, announcing this week a ban on staff use of e-cigs, didn’t even pretend that they were concerned about the health implications of the things. In an email to staff, they wrote: “E-cigarettes and nicotine inhalers are extremely difficult to differentiate from real cigarettes, therefore if someone uses an e-cigarette or nicotine inhaler in the workplace it might look like they are smoking a real cigarette. This is not the image we want to portray to customers and colleagues.”
This is not the image we want to portray to customers and colleagues. Since when was smoking an unpleasant image? Who, ever, saw Ingrid Bergman with a cigarette holder between her lips and decided they didn’t want to fuck her? What kind of people are these?
The campaign to denormalise smoking is depressing not because it is successful – though it is – but because it is so insidious. Since it cannot succeed solely through education about health risks, through an informed conversation with the public about how bad smoking is for you, it must be enacted through incessant rises in taxation, in calls to remove scenes of smoking from TV and movies, in the idiocy of plain packaging. Since we cannot be persuaded – or rather, since we are being persuaded, but too slowly for their liking – we must instead be nagged, bullied and treated like children at every turn.
And I think that’s what it is about the anti-smoking brigade that really raddles my nuts. I hate the smell of smoke on my clothes, but I hate being treated like a fucking child exponentially more. Governments have killed far more people than Marlboro ever did. Mind your own fucking business.


Brian Monteith: Will the persecution of smokers ever stop under Conservatives?
August 06, 2013
In June this year, our Coalition Government agreed a general response to the European Commission’s Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) at a meeting of European health ministers in Luxembourg.? Unfortunately, because the Conservative Public Health Minister, Anna Soubry, avoided the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, Members of Parliament were denied the opportunity to discuss the directive and the ramifications of its proposals are only now beginning to emerge.
*******
The campaign website has more information, but here are five reasons to oppose the Tobacco Products Directive:
1.Have we learned nothing from history? Prohibition doesn’t work.
2.Excessive regulation will deny consumers choice and drive them to the black market and online contraband sales.
3.Criminal gangs will make a fortune manufacturing and selling prohibited products while legal businesses will lose income and the HMRC the tax receipts.
4.Don’t let the EU impose an extreme regulatory agenda on UK consumers .
5.What next – alcohol, sugary drinks, convenience foods, salt levels, Caffeine and alcohol drinks? Lobbyists are already campaigning for such laws
Read More.


Leaders: Smoking ban proposals invade p

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More