To think, "enough with the smoker-bashing"

[47to31in7days]

I opened up MN today to find a picture of an innocent little girl next to Cancer Research UK's spiel on plain packaging and child smoking. It says "Help us protect children from starting by supporting us..."

I am not and have never been a smoker, nor are most of the people close to me. The declining rates of smoking in the past few decades have certainly been good for individual and public health. So I'm not coming from the perspective of a disgruntled victim of the new persecution, or a Big Tobacco shill trying to contest whether it's that bad for you after all.

I signed up to the rival "Hands off our Packs" anti-plain packaging campaign when two people approache me in the street with their petition. I find the continuous anti-choice assaults on tobacco to be an injustice to the companies and people who choose to use it.

Nearly all the 11-15 year olds I knew who smoked when I was in that age group started by sneaking a cigarette or two off friends, their mum or someone else or by buying "loosies" which some inner city off licenses continue to sell to this day [though they have been banned for 20 years]. People only got near a pack when they'd moved from experimental to regular nicotine fixes. There was always a circle around the back of school where 4 or 5 of the older kids- probably 15, can't have been 16 as we had a different uniform for leavers' year in my school- pulled out cigs from packs that never got seen and distributed them to a whole posse of younger ones, who shared one between three or four of them. I was never tempted to join in and seeing a shiny gold pack- without gruesome warning pictures- was not going to make me.

They may well have figures suggesting that plain packaging will lower the number of smokers, which I am not questioning the validity of. It does not justify bringing in yet more legislative compulsion though. This government had said "no more nanny state." It promised to restore liberties. It attacked Labour's authoritarian record. The most insidious thing at all is that it is being pushed on a "safeguarding" platform. The signs outside primary school gates telling you to "protect" your children from secondhand smoke, the pack warnings using the same "protect" language and an image of smoke blowing toward a baby's face, it's all emotional blackmail against parents, especially offensive to those who are careful not to light up around their kids.

Child protection is too often used as a trump card to defeat principled objection to government policies that deny or circumscribe liberty of adults or youth. Besides which smokers have suffered enough already. Tax rises, publicans being ordered to stop them by central government, guilt trip tactics, advertising bans, now the display ban (after the legal challenge was tossed out)- I say LEAVE THOSE SMOKERS ALONE! AIBU to think the government and the medical establishment ought to back off quickly?

Thank you for that, Forest campaign person.

I agree. If they don't want people buying cigarettes then ban them completely. Of course, they won't because they like the tax that they bring in.

Oh - I just noticed who started this.....

whatever makes you think that, Chub?

don't answer that, we'll be deleted soon enough

I'm not a Forest member or other "pro-tobacco professional" :)
I'm pro civil liberties in general and believe smoking should be classed as one. Portofino, are you confusing me with someone else?

Justice for tobacco companies! Will no one think of the poor tobacco companies? Tobao companies have feelings too!

Civil liberties are very important, I agree with you OP.

However, when that liberty negatively impacts on other people it should be modified/taken away.

if smokers want to kill themselves smoking that is their decision if they are an adult. However, they should not have the right to do something that affects those around them.

I also fail to see in what way making cigarette packaging plain would infringe your civil liberties..

The hiding fags behind a screen in shops is hilarious! Everyone knows.

I'm not sure freedom to see shiny packets really counts as a civil liberty.

I also don't see how plain packaging infringes civil liberties.

Put nice pictures on corner shop bags! Not having a nice picture infringes my liberties!

If Labour had adhered to their manifesto pledge thousands of pubs would still be in business, but what can you can expect from politicians who preach the gospel of 'do as I say, not as I do'?

Any smoker wanting a fag with their pint is obliged to stand outside in all weathers, but I've yet to see Lords & MPs having a quick drag on the terraces of the Houses of Parliament in the depths of winter.

I'm a smoker and I'm rather pleased at all the assaults on my civil smoking liberties. I gave up for 7 years but the power of my addiction to nicotine is such that after just one smoky treat on a night out I was shortly back up to 10+ a day. Going out to pubs is now far more pleasant for a start.

I think the effect of plain packaging makes a certain point: namely that there is no real brand differentiation in cigarettes - it is all a curious idea cooked up by the tobacco companies to make us choose their cigarettes over another. But if one 'brand' of cigarettes were just billed as "6mg tar/o.5 nicotine/7mg carbon monoxide" as opposed to another being "5mg tar/ 1.0 nicotine/ 8 mg carbon monoxide" then I think it would make the point that what every smoker is doing is essentially buying their preferred strength of nicotine, tar and carbon monoxide. It would also highlight that brands billed as "light" may only have a fraction of a difference so less easy to kid yourself.

I do think governments are terrified of losing their taxable income so it is never going to be unlawful to smoke but tbh how could you make it illegal overnight - it would involve criminalising huge swathes of society and create an even bigger black market then there is for smuggled cigarettes and import tax evasion.

I don't understand the plain packaging thing. Different cigarettes 'taste' different. Surely even in plain packaging different brands will still exist, won't they?

I used to think they tasted different in my yoof CaramelTree but sadly, continued smoking has probably killed off my taste buds to the extent that I can taste the difference between menthol and non-menthol and certain other flavoured types of cigarettes but nowt else (although having said that turkish cigarettes do very definitely have a choice of actual flavours - vanilla, coffee etc as opposed to flavours deriving from different levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide which is what I'm referring to in teh UK market, menthol excepted)

'I opened up MN today to find a picture of an innocent little girl next to Cancer Research UK's spiel on... '

OP, do you know much about cancer? How dare you call this charity's aims 'spiel'.

Izzy - Make them stand outside in all weather, have no sympathy. Spent several years working in pubs being engulfed in smoke and had many a night out and meal ruined by smokers.

Have sympathy for those in the pub industry if it really had affected their takings but that's no reason to want to go back to the way it was before.

Will no one speak out for the poor misunderstood multinational global tobacco companies!? No-one?? Cowards.

Yes, whilst it's sad if people's businesses went under, I would imagine that the staff working in those pubs that did survive are quite pleased not to be getting lung cancer. Or is that too much cancer spiel for you, OP?

I'm not suggesting it goes back to the way it was, brooncoo, but I am of the opinion that pubs should be at liberty to choose whether they have designated smoking rooms which, providing any such rooms do not have direct bar access, will not place undue risk on the health of staff or non-smoking customers.

While those who are responsible for sending troops to war continue to enjoy smoking facilities within the Houses of Parliaments, I see no reason why those same troops should not be able to enjoy a pint and a fag within their locals on their return.

On balance, I object to the rank hypocrisy of politicians more than I object to smoking.

I agree that I can't see why they get smoking areas in the House of Commons if that is the case unless it's a stinky, poxy little box room sitting around on crates. Does seem hypocritical.

nope second hand cigarette smoke is harmful.

So I disagree.

A quote here from the UK-based company Imperial Tobacco's website...
'We create value for our shareholders by driving sustainable sales growth, optimising costs and effectively utilising the cash we generate.'

As of 23 December 2011 the total value of their tradable shares was £24.3 billion.*

*source Wikipedia

I'm wondering when they're going to put broken and bruised mothers and children together with the smashed up home on booze labels too, not to mention pics of liver damage and the like.

I seem to recall that New Labour were prepared to trouser a goodly sum grant dispensation to a certain Mr Ecclestone in respect of tobacco advertising and Formula 1 motor racing.

Or did I dream it?

What about my civil liberty to breathe clean air?