More from the war on smoking: according to Scotland on Sunday, the Scottish Executive wants to ban 10-packs of cigarettes. Inevitably, it’s to protect the kiddies.
One source on the group said: “These packs of 10 are a particular problem because they are, obviously, cheaper than packs of 20 and they can afford them more easily. Also, they are slimmer and fit more easily into a pocket or a school rucksack. Easier to hide too.”
Another group insider said: “The consensus is that we believe that these packs should be banned. We think that banning these packs is the least we can do to tackle smoking among young people. The big thing which will make the difference for the general population is obviously the ban on smoking in public places such as bars and restaurants. But that doesn’t deal with children smoking.”
For what it’s worth, my teenage smoking consisted largely of nicked cigarettes from my mum’s packs, and individual cigarettes bought from older kids. As for hideability, I’m not convinced that 10-packs are any easier to hide than anything else; if the kids were worried about portability, they’d be buying crack.
I reckon it’s a cop-out. We already have laws that prohibit the sale of cigs to kids, and if the exec wishes it can up the minimum age from 16 to 18. The problem is that the laws are rarely enforced.
The executive seems to be working on the principle that it’s better to ban things than to enforce existing laws. On that basis, expect similar curbs on the way adults can buy booze.
0 responses to “Butt uglies”
We used to buy “singles” from the ice cream man for 7p each at school (mid 80s). We had two or three vans parked in the bus park at lunch and break times on school days and they’d sell them to you on weekends if you lived on their route (My gran lived on the icey’s route for a weekend fix)
Obviously, I’m outraged by it now that I’m a responsible non-smoking* parent.
*Actually ex-smoking but there’s none so pure as the purified!
Yeah, I remember buying singles at the grand old age of 14. Which is probably the last time I bought a 7″ single, come to think of it :)
On that basis, expect similar curbs on the way adults can buy booze.
“Four-packs of beer are now illegal, you must purchase crates of 24.” Oh well :)
There’s a bill going through the Oz parliament to ban smoking in your car.
So, we need to buy in bulk. What about the lap dancing ban!!!
> “Four-packs of beer are now illegal, you must purchase crates of 24.”
Yeah, but the exec wants to ban any sort of booze deals, so a 24-pack will cost ONE MILLION POUNDS!
> What about the lap dancing ban!!!
I haven’t seen anything other than a headline. What’s that all about?
The Adult Entertainment Working Group are reporting to Holyrood today after their ‘extensive investigation’ of lap-dancing venues. They are going to recommend a national licensing regime for the actual dancing not the venues. Part of this will include such things as a ban on booths, a ban on dancers ‘touching’ themselves (no idea who the choreographers on the group were), no simulated sex, and a distance of one metre between perfomer and punter.
All of which I’m sure is fine. It’s the last one that ‘effectively’ bans the lap dance. Of course for some of us, this wouldn’t be the case.
> The executive seems to be working on the principle that it’s better to ban things than to enforce existing laws.
Not just the Executive, but every major political party likely to get power in Westminster or any of the devolved bodies or local councils. And probably most bloody school governors, too. It’s this idiot desire to leave a legacy: any old hack can enforce existing laws, but it takes a true collossus of political greatness to make a New Law.
Politicians need a new word coined for their unique brand of pompous moronism. I propose “twillockus”. They’re all bloody twillockuses, so they are. Or twillocki, possibly.
> Of course for some of us, this wouldn’t be the case.
>, a ban on dancers ‘touching’ themselves (no idea who the choreographers on the group were), no simulated sex
I’m instantly reminded of the billy connolly joke about only the cathlic church inventing a method of contraception where you have to make yourself pull *backwards* at the moment of climax….
This is the hidden cost of devolution that we were all warned about.
At least down here they come up with these daft ideas but take ages to actually put them into practice.
It crossed my mind that I may have imagined the Oz thing, so I had a look for it. From the story, I followed a link to The Global Picture. I’m off to Sweden in a couple of weeks and thought I’d check what the situation was there. I found this:
Establishments wanting to allow smoking are required to have a closed-off section with specially-designed ventilation, where no food or drink can be served.
Tsk-huh! Whatever will those wecky skandos think of next?
That looked utterly bizarre, so I tried saying it out loud, and it actually comes out sounding dead natural and normal. Nice transliteration, that man.