| Author |
Message |
S. A. Bacon
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 06, 2010 - 02:29 pm: |   |
WHEN are the authorities going to address the issue of inconsiderate smokers leaving their rubbish everywhere?
We are constantly walking or sitting in a quagmire of cigarette butts and litter – on the beach, in the park, in Town, along the cliffs etc.
Why is it so difficult for the authorities to police this issue?
The law against littering in my mind is quite clear. ‘It is a criminal offence to drop litter.’ There is a maximum fine for the above and you can be fined for throwing litter from your car.
In the UK there are ‘litter wardens’ who have the powers to impose on-the-spot fines on offenders.
As Guernsey tends to take a lot of its guidelines and rulings from the UK, I can only assume that the laws relating to litter are followed here.
People who carelessly discard litter in a public open place are committing a criminal offence (except where it is allowed by law or done with the consent of the owner or occupier of the land).
Prosecutions for littering in the UK are brought under section 87 – Offence of Leaving Litter – of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The offence is:
‘If anyone throws down, drops or otherwise deposits in, into or from any place to which this section applies, and leaves anything whatsoever in such circumstances as to cause, or contribute to, or tend to lead to, the defacement by litter of any place to which this section applies, he/she shall be guilty of an offence.’
The average fine is around £100 plus any costs the court awards. However, a person convicted of this offence could be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500 (a level four offence on the standard scale).
Definition of litter:
The term ‘litter’ has a very wide interpretation. As well as wrappers, cans, bottles or packing, ‘anything’ includes food, small items such as cigarette ends, or large items such as bags of rubbish. The offence relates to what is done with the litter, rather than what it is.
Natural matter such as overgrown vegetation, weeds or leaves that have fallen from trees is not classed as litter.
Dog faeces are classed as ‘refuse’, not litter, and are subject to different laws.
Litter thrown from vehicles:
Throwing litter from vehicles onto public land is also a littering offence under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
If the registration number is taken, the registered keeper’s identity can be obtained from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by the police or the local authority. Witnesses should note whether the driver or passenger threw the litter and take a good description of the vehicle and offender in case it is needed in evidence.
Offences can be reported to the police or local authority and they will decide whether to take further action.
In my opinion, Guernsey should implement the use of ‘litter wardens’.
As an alternative to taking litterers to court, a local authority can appoint officers to issue £50 fixed penalty notices to litterers. This has the benefit of dealing with littering as and where it happens. The offender is given 14 days in which to pay the fine. If it is not paid, he/she can be taken to court under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and fined up to £2,500.
Responsibility for all surrounding working areas immediate to all vocational businesses should be the employers’. They in turn ‘educate’ their staff with regard to the proper disposal of their litter.
I know that this initially will not be an easy task to implement, however we need to make a start sooner rather than later.
I also realise that these issues will meet opposition from many, however, we need to clean up our act now.
Further facts:
There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding cigarette butt litter. The biggest myth is that cigarette filters are biodegradable. In fact, cigarette butts are not biodegradable in the sense that most people think of the word.
It can take up to 12 years for a cigarette butt to break down. They can leach chemicals such as cadmium, lead and arsenic into our marine environment within an hour of contact with water.
Smokers may not realise that their actions have such a lasting, negative impact on the environment.
This myth has been perpetuated not just by the wishful thinking of many smokers, but also by the cigarette companies, who have taken great pains to keep their customers in the dark on this issue.
It is very common for highly littered items such as soda cans, snack wrappers and fast food containers to have a simple ‘please don’t litter’ message. You won’t find such a message on cigarette packs.
I am at a loss as to why they can’t take this simple step. My best guess is that they would prefer to leave their customers blissfully ignorant. Maybe they think people will smoke fewer cigarettes if they have to be responsible for disposing of them. I think they ought to give their customers the benefit of the doubt. Smoking and littering do not have to be synonymous, as many smokers have proven by example.
What is more important (especially in this day and age of recycling and the ‘green’ school of thought) is what happens after that butt gets casually flicked onto the street, nature trail or beach? Typically wind and rain carry the cigarette into the water supply, where the toxic chemicals the cigarette filter was designed to trap leak out into aquatic ecosystems, threatening the quality of the water and many aquatic life forms. Cigarette butts may seem small, but with several trillion littered every year, the toxic chemicals add up.
Examples need to be made of those who flout this law.
I’m sure there are many considerate smokers out there but I’m also sure that they are in a minority.
Educate, prosecute and fine those who constantly impact on the enjoyment of public places. You’ll soon see this unsociable habit decline with cleaner areas for all.
S. A. BACON. |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 10:01 am: | |
MANY of your readers who smoke will have noticed that their favourite brands of cigarettes are no longer available in packs of 10, as of last week.
Can I assure those affected that this is not because your local retailer has taken them off the shelf, but because tobacco manufacturers are beginning to implement the tobacco control strategy agreed by the States in March 2008. Removing 10-packs of cigarettes from sale was one part of this strategy.
Unlike every other jurisdiction in the British Isles (and probably in the whole of Europe), Guernsey States, advised by HSSD, still believe that this action will deter smoking among our young people. However, in the UK and in Jersey similar plans to ban ‘10 packs’ of cigarettes were dropped, because research showed they benefit consumers who want to control their consumption or who are trying to give up. Moreover, there is no evidence that such a ban will have any effect on the take-up of smoking by under-18s.
Once again this illustrates the poor quality of the research that went into the proposals put before the States in 2008 and again in July of this year. I believe that evidence-based research is the key to good legislation and our States appears to have made decisions based on misleading information gathered by HSSD from interested pressure groups. This is policy made on ‘the hoof’.
Another example of the muddled thinking at HSSD is the display ban voted through in July this year. In 2008, when States deputies agreed a package of tobacco control measures as part of the Guernsey Tobacco Strategy 2009-2013, they were told that the ‘legitimate display of tobacco products could continue at the point of sale’. Less than two years into that five-year strategy and States members were asked to vote on a display ban. What has changed in the intervening period? Nothing, except that more and more countries are rejecting such a proposal for lack of evidence that it will have any effect on the take-up of smoking by young people.
Finally, we retailers are not only faced with significant costs for implementing the display ban, but also the additional costs and bureaucracy that will inevitably result from the introduction of a new tobacco retailers licensing regime, also agreed as part of the tobacco control strategy. Again, this is something that only Guernsey retailers will have to put up with because it has already been rejected just about everywhere else in the British Isles.
Doesn’t this all suggest to you, as it does to me, that tobacco control regulations for Guernsey are being drafted on a wing and a prayer, rather than because there is any hard evidence to support their introduction? Someone at HSSD should be apologising to States deputies for bringing the whole process of legislation into disrepute.
PHILLIP MORGAN,
Proprietor,
The Paper Box,
Town Church Square,
St Peter Port. |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 09:59 am: | |
LAST week a report highlighting how anti-smoking groups and the UK Department of Health misled MPs about a tobacco display ban was read out in the House of Commons.
In the same week, MPs in both Sweden and Denmark rejected their own display ban proposals.
Philip Davies MP, who sponsored the meeting, is quoted as saying, ‘MPs and peers were misled about the likely costs and impact of the tobacco display ban by “interested” pressure groups.
‘This case highlights the importance of questioning organisations that offer a painless panacea and emphasises the need for all parliamentarians to deeply scrutinise any proposed legislation.’
Swedish and Danish parliamentarians agreed not to implement restrictions on tobacco displays due to a lack of evidence about its effectiveness in reducing smoking.
They join a growing number of countries that have concluded there is no evidence to support a ban.
Finally, a Populus poll conducted on behalf of the National Federation
of Retail Newsagents found that 80% of UK people believe display-ban plans should be withdrawn.
Surely now even Guernsey deputies must question the merits of the proposed display ban here.
As I have always said, what is being proposed by HSSD is a social experiment rather than a progressive public health measure.
PHILLIP MORGAN |
James Filleul
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2010 - 10:36 am: | |
I NOTED the letter regarding consultation from Deputy Mike Hadley with interest. As your own footnote pointed out, the deputy’s amendment to completely ban vending machines, thereby threatening at least one local business, was passed with absolutely no consultation at all.
But the deputy’s letter also contains two further factual inaccuracies which I would welcome the opportunity to correct, before they mislead people. The Channel Islands Tobacco Importers’ and Manufacturers’ Association is the representative group for tobacco importers and manufacturers, not tobacco retailers. Contrary to the impression given by Deputy Hadley, HSSD actually asked CITIMA for a list of one of our member’s retail customers, which was obviously turned down on the grounds of data protection and commercial confidentiality. This is very different from asking for a list of CITIMA members, as reported by Deputy Hadley. In any case, all members of CITIMA are listed on each letter we send out.
Is Deputy Hadley really saying that HSSD staff could not put together their own list of local tobacco retailers? Did they try the phone book, or perhaps the Chamber of Commerce?
For the record, the original distribution of the consultation document included opticians, dentists, pharmacists, GPs and all HSSD departments – but not one small tobacco retailer. The consultation was actually a very short questionnaire document containing just four questions, two of which assumed a ban was definitely going to happen.
Secondly, the ‘consultation’ meeting to which Deputy Hadley refers was called after the consultation process had concluded, with just three working days’ notice. Confusingly, the invitation referred to a complete ban on tobacco products (not just their display in shops, which was actually what HSSD was consulting on). There was no published agenda, but the invitation mentioned a presentation of the ‘international research’ in support of the display ban – on that basis, was it really a meeting to listen to retailers’ concerns?
With inadequate notice being given, mistakes in the invitation and the impression that the display ban was a ‘done deal’, it is hardly surprising attendance was poor.
I write the above simply to make sure that your readers are not misled. Our current objective is to ensure that meaningful and effective consultation takes place with CITIMA members and retailers before the vending and display bans are actually brought in. It is heartening to hear the considerable political support for that aim. By consulting properly, we hope any damage to local businesses can be minimised.
JAMES FILLEUL,
Channel Islands Tobacco Importers’ and Manufacturers’ Association |
George Elkington
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 03:23 pm: | |
DEAR citizens. Our Health and Social Services plans to ban the display of tobacco products and vending machines on health grounds to protect our island’s youth and their future health from using tobacco products, which is unarguable on health grounds.
However, I am concerned that the pressure groups in the States putting forward legislative proposals to ban the display of tobacco products and vending machines on health grounds have not taken into consideration that this will set a formal system of precedent, which our Health and Social Services and health pressure groups can then use this legislation to provide more moral restraint on the activities of all Guernsey citizens.
The state must not take back our liberties and freedoms based on unnecessary health laws. Yes, we must protect our island’s youth and their future health, but this must be through education and not legislation.
I will finally lighten this letter with this in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday 1 July. The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announces that the public will be given the right to nominate unpopular laws they want scrapped. What a wonderful idea, citizens.
I know which one I would nominate to be scrapped, but which one would you nominate to be scrapped?
GEORGE ELKINGTON. |
Keith Bienvenu
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 03:11 pm: | |
AS I was the only retailer to attend the presentation given by Health and Social Services on 13 July last year, I would like to comment on a couple of points made by Deputy Mike Hadley in his letter in Tuesday’s Guernsey Press.
The presentation was to give HSSD’s reasons for wanting a display ban and was not intended as a consultation.
There is no association of retailers, therefore they could not have been contacted, nor could they have refused to give a list of members as Deputy Hadley states. Dr Bridgman did ask me if there was such an association during the presentation.
Although I was the only person there, I was shown the whole presentation with the exception of the section on vending machines.
This was by mutual agreement because as a retailer, I have no interest in them.
KEITH BIENVENU,
Forest Stores. |
Mike Bisson
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2010 - 03:14 pm: | |
SO, GUERNSEY is close to bankruptcy, has rising unemployment, out-of-control expenditure and falling revenue. And the States spend several hours discussing (and finally agreeing to) ways of finally killing off the corner shop, putting people out of work and reducing duty income.
The trouble is that this is the sort of thinking which we have come to expect from this group of out-of-touch residents of cloud cuckoo land.
MIKE BISSON. |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 02:40 pm: | |
I DON’T think there can be anyone left in Guernsey, the UK and even the entire western world, who is not fully aware of the dangers of tobacco smoking. Most people may think it foolish, but many of us choose to smoke because we do actually enjoy it.
Some people strongly object to the practice, but I have found that most people are still very tolerant of smokers. It is, after all, still legal for over-18s to smoke and, yes, we smokers need the infrastructure of shops, vending machines and suchlike to support our habit.
Yet in the name of ‘protecting our children and young people’, the States last week voted in measures to dismantle the infrastructure that will undermine the existing, already tough, regulatory regime and could lead to even more young people smoking.
It was the naivety of the debate in the States that struck me. Every argument on every subject has its pros and cons. In this particular debate, emotive arguments such as might be applied to paedophile activity were proffered as a reason to support the proposals, reinforcing existing prejudices and making it very difficult for anyone else to disagree. The decision made was based on frequently ill-informed opinion, rather than on sound evidence.
As usual, the Health minister recited his mantra that there is growing evidence internationally that a display ban will reduce the take-up of smoking by young people. There is none. Then Deputy Hadley chimed in with his view that we were only following ‘UK health policy’. He didn’t even appear to know that health policy is a devolved matter and that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will decide on the issue separately.
Supporting the proposed new rules, Deputy Tasker said, in effect, that if Gasp think that such a policy is needed it must be right, because they are at the forefront in educating children about the dangers of smoking. Gasp are welcome to their opinion but they have provided no more evidence in support of a ban than have HSSD.
Moreover, it also seemed to me that the tone adopted by several deputies was akin to declaring war on smokers. Who was it that said we are a financial burden on society? Well, whomever it was failed to say that a 20-a-day smoker hands over to the States in extra taxes more than £3 a day. That’s at least £1,100 extra a year, plus doctor’s fees. Mad we may be, but please don’t tell us that we don’t pay our way.
Prior to last week’s States meeting, one deputy accused me of providing ‘partial evidence’ against a display ban and said the moves being proposed were ‘common sense’.
Sir, may I respectfully suggest that if you are about to bring in a law that will adversely affect the livelihoods of many of your fellow islanders and further alienate a substantial minority of your fellow citizens, you really need to analyse all the evidence, for and against.
My files are open for anyone who wishes to read them (though they’ll need tidying up a bit, filing not being my strong point). Perhaps, more importantly, deputies should also read the independent evidence of the Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) and The Democracy Institute, who have no particular axe to grind. Accuse them of prejudice and you might end up in court.
May I further propose that before HSSD brings its tobacco control strategy back before the States in September, an equivalent of a select committee be set up to review all the evidence and report back to States members their conclusions independently of HSSD. Only then can we be assured that future legislation is based on evidence, rather than on the views of a few fanatical anti-smoking lobbyists in the Health Department, who think it is their job to make smoking (and smokers) unacceptable.
Finally, for those of your readers who are minded to support the States proposals: ‘Smoking was always going to be the thin end of the wedge. Drinking will be next, followed very rapidly by punitive measures to stop you eating the sort of food you enjoy. God knows what they will start on after that.’
My thanks to Rod Liddle of The Spectator magazine for the conclusion to this letter.
PHILLIP MORGAN. |
Deputy Mike Hadley
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2010 - 02:39 pm: | |
I AM astonished by your editorial on 3 July essentially concerning lack of consultation regarding a ban on the use of vending machines for the sale of tobacco products.
Rarely as a member of the States have I witnessed so much consultation.
This contrasts with the ban on the sale of ‘legal highs,’ which was carried out with little consultation and caused the closure of a business in Guernsey – and quite rightly so.
The decision taken by the States of Deliberation was fully informed, transparent and well debated and accorded to the principles of good governance.
The consultation paper was sent to all tobacco retailers and a cross-section of the population including schools, health service professionals and States departments, in all 1,200 papers. The paper included a questionnaire and this was also accessible on the government website. Finally the consultation process and proposals were given wide publicity.
The director of public health wished to write to all retailers individually but their association refused to provide a list of members.
He therefore wrote to all of those they could identify and invited them to a meeting.
Only one retailer attended.
Full consideration was given to the effects that a ban had had in those countries where a total ban had been imposed.
Your criticism of the integrity of Health and Social Services is bizarre. Much of the evidence that you look for was in the Billet. Further evidence was provided at a briefing meeting for members of the States before the debate. Your editorial implies it is quite improper for deputies to amend the recommendations because I moved the amendment and not the Health and Social Services Department.
The director of public health, the head of the health promotion department and the British Heart Foundation recommended the total ban on vending machines.
I moved the amendment in the States to try and protect young children from the harmful effects of tobacco and because I think it is entirely appropriate to stop businesses from exploiting children and damaging their health simply for personal gain and profit. Especially as the vendors themselves admit that they are unable to monitor who uses these vending machines and therefore their ability to comply with the law.
DEPUTY MIKE HADLEY.
GP Editor’s footnote: The point we tried to make is that after the consultation process, HSSD ruled out a ban on vending machines.
Had they proposed a ban, they would have had to disclose their reasons for doing so and quantify any consequences on the businesses involved.
In addition – and this was the main area of our criticism – the trade would have been able to respond directly to HSSD proposing a ban affecting their livelihoods and could have lobbied accordingly. They were denied that right as a result of the amendment. |
Betty McBride
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 02:48 pm: | |
CAN I urge Guernsey's politicians not to pass up the opportunity to help protect children's health when they vote this week on whether to ban completely cigarette vending machines?
We don't allow other age-restricted products like fireworks or knives to be bought from vending machines and this vote means there is now the chance to cut off an easy source of cigarettes for youngsters.
If you start smoking when you're young, you are less likely to stop and are more likely to die early from heart disease.
Politicians need to make the right choice for Guernsey and that means voting for a complete ban.
BETTY MCBRIDE,
Policy and communications director,
British Heart Foundation,
180, Hampstead Road,
London, NW1 7AW. |
K. Solway
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 02:07 pm: | |
I CANNOT believe that HSSD is consulting the public on banning smoking in the grounds of its premises. It's a load of tosh because they are hellbent on their witch hunt regarding smokers.
The ludicrous statement that it will protect HSSD staff, hospital users and visitors from exposure to second-hand smoke is tosh as well, because no doubt all of the above are the probable smokers or are HSSD suggesting that island-wide smokers gather to smoke in HSSD grounds? It's just such utter rubbish.
As stated before, how many days is there not a breeze/wind/gale which would dissipate these noxious fumes from a few smokers or are they actually suggesting that smoke is static?
What they are saying is, you will stop smoking because we, big brother, say so.
Does this consultation include staff who live in HSSD units and pay rent?
How will this be implemented and policed?
I use the word policing because we are living in a Stasi state where no one can make an informed decision without being maligned and harassed by a few pure-as-the-driven-snow saints.
These saints talk of a supportive environment, which again is rubbish.
I took it upon myself to monitor the traffic flow in and out of one HSSD establishment and gave up at approximately 400 cars/vans/delivery trucks, all emitting noxious fumes.
So, does this not make rubbish of all this rhetoric being spouted? Perhaps they intend wiring off all those establishments and creating sterile camps.
We know where to go for this expertise - use dogs and guards to patrol the perimeters. How pathetic.
For all the drinkers and overweight, non-smokers beware, your turn will come because we are being dictated to by these paragons who are so ineffectual they jump on any bandwagon to appease their egos.
It's time people stood up and were counted. Enough is enough. Do the job you were elected to do and haven't been doing and are still not doing.
We are all paying for your inadequacies and weaknesses, so don't dictate to the people who are suffering because of your herd instinct and inability to stand up and be counted.
MRS K. SOLWAY. |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 03:38 pm: | |
DR BRIDGMAN wrote a letter to the States of Alderney advising them of the reasons to proceed with a smoking ban, and which was published in the Guernsey Press on 15 January.
No one disputes the damaging health effects of smoking. There may also be good reason to offer some protection to non-smokers from any effects of second-hand smoke. However, I do believe that there has to be honesty in the debate about whether or not smoking should be banned in pubs, clubs and at private functions, to which people can choose to attend or not to attend, as they so wish.
We do not live in a risk-free society. Even getting out of bed in the morning has its risks. For this reason, the views of the medical profession in relation to risk need to be balanced by an analysis of the social and economic consequences of any proposals you make. I won't argue with Dr Bridgman's opinion of the health benefits of a blanket ban, but I do think he has misrepresented the effects on commerce and the community of such a ban.
For example, he says that in Guernsey, 'the smoke-free legislation has not led to pubs closing down'. This is not the case. There are far fewer pubs here now than there were leading up to and before the smoking ban was introduced here. He also says that in Scotland and England, 'the trend in trade has been upwards as the trade has diversified'. Again, not the case. Over the period since the ban was implemented in England, some 52 pubs have closed each week. Latest industry estimates suggest that pubs are still closing at a rate of 26 per week.
The manager of a leading insolvency practitioner in the UK has seen first hand, as he puts it, 'the devastation caused by this ban due to the massive increase in clients who have earned their living in the hospitality business'. He adds, 'It is not just pub owners (that are affected). Singers, DJs, comedians, karaoke acts etc are all struggling and their income has dropped dramatically'.
In addition to the disastrous effects on the hospitality industry, the erosion of small local communities is causing irreparable damage to England's social fabric, with local community pubs being the most badly affected by the ban. But never mind, if you are an out of work bar worker you could always apply for a job as a smoking enforcement officer at your local council.
In Swansea, they are hard at work persecuting commercial vehicle drivers who persist in smoking in their cabs - 69 prosecutions so far since the ban came into force in Wales.
An apparent unintended consequence of the smoking ban in England is a dramatic rise in complaints about noisy neighbours. In Coventry, complaints were up from 240 in 2008 to 409 in 2009. Lee Millar, the council's public health enforcement leader says: 'With the financial situation and the smoking ban, people stay at home, which causes more noise and also means people are more affected as they are home a lot more'.
Just as I cannot dispute the damaging health effects of smoking, neither can Dr Bridgman dispute the damaging wealth effect the blanket smoking ban has had on the hospitality industry in the UK. But let's take a look further afield. What is happening elsewhere in Europe?
The media mostly give the impression that a blanket-smoking ban is already the norm. This is just not the case. BBC defence correspondent and committed smoker Caroline Wyatt recently travelled around continental Europe, on behalf of Radio 4's Today programme, to investigate how the policy to ban smoking in public places is being implemented there. She found an altogether more pragmatic approach to the issue. Holland has overturned the ban in establishments under 40sqm, while, in Germany, two Berlin bar owners challenged the ban on the grounds that it had affected their livelihoods. They won, with the result that smoking is now permitted in establishments under 75sqm (and not serving food). Smoking is also still permitted in bars in Austria, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal, among other countries. Sadly, what this illustrates is that Britain and Ireland are almost alone in Europe in their draconian enforcement of the letter of anti-smoking legislation, with the associated damage to both our liberty and commerce.
A smoking ban is not the issue elsewhere in Europe that it is in the British Isles, so legislation must not be regarded as inevitable. I think that we in the Channel Islands should take a more relaxed and holistic view on the subject, just as they do on the continent. It is worth remembering that the World Health Organisation has stated that: 'Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity'. If the pubs in Alderney are important to the community, then they contribute to the social wellbeing of the island. With this in mind, I believe Dr Bridgman has given Alderney some very bad advice.
Moreover, I hope that Alderney will reconsider the ban before it is implemented, which in my opinion would be a victory for common sense. I believe individual adults are quite capable of choosing between smoking and smoke-free establishments. Perhaps one day we in Guernsey will also adopt a more enlightened approach to smoking in some designated public places.
Finally, it concerns me that Dr Bridgman and his people always try to demonise the tobacco industry, which sells a legal product through legitimate retailers and contributes to paying their wages through the heavy taxes we smokers all pay. In his letter to the States of Alderney he says that, 'attempts have been made to infiltrate scientific institutions such as IARC'. He must know that in the early 2000s, the IARC was regularly accused of being susceptible to industry influences because it employs industry-funded scientists. The saccharine and industrial chemical industries were among those enterprises accused of having an inappropriate influence. However, there appear not to have been any questions raised about the IARC's independence since 2004.
PHILLIP MORGAN,
Proprietor,
The Paper Box,
Town Church Square,
St Peter Port |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 11:36 am: | |
SO, IT'S official. The States are now, in effect, the island's leading tobacco retailer, with Customs earning a whopping £7.4m. from illegal imports in 2008 (Guernsey Press 22 December). That's the equivalent of about 1.85 million packets of 20 cigarettes. This revenue is, of course, on top of the duty made by the States from legitimate tobacco sales, which has just risen by 15%.
Most of the money earned by Customs was derived from individuals who modestly exceeded their duty free allowance. Who can blame people from trying when rates of duty are so high and the chances of getting caught are still relatively low? But do we really want to live in a society where people who are otherwise model, law-abiding and tax paying citizens are encouraged to break the law because of the States' greed?
Contrast the success of the mighty States bureaucracy with that of the humble local tobacco retailer. While Customs and Excise revenue from tobacco was up by 28 per cent year-on-year, storeowners are experiencing an accelerating decline in sales and a massive reduction in our margins. The States make pounds from a packet of cigarettes. Your local retailers make pence.
Customs say that the extra revenue they made mitigated figures showing that tobacco consumption in the island had fallen. So, if the States don't get the revenue they expect from legitimate tobacco sales, they get it from illegitimate tobacco sales. It must seem like a win-win situation for them. But has anyone in the States ever calculated the cost to them when the small retailers of this island have gone, because that's what is likely to happen if they continue down their present path.
In their recent budgets, both Jersey and Ireland decided to freeze the duty on tobacco products. My hope is that States members will see sense and Guernsey will now follow suit in 2010. What a happy new year that would be.
PHILLIP MORGAN,
Proprietor,
The Paper Box,
Town Church Square,
St Peter Port. |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2009 - 04:26 pm: | |
EARLIER this year, HSSD proposed a ban on the display of tobacco products in shops on the grounds that it was needed to dissuade young people from taking up smoking. As opponents of the measure have said all along, there is no actual evidence that such a ban would achieve this objective. Moreover, the flimsy 'evidence' presented by anti-smoking campaigners in England has now been discredited, both by independent researchers and the national media.
Having lost one argument, HSSD are now claiming that a ban is necessary to 'protect children from harm'. In other words, they have moved the goalposts. I am sure that common sense will tell your readers, as does my experience bear out, that the only interest children have when they come into a shop like mine is in confectionery, comics, crisps, cookies and cokes - or other soft drinks. They don't even notice cigarette displays.
The only children who will now look at cigarette displays are the ones that the Gasp team (partially funded by HSSD) have got at through a shameless indoctrination campaign.
I found it very distasteful last week to see a young girl being manipulated in front of the TV cameras to recite a poem in favour of a display ban.
At that age I was learning about the poetry of Wordsworth and de la Mare, not reciting propaganda. I won't go so far as to claim that it almost amounted to child abuse, but it did remind me of rallies that used to take place in the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China and continue in North Korea.
Will Gasp be providing all school children with red neckerchiefs and its own version of Mao's 'Little Red Book' in due course?
Was this a 'valuable learning experience' as defined by Ofsted?
I don't think so, but I'll let your readers be the judge of that.
For my part, I have written to the HSSD minister requesting him to ensure that, in the future, staff (however well-meaning) should not be allowed to manipulate children to suit their own political ends.
PHILLIP MORGAN,
Proprietor,
The Paper Box. |
Pennie Heyworth
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 - 10:20 am: | |
IT WAS interesting to read the article in the Guernsey Press of 28 September with reference to the increase in cigarette butt litter.
I would like to add strength to Mr Dorey's statement that cigarette butts are the same as other pieces of litter - in fact they are particularly nasty.
Here are some facts:
Cigarette butts are not biodegradable as they are made of acetate, a type of plastic, which can persist in the environment for up to 12 years. They have been found in the guts of whales, dolphins, sea birds, fish and turtles, where they can leach toxic chemicals.
Litter is an antisocial and unpleasant blight on our world - but fag ends are the absolute end.
PENNIE HEYWORTH. |
S. A. Bacon
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - 03:58 pm: | |
IT HAS now got to the stage where I felt I had to put pen to paper to ask smokers (through your paper) to be more responsible and considerate with the disposal of their cigarette butts.
I am fed up with having constantly to wade through their mess - in the sand on the beaches, along cliff walks, everywhere in Town, outside every office, restaurant and hotel, general shops, up alleys, on pavements, in the harbour, parks etc. (you get my drift).
When are the powers that be going to stop this blatant spoiling of Guernsey by policing this filthy habit and constant littering of our beautiful island? Littering and dog fouling, if not cleared up, are prosecutable in law, so why do so many people get away with throwing their cigarette ends wherever they please?
I have never been a smoker and have nothing against anyone who is, as long as it does not affect me, my family or the island.
While I do not wish over enforcement or believe in a police state, as such, it is about time the island followed other countries who demonstrate zero tolerance with those who spoil and litter the land in any way, and which impose on-the-spot fines for those caught. This would soon deter those who spoil it for other law-abiding citizens and not give the considerate smokers a bad name.
I know initial enforcement would be difficult, but once everyone understood that there would be action taken if you were caught littering, then people might think twice before they throw their rubbish down.
Come on, smokers, have a pride in your island and stop spoiling it for others.
S. A. BACON. |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 24, 2009 - 03:39 pm: | |
YOUR headline, 'Tobacco display ban meeting attracts an audience of one' (Guernsey Press, 15 July) implied that tobacco retailers couldn't be bothered to turn up to a Health Promotion Department meeting to discuss a ban on the display of tobacco products. This is not the case.
Our non-attendance at the meeting was not as a result of apathy among retailers as your article suggested. The fact is, we received just three working days notice of the meeting, during what is one of our two busiest times of the year.
When I received my invitation to the meeting, I immediately wrote back to the Health Promotion Department informing them it was very unlikely that the meeting would be well attended for the reasons stated.
I myself already had an existing commitment that evening and at such short notice, it was impossible for me to rearrange my plans. I was therefore amazed to read Health Promotion Officer Gerry Le Roy's claim that she was 'surprised and disappointed' at the low turn out.
I think that by organising such an important meeting at very short notice shows how little knowledge there is in the Health Department about the day-to-day working of the retail trade. I would also query why they needed to hold such a meeting at this time, after the consultation process has been concluded, but before the results have been published.
I would have thought it would have been more logical for such a meeting to have been held prior to (or even during) the consultation process, so that it could have informed the responses of retailers. The belated invitation to talk smacks of an inconvenient after-thought and doesn't inspire me with any more confidence that the consultation process has been very well thought through.
On a more positive note, I have suggested that the Health Department set up another meeting after they have published the results of their consultation. I continue to hope that the views of the 1,204 islanders who signed a petition against a ban on the display of tobacco products will be taken into account.
PHILLIP MORGAN,
Proprietor, The Paper Box,
Town Church Square,
St Peter Port, GY1 2LD. |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 18, 2009 - 02:22 pm: | |
I WISH every success to Corinne Connolly and the 421 other people who signed a petition to bring a pub back on the site of the St Saviour's Tavern (Guernsey Press, 13 May).
It is unfortunate that their efforts are unlikely to succeed, because the old 'Ritz' was just the kind of pub that was doomed as soon as the public smoking ban was introduced, i.e. it was a community orientated 'local'. It is estimated that 49 such pubs have closed each week in England since the smoking ban was introduced there. How many local Guernsey pubs closed for the same reason?
It is possibly too late to reverse a ban that has done so much harm to the hospitality trade. I am, however, determined to try and stop the local shopkeeper from suffering a similar fate.
Many shops on the island, including my own, are supporting a petition to the States calling on them not to introduce a ban on the display of tobacco products at the point of sale.
This measure would benefit no one and will especially disadvantage smaller retailers, who rely on cigarette sales for a large part of their business.
On day one of the petition I collected 92 signatures in my small shop, with one refusal and one abstention. Most people find it incredible that the States can afford to employ people to dream up such daft schemes as the one proposed.
It seems to me that at last the tide is turning against the 'nanny' state.
Make your voice heard by signing the petition, which should be on the counter at your local store.
PHILLIP MORGAN,
Proprietor,
The Paper Box,
Town Church Square,
St Peter Port |
Phillip Morgan
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 01, 2009 - 03:27 pm: | |
THANK you Teresa for voicing your support for small retailers (Guernsey Press, 28 April) whose livelihoods will be put at risk if the Health Department imposes further restrictions on the sale of tobacco products in our shops.
For the record, tobacco advertising was banned many years ago. A ban on advertising at the point-of-sale was approved by the States last year and is currently going through the legislative process. What the Health Department is now proposing is to prohibit the display of tobacco products at the point of sale. In other words, to put cigarettes 'under the counter.'
The twin aims of the Health Department's strategy are to prevent the uptake of smoking by young people and to help people who are trying to give up cigarettes. There is no international evidence that a ban on tobacco displays will actually achieve these objectives and it is hugely expensive to do it. Not my words, but a quote from John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand, a country that has been at the forefront of tobacco control regulation.
The president of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, Dave Bryans, recently revealed that 23 corner stores were closing every week in Ontario and 12 are shuttered every week in Quebec since a display ban came into effect there last June. Is it worth experimenting with the livelihoods of small retailers such as me who have put our life savings into our businesses, when there is no proof that a point of sale display ban will deliver any measurable benefits?
PHILLIP MORGAN,
Proprietor,
The Paper Box,
Town Church Square,
St Peter Port,
GY1 2LD. |
Teresa
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 04:42 pm: | |
Re tobacco sale restrictions: I am a non-smoker myself and I am torn between advertising tobacco and banning it.
I feel sorry for the smaller retailers who will be hit by this. We need shops like these and if they have to close and make people redundant, then that is another burden on the States and increases unemployment.
They don't want that, do they?
No, I think that advertising should stay and people should be allowed to choose. We don't want to be overrun by another 'Big Brother' tactic - we have enough already.
Teresa. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
