I see that Nanny continues to wage war against fags. She will introduce new rules that will come into effect for large stores in 2012, and others in 2015.
These rules will affect how fags are displayed, and may also enforce "plain packaging" on fag packets.
Yes, of course, the designs are so stimulating that's why people are driven to smoke!!
Not!!
When will the state learn that banning things simply increases people's cravings for that which has been banned?
By the way, I see a great business opportunity here for branded, artistic and bespoke fag packet covers:)
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with booze. Click and drink!
Visit Oh So Swedish Swedish arts and handicrafts
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Firstly I need to make a declaration; I don't smoke and never have.
ReplyDeleteThis story illustrates just how daft Nanny thinks the population of our country is. Just because they are in plain packets, it won't stop people smoking....I can't imagine anyone going into Mr Singh's and coming out empty handed because they don't know which cancer sticks to buy.
If the cancer sticks are sold in unbranded packets, how will the retailer know which brand he is giving out?
As I understand it, the displays that retailers use are supplied by the tobaco companies because they see it as point of sale advertising. If Nanny bans such displays, many small businesses will go out of business because their sales will drop and all the proposed legislation that makes it necessary to have special storage areas etc etc will have to be paid for.
Nanny must decide; is smoking a legal activity that adults can "enjoy" or is it so anti social and damaging to health that it should be outlawed? If it is the former, then adults should be able to purchase the cancer sticks without feeling stigmatised or having Nanny tutting at them like a mad Skippy.
Nanny likes the income smoking generates for her....Kerching.
Nanny also likes the income alcohol generates for her....Kerching.
Surely, if Nanny is worried about underage persons smoking and drinking, she needs to enforce existing laws that punish them, not bring in new laws that punish adults for doing legal things.....I suspect Nanny sees adults as cash cows and will go after them, for their own good of course, rather than going after the kids.
Nanny needs to look at what happens now regarding illegal drugs and the link to organised crime and what happened in the USA during prohibition and the rise of gangsters. Many people are addicted to cancer sticks and, if Nanny drives it underground, the only people that will benefit will be the criminals that will supply the need.
No joined up thinking from Nanny again....New labour, Blu Labour under Cast Iron Dave....Spot the difference? There is no bloody difference...They're all global progressive Marxists and control freaks.
Just laugh at Hi-Viz.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTonk.. I have always said that if the Government really believes tobacco is that dangerous make it illegal to sell (but not to possess) in the UK. Stop sitting on the fence! Make people have to work for their fix and order it in from another country.
ReplyDeleteInstead Nanny wants the taxes from it so just spends some of that tax money nagging at us to stop doing these things. They don't actually want us to stop though.
FWIW - when this came up on "Guido" the other day, I posted -
ReplyDeleteSome years ago I managed a ‘Sweets, News, Cigs’ shop -One of the great ‘stop smoking’ campaigns got under way, and the lobbies – as always – said ‘It Doesn’t Go Far Enough’
Someone in the trade press suggested that the “UK Tobacco Companies” call a press conference and announce -
//We can no longer resist the allegations of the harm our products cause. All of our manufacturing and marketing is being closed down. As I speak, the Boards of all our member Companies are meeting to initiate winding up process, and all our employees are being told of their immediate dismissal.
UK Government has been informed that it will receive NO MORE Tobacco Duty.
Thank you, Ladies & Gents. Good Morning.
I didn't get my first cigarette from a tobacconist and I doubt if most people did so the supposed attractiveness of POS is neither here nor there.
ReplyDeletePutting it 'under the counter' did nothing to prevent me from getting proper porn in 1970's London but then they went and spoiled it by making it legal all in the name of EU harmonisation.
What other industry supplies an expensive product to satisfy worldwide demand to increasing numbers of addicts yet is marketed entirely without packaging and not even 'under the counter'?
Heroin/crack/dope etc. from which the Gov. does not even benefit from taxes.
@Tonk. Do me a favour, stop calling them cancer sticks, it is childish and misinformed, it is like calling a motor car a killing machine. I am not saying tobacco cannot contribute to cancer, it can, just like diesel and many other pollutants. Neither would I say that motor cars cannot contribute to early death, they do, but they are not called killing machines.
ReplyDeleteTimbone;
ReplyDeleteSeeing as you asked so nicely I shall do as you ask.
I dispute that it is childish or uninformed. Whilst I was doing my nurse training, I saw lungs that had been removed from dead smokers and I would say that the term cancer stick was an accurate one.
Regarding cars; again I must declare that I nolonger drive and therefore, I do not own a car however, I think that there is a great deal of difference between putting something toxic intentionally into your body and someone being accidently killed by an error on the part of a driver however, I would say that, in the wrong hands, a car is indeed a killing machine.
As I say, I do not smoke myself but, I was appalled when Nanny introduced the smoking ban. I find the air in public buildings and pubs much nicer but, I do think people should be able to choose whether or not to operate smoking establishments or not. Surely there can be some smoking pubs and some smoke free pubs and I can see no reason why a pub with two bars shouldn't be stopped from having one bar where smoking is allowed.
You see, although I don't smoke myself, I do not want to stop you from smoking; that is your choice as an adult.
When people start telling others what they can and can't do, then we create the kind of society we have today for example, when a person or institution try to prevent people from voicing an opinion or try through the law, to tell people what or how to think, then we end up with a country like the old Soviet Union and I fear, that is where we are heading. It may well have started by someone objecting to another person saying something like they don't like people with a particular trait or perhaps, they didn't like someone calling fags cancer sticks.....It is difficult to voice support of the aims of this site whilst at the same time, attempting to silence opinions one may not like.
By the way, I know that, as far as every smoker is concerned, they see little wrong in smoking and that every smoker has a relative that started smoking at three years old, smoked five hundred a day and lived to be a hundred and forty seven, sadly all of my relatives that smoked, died rather young. The on going battle between ASH and FOREST does not help people make an informed decision as each side of the debate only takes there own side as true.
I don't smoke myself but, I would fight for your right to do so while it remains a legal activity for adults in this country, just as I would fight for your right to express an opinion, even if I don't like it.
Have a good day sir.
Just laugh at Hi-Viz.
Tonk, thank you for a polite and informed reply. My Dad is 91, gave up smoking when he was 63, and calls them coffin nails. I let him off. Are you 91? Sorry, I thought it was funny though. In was directing a show with an amateur theatre company, and one of the chorus was a nurse who smoked. She told me thyat she asked to be transferred to a cancer ward to help her stop. She got the transfer and started smoking more! It's a funny world.
ReplyDeleteI am 60, and yes, I think every day about the fact that I still have lots I want to achieve before I become a peripatetic part of the eternal unfoldings of space and time. When, where and how that happens I know not. My enjoyment of tobacco may well bring it closer, maybe not.
Thanks again for responding eloquently to my little niggle.
Ken, just one point. I know that we British know what you mean, but the internet is global. What will our American cousins think about the title "Nanny Hates Fags"
ReplyDeleteTimbone;
ReplyDeleteGood morning.
I can confirm that I am not 91; I doubt if I shall live to see that age; my doc says I am too overweight and don't exercise enough.....nag nag nag...
It is indeed a sad fact that many "health care" professionals do many of the things that they "tut tut" at others for doing.
Many of my former nursing colleagues were heavy smokers, many of us were overweight and many of the doctors appeared to be alcohol dependent; there is a high level of hypocracy amongst my peers.
Secure psychiatric hospitals are exempt from the smoking ban, as are prisons; the staff however are not. The establishments are required to supply a room that filters the air without extracting the heat inorder to keep the patients/inmates comfortable, the spec is really mindblowing, going into how many litres of air it must circulate each hour and what must be removed from it and what the maximum loss of heat to that air can be.
I too wondered about the interpretation of "Nanny hates Fags" by our cousins across the pond and that made me smile; I do have a somewhat warped sense of humour!!
Just laugh at Hi-Viz.