Wouldn't it be easier to just lock-up the kids?

The latest salvo in the War on People of Smoke:

Displaying cigarettes in shops could be banned under government plans being considered in a bid to reduce smoking and discourage children from starting.

Ministers are also considering tougher controls on vending machines in pubs and restaurants.

A public consultation due to start within months will call for the public's opinions on these issues.

Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said it was "vital" to teach children that "smoking is bad".

"If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that," she said.

Whatever next? I suppose there's little point in arguing that Ms Primarolo is in no position to determine whether or not "smoking is bad"*. Equally, I defy you to find a single teenager who has walked into a corner shop a non-smoker and left it a smoker because they could see some cigarettes on display behind the counter. Have these interfering busy-bodies nothing better to concern themselves with? Silly question...

*UPDATE: By which I don't mean to dispute the obvious medical consequences of smoking (though most smokers do, of course, actually escape a "smoking-related" death). But even so, what is true in aggregate is not necessarily true in individual cases. In any case, that's for individuals to decide for themselves, not for the government. In the grand scheme of matters, this is trivial. But if cigarettes are legal why can't they be displayed?

Comments

[Andrew]

"Equally, I defy you to find a single teenager who has walked into a corner shop a non-smoker and left it a smoker because they could see some cigarettes on display behind the counter."

Equally, I defy you to find a single person who would have bought a cupcake for 52p but won't buy it if the price is raised to 53p... yet the law of demand is still true. Aren't we talking about marginal differences here?

[last year's girl]

Ah. And just as I was making the point in conversation yesterday that the government was switching to persecuting the drinkers, as there was nothing left they could do to smokers...

[ben]

One wonders why *smokers* are upset about cigarettes being removed from display, if the cigarettes are still available. Must they be on display? Equally, one wonders what smokers think tobacco companies spend so much money on advertising and promotion *for*. To lure 20-a-day men to switch brands? Unlikely in the extreme, no?

"I suppose there's little point in arguing that Ms Primarolo is in no position to determine whether or not "smoking is bad"."

There really isn't, because it has been determined, it has been proven and re-proven and proven again and demonstrated using every sort of rigorous, controlled, scientific method of experimentation and investigation known to humanity that smoking is, indeed, extremely deleterious to one's health. The jury is no longer out on this one; the case has long been closed, there is no fight left in this cat. It's over.

[ben]

"But if cigarettes are legal why can't they be displayed?"

Waaaaaah. Waaaaaah. "But, if Mark Steyn is a weepy paranoid fuckwit, why can't he be displayed?"