reply to post by Rubic0n
The question to ask here is not "why can't cigarette displays be hidden to "protect" the children". The question to ask here is "Should
anything that affects the children be hidden from sight"
The would include: Alcohol. vchocolate, pop, sugared cereals, movie posters, all commercials must be sanitize ect etc etc.
The world is NOT Disney Land and barring children from any thing that might harm them would also leave them impaired to live in the world.
Consider this: In Canada, woman are allowed to be naked in public from the waist up. If children can see breasts in real life, is there really a
necessity of hiding magazines with naked woman from there sight?
People fight in public where children can see. People get drunk in public where children can see. Smokers are forced to smoke on the street where
children can see. People have car accidents and harm other people where children can see. People have sex where children can see. People kiss and
cuddle where children can see.
Are you saying we should sanitize the world to protect the "children"?
What value is there is hiding cigarette displays?
Experience in the four countries where cigarettes displays have been implemented provide clear evidence that when cigarette displays are banned - the
smoking rate among young teens RISES!
Then there is the issue of unduly interferring with commerce. I have tried to buy cigarettes in a store where displays are banned. It usually goes
something like this....
I would like a package of Canadians, full strenth, regular size.
The clerk lifts the door and looks and reports that they are out of my brand.
Um...ok...well what other kinds do you have.
Well I can't show you but I have a written list that you can look at?
(meanwhile other customers are waiting)
When you buy an apple, apples are displayed in a pile or a bag. You see the apples and pick out the ones that you think you might like to eat. The
ones that look attractive to you for whatever reason.
When the store is out of my brand, I want to see the packs because usually I see a brand that I tried before and didn't mind. The display reminds me
that I tried that one a couple of months ago and have now forgotten about. It is usually the colour of the pack that reminds me of that brand.
Instead I am left to read a list that reminds me of nothing!!!!
Further, the cost to the convenience store is rather large - in the range of thousands of dollars.
Eventually, I am sure that customers just get tired of the hassle and go to a place where black or grey market cigarettes are sold.
This is a link to a study of the effect of tobacco display bans that you can read for yourself.
Further, store owners get money from tobacco companies for their tobacco displays. Why should store owners lose this stream of revenue for whatever
dubious protection of the "children"
Are you going to replace those revenues?
Not to mention that in America - regulations pertaining to tobacco displays are the legislative responsibility of the FDA and the regulation strictly
forbids anyone from interfering
Bloomberg lost in court when he tried to legislate stores by forcing them to display anti-smoking posters.
Bloomberg's Latest Nanny-State Initiative Could Be Overturned Too
Although his wish to make tobacco products invisible does depend on action by the city council, the absence of which helped doom his drink diktat, the
rule he seeks seems to run afoul of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. That 1965 law bars states and municipalities from imposing any
"requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health...with respect to the advertising or promotion of cigarettes." The policy Bloomberg wants
certainly seems to fit that description, especially since his premise is that cigarette packages promote smoking.
Do law no longer apply to the behavior of prohibitionists? If anti-smokers can break laws, then why can't smokers?
Tired of Control Freaks