CUSTOMS officials are investigating an alleged attempt to smuggle around 400 kilos of tobacco into Plymouth.
A 46-year-old man and a 71-year-old woman, both from the Durham area, were arrested at Plymouth ferry port on Saturday.
They were subsequently interviewed by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) investigators.
UK Border Agency officers say they uncovered the haul in a people-carrier vehicle disembarking a ferry from Roscoff, France.
The tobacco was enough to make 800,000 cigarettes.Both people have been released on police bail until January 26, 2010.
The case is being handled by HMRC criminal investigators and inquiries are ongoing.The revenue allegedly evaded is estimated at around £46,000.
Oct 28, 2009
Oct 26, 2009
Off Beat: Clark College professor’s theory goes up in smoke
Clark College is justifiably proud of its pioneering status as a no-smoking campus.In 2005, Clark became the first public college in Washington to abolish the use of tobacco.
Clark was also a national leader as one of just 25 colleges in the country to become tobacco-free.
And, Clark was the second community college in the U.S. to take that step, according to Rebecca Wale, environmental health manager.
... Which must have been an interesting turn of events for some former Clark students. It wasn’t just that tobacco was tolerated at Clark for decades. In 1946, it became part of a classroom exercise.
Echoes of that era popped up in The Columbian’s archives in a story about Tony Bacon, longtime Vancouver newsman who died in September.
In the story, Bacon recalled enrolling in Clark College as a 16-year-old in 1946. It was just after World War II, and many of Bacon’s classmates were veterans who were going back to school on the G.I. Bill.
Homer Foster, who taught history and social sciences, liked to conduct experiments in class. His classes were filled with veterans, and half of them were smokers.
Foster had heard that smoking impaired reasoning abilities, Bacon related. Foster set about to test this point on the first day of the quarter. The professor divided his students into smokers and non-smokers, and handed out an exam.
When the results were in, the professor was amazed at the results: The smokers had way better grades than the non-smokers, Bacon said.
"Poor old Homer Foster decided then and there that he should become a smoker," Bacon told the writer.
"He wasn’t very adept at it, but he kept puffing away because of the results of this hysterical experiment."
Hatching a penguin
There’s another bit of irony in the no-smoking policy: Clark College might owe its "Penguin Nation" identity to something that has been banned from campus.
According to one story, the roots of the school’s mascot could be traced to a Clark College student who swiped a mechanical penguin from a promotional display at a local drug store.
As the story goes, the pilfered penguin advertised Kool cigarettes.
Clark was also a national leader as one of just 25 colleges in the country to become tobacco-free.
And, Clark was the second community college in the U.S. to take that step, according to Rebecca Wale, environmental health manager.
... Which must have been an interesting turn of events for some former Clark students. It wasn’t just that tobacco was tolerated at Clark for decades. In 1946, it became part of a classroom exercise.
Echoes of that era popped up in The Columbian’s archives in a story about Tony Bacon, longtime Vancouver newsman who died in September.
In the story, Bacon recalled enrolling in Clark College as a 16-year-old in 1946. It was just after World War II, and many of Bacon’s classmates were veterans who were going back to school on the G.I. Bill.
Homer Foster, who taught history and social sciences, liked to conduct experiments in class. His classes were filled with veterans, and half of them were smokers.
Foster had heard that smoking impaired reasoning abilities, Bacon related. Foster set about to test this point on the first day of the quarter. The professor divided his students into smokers and non-smokers, and handed out an exam.
When the results were in, the professor was amazed at the results: The smokers had way better grades than the non-smokers, Bacon said.
"Poor old Homer Foster decided then and there that he should become a smoker," Bacon told the writer.
"He wasn’t very adept at it, but he kept puffing away because of the results of this hysterical experiment."
Hatching a penguin
There’s another bit of irony in the no-smoking policy: Clark College might owe its "Penguin Nation" identity to something that has been banned from campus.
According to one story, the roots of the school’s mascot could be traced to a Clark College student who swiped a mechanical penguin from a promotional display at a local drug store.
As the story goes, the pilfered penguin advertised Kool cigarettes.
Oct 22, 2009
A call to arms for tobacco store owners
Let us consider the case of a cigar store owner. No food is served. No alcohol is available. The only products are cigars, tobacco products and accessories. Because no alcohol is served, it doesn't qualify for status as "Specialty Tobacco Bar."
Let us also assume that this establishment is owned by a retiree, the sole employee. He started this store because of his love of cigars. He has become something of an expert and customers often seek out his advice, much in the way a wine enthusiast may seek the opinion of a sommelier.
Under the expanded ban he will not be allowed to sample a new cigar in his own store in order to provide advice for his customers.
Who is being harmed and needs to be protected by the expanded ban? Does he not have the right to run his business to the best of his ability?
I would urge all tobacco store owners to call their City-County Council member and urge him or her to vote against Proposal 371.
Let us also assume that this establishment is owned by a retiree, the sole employee. He started this store because of his love of cigars. He has become something of an expert and customers often seek out his advice, much in the way a wine enthusiast may seek the opinion of a sommelier.
Under the expanded ban he will not be allowed to sample a new cigar in his own store in order to provide advice for his customers.
Who is being harmed and needs to be protected by the expanded ban? Does he not have the right to run his business to the best of his ability?
I would urge all tobacco store owners to call their City-County Council member and urge him or her to vote against Proposal 371.
Oct 19, 2009
Bill McKewin: The outrageous tax on tobacco
So there's a proposal in the Wisconsin State Senate to raise the liquor tax 50 cents per liter.
Wow! That's a drop in the shot glass compared to the tobacco tax that amounts to more than the product itself is worth. Of course, we're well aware of all the problems tobacco causes. Just ask the police, especially the overnight shift, how many tobacco related calls they answer and how many vehicle crashes were due to someone smoking too many cigarettes.
It's common knowledge, family violence and divorce are directly linked to tobacco misuse. There's no question, nursing homes are full of 80- and 90-year-old smokers collecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Scientific evidence suggests that tobacco, not vehicle emissions and coal fired industrial plants, are causing severe environmental damage.
Destroyed friendships, impaired thinking, poor job performance and even termination - yup, not alcohol, that's all on tobacco. Vandalism, burglary, rape and murder, in many cases, could be prevented if people weren't messed up on tobacco. And how many tax dollars go to rehab centers treating tobacco addiction?
BUTT - Bureaucrats for Universal Tobacco Taxation - recommends taxing tobacco users to the point of cessation because they can no longer afford the product. That will cause the pool of tobacco users to shrink and, in turn, will cause a shortfall in tax revenue, which will have to be made up by increasing the tax on those remaining users.
Eventually, because of financial hardship, the pool of tobacco users will be reduced to a single smoker who will be responsible for all the revenue. Of course, with only one smoker left on earth, the egregious problems caused by tobacco will have been all but eliminated and the complaints will be a barely audible squawk in the night - ingenious!
Wow! That's a drop in the shot glass compared to the tobacco tax that amounts to more than the product itself is worth. Of course, we're well aware of all the problems tobacco causes. Just ask the police, especially the overnight shift, how many tobacco related calls they answer and how many vehicle crashes were due to someone smoking too many cigarettes.
It's common knowledge, family violence and divorce are directly linked to tobacco misuse. There's no question, nursing homes are full of 80- and 90-year-old smokers collecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Scientific evidence suggests that tobacco, not vehicle emissions and coal fired industrial plants, are causing severe environmental damage.
Destroyed friendships, impaired thinking, poor job performance and even termination - yup, not alcohol, that's all on tobacco. Vandalism, burglary, rape and murder, in many cases, could be prevented if people weren't messed up on tobacco. And how many tax dollars go to rehab centers treating tobacco addiction?
BUTT - Bureaucrats for Universal Tobacco Taxation - recommends taxing tobacco users to the point of cessation because they can no longer afford the product. That will cause the pool of tobacco users to shrink and, in turn, will cause a shortfall in tax revenue, which will have to be made up by increasing the tax on those remaining users.
Eventually, because of financial hardship, the pool of tobacco users will be reduced to a single smoker who will be responsible for all the revenue. Of course, with only one smoker left on earth, the egregious problems caused by tobacco will have been all but eliminated and the complaints will be a barely audible squawk in the night - ingenious!
Oct 13, 2009
Enforce the rules we have
On Tuesday, Columbia will hold a town hall meeting on the proposal to ban smoking on campus. Haven’t heard about it? Not surprising.
On Tuesday, Columbia will hold a town hall meeting on the proposal to ban smoking on campus. Haven’t heard about it? Not surprising. Outside of a few groups on campus, no one’s talked about it. That, in and of itself, is problematic for such a large policy change. Without public notice, small minorities, whether they are supporters or opponents of smoking, have virtual control over campus governance. Whether the broader student population wants it or not, a draconian policy might be imposed simply because supporters showed up at a meeting to gauge support. If only die-hards vote, the vote does not reflect the sentiment of the population as a whole and indeed poses a real threat to representative government. Even more noticeably, though, smoking is already banned across much of campus to little effect.
You wouldn’t know it from walking around campus, but smoking is banned within 25 feet of a building by state law. Where does that end? Who knows? It’s not marked. Even if someone wanted to obey the law, they would be hard-pressed to do so. Without any visible indications of where smokers can’t light up, the entrance to Butler becomes a cloud of tobacco smoke. That’s a real concern, especially for asthmatics, and Columbia’s learning environment is not fostered by forcing library-goers to brave an onslaught of smoke. There’s no reason they should have to, either. Smoking should be forbidden there.
Yet the Columbia administration is not focusing on that very real issue. Rather than putting up signs to indicate where smoking is and is not allowed, the administration is pushing a campus-wide ban on smoking under the radar without student knowledge, let alone input. Why? Would administrators enforce a new ban any more than the current ban is enforced? We can’t know. From the limited coverage in campus media, it has not been mentioned. Would Public Safety round up smokers on campus? Unlikely, but all the time they would spend telling students, and even faculty, to put out their cigarettes is time they would not be spending protecting students from crime.
In addition, unenforced rules erode respect for all rules. If the smoking ban is enacted and not enforced, it will spread a general disrespect for authority. If the smoking regulations are not enforced, this sends a very powerful signal that other rules, whether about underage drinking or writing graffiti on walls, will not be, either. Ultimately, this results in a broader lack of regard for campus standards and seemingly give smokers carte blanche to violate the rules.
If a complete ban were enforced, on the other hand, that would drive smokers off campus. The main gates and other entrances to campus would be clouded by smoke. If you think the smoke in front of Butler is bad, imagine how much worse it would be if all the smokers on campus were standing on 116th and Broadway, clustered together to form an even larger, more threatening cloud. Who would want to go to a school where they have to go through that to get to campus? Students would go off campus to find activities where the long arm of Public Safety wouldn’t tell them not to smoke. In a puff, Columbia’s effort to support student activities would be gone. Smokers would be less engaged in student life on campus, and considering that a number of student leaders smoke, Columbia’s vibrancy would decline.
The best thing to do would be for Columbia to enforce its current ban on smoking near buildings. Without depending on a massive witch hunt for smokers across campus, the administration could put up signs near buildings reminding students and faculty not to light up there but marking where smoking is permitted. Public Safety, in the course of its normal rounds, could remind smokers too close to buildings to take a step back without requiring a significant presence beyond what already exists. At the same time, rather than wasting money criminalizing a large portion of the Columbia community, the savings could be used to help smokers quit. It wouldn’t even require a drastic policy change. If that’s not enough, and scientific studies show that expanding a smoking ban would result in measurable improvements, the administration can publicly educate the community about the benefits of a change and wait for the democratic process to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)