Boston and MA tobacco laws

[DarrelSPowers]

Cigar bars get 10 years to close.

Article goes into detail about the latest measures making tobacco sales in MA much more strict.

I don't smoke cigarettes, but I'm really disappointed that the cigar and hookah bars are being forced out of business. The smoking ban for bars only bothered me because so many of my friends are smokers, and it kinda sucked sitting at the bar by myself, or standing outside in the cold/rain while others had their cigs, plus I'm not really old enough to remember bars before smoking was banned in them. Smoking on patios is now also illegal, which is another pointless measure. Patios are outside, and people shouldn't need a ban to get them not to smoke when they're upwind of another table.

I feel like cigar and hookah bars are another story. I always thought it was awesome to be able to throw on a suit, drop $50 on a scotch and a cigar, and pretend to be rich for a couple hours. Hookah bars are sick too... get some nice Indian food and a hookah afterward with a few more drinks was always a good time. Its a shame that they're being forced to close.

Some of the other measures discussed included ban of tobacco sale on college campuses, which I think is totally pointless, and the outright banning of blunt wraps. I for one won't really miss strawberry banana flavored blunts, but banning the sale of anything really strikes a nerve for me.

Anyway, I read this on the T to work this morning, and was slightly disappointed (again) with the government of this great commonwealth. I guess we'll see where this goes from here, as I'm sure neither side in this debate was happy with the results.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
I always thought it was awesome to be able to throw on a suit, drop $50 on a scotch and a cigar, and pretend to be rich for a couple hours.

There's your answer why they finally got around to baning it for the commoners.

You can't afford to get sick so can't afford to even "pretend to be rich for a couple of hours".

 

[DarrelSPowers]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
I always thought it was awesome to be able to throw on a suit, drop $50 on a scotch and a cigar, and pretend to be rich for a couple hours.

There's your answer why they finally got around to baning it for the commoners.

You can't afford to get sick so can't afford to even "pretend to be rich for a couple of hours".

Who are you to tell me what I can and can't afford? Your post makes no sense.

What I'm saying is that smoking cigs in a bar is one thing. Not everyone who goes to a bar is a smoker. Cigar bars on the other hand, cater to those who enjoy a nice cigar. People go there to smoke cigars and have a drink (or not), and the people who work there do so by choice. Please explain whats wrong with this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
I always thought it was awesome to be able to throw on a suit, drop $50 on a scotch and a cigar, and pretend to be rich for a couple hours.

There's your answer why they finally got around to baning it for the commoners.

You can't afford to get sick so can't afford to even "pretend to be rich for a couple of hours".

Who are you to tell me what I can and can't afford? Your post makes no sense.

What I'm saying is that smoking cigs in a bar is one thing. Not everyone who goes to a bar is a smoker. Cigar bars on the other hand, cater to those who enjoy a nice cigar. People go there to smoke cigars and have a drink (or not), and the people who work there do so by choice. Please explain whats wrong with this.

McOwen is just a bitter troll. Ignore him.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
I always thought it was awesome to be able to throw on a suit, drop $50 on a scotch and a cigar, and pretend to be rich for a couple hours.

There's your answer why they finally got around to baning it for the commoners.

You can't afford to get sick so can't afford to even "pretend to be rich for a couple of hours".

Dave, Boston is full of Democrats. The ones you love, remember? They're the ones banning smoking.

Why do your heroes hate America Dave?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers
I always thought it was awesome to be able to throw on a suit, drop $50 on a scotch and a cigar, and pretend to be rich for a couple hours.

There's your answer why they finally got around to baning it for the commoners.

You can't afford to get sick so can't afford to even "pretend to be rich for a couple of hours".

Dave, Boston is full of Democrats. The ones you love, remember? They're the ones banning smoking.

Why do your heroes hate America Dave?

Please, don't feed the troll

 

[Genx87]

I think many people predicted this decades ago. The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists. Now they are banning smoking outdoors, outdoors, give me a break. One would think these idiots would learn from their other failed adventures in prohibiting substances that stiumlate the body. Alcohol failed miseraly and helped the Mafia gain power. Drugs has been a complete failure that has given drug cartels nearly as much power as many govts.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think many people predicted this decades ago. The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists. Now they are banning smoking outdoors, outdoors, give me a break. One would think these idiots would learn from their other failed adventures in prohibiting substances that stiumlate the body. Alcohol failed miseraly and helped the Mafia gain power. Drugs has been a complete failure that has given drug cartels nearly as much power as many govts.

I think the patio ban proves this. I remember going to a bar in CA and it had a patio, it wasn't really that bad because it felt like you were still indoors just in another part of the bar. Obviously people are opposed to this because it circumvents the goal of making smoking inconvenient.

I just think of what it is like in other countries to sit around smoking hookah or to smoke in a bar and how I feel now that it is some great freedom I have when really it is just basic human behavior that they are trying to restrict. I shouldn't feel liberated when I light a cigarette in a bar.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think many people predicted this decades ago. The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists.

Prove that, or you're blowing stale, second hand carcinogens out of your ass. :thumbsdown:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think many people predicted this decades ago. The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists.

Prove that, or you're blowing stale, second hand carcinogens out of your ass. :thumbsdown:

You and McMoran share the same birth mother?

The rules, approved unanimously by the Boston Public Health Commission, mean that starting in two months, about 75 pharmacies and a handful of campus convenience stores will be prohibited from selling any tobacco products. Starting immediately, smoking will not be permitted on the patios of restaurants and bars with outdoor service.

and

Still, a tobacco-control researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health questioned whether the ban on drugstore and campus sales will achieve its stated goal: reducing cigarette use, especially among the poor and the young. Instead, predicted Dr. Michael Siegel, smokers will go somewhere else to buy their cigarettes.

Sound familiar with alcohol and drug prohibition?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think many people predicted this decades ago. The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists.

Prove that, or you're blowing stale, second hand carcinogens out of your ass. :thumbsdown:

You and McMoran share the same birth mother?

The rules, approved unanimously by the Boston Public Health Commission, mean that starting in two months, about 75 pharmacies and a handful of campus convenience stores will be prohibited from selling any tobacco products. Starting immediately, smoking will not be permitted on the patios of restaurants and bars with outdoor service.

and

Still, a tobacco-control researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health questioned whether the ban on drugstore and campus sales will achieve its stated goal: reducing cigarette use, especially among the poor and the young. Instead, predicted Dr. Michael Siegel, smokers will go somewhere else to buy their cigarettes.

Sound familiar with alcohol and drug prohibition?

The dangers of second hand smoke in an enclosed outdoor area like the patio of a restaurant are still very real. The smoke just doesn't disappear but lingers in the area unless there's a breeze.

I always find myself holding my breath when I walk by people smoking outdoors.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think many people predicted this decades ago. The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists.

Prove that, or you're blowing stale, second hand carcinogens out of your ass. :thumbsdown:

You and McMoran share the same birth mother?

The rules, approved unanimously by the Boston Public Health Commission, mean that starting in two months, about 75 pharmacies and a handful of campus convenience stores will be prohibited from selling any tobacco products. Starting immediately, smoking will not be permitted on the patios of restaurants and bars with outdoor service.

and

Still, a tobacco-control researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health questioned whether the ban on drugstore and campus sales will achieve its stated goal: reducing cigarette use, especially among the poor and the young. Instead, predicted Dr. Michael Siegel, smokers will go somewhere else to buy their cigarettes.

Sound familiar with alcohol and drug prohibition?

The dangers of second hand smoke in an enclosed outdoor area like the patio of a restaurant are still very real. The smoke just doesn't disappear but lingers in the area unless there's a breeze.

I always find myself holding my breath when I walk by people smoking outdoors.

its stated goal: reducing cigarette use

Obviously second hand smoke concerns was not their ultimate goal.

 

[Genx87]

Heh these are area's designated for people to use for smoking. As if it wasnt dumb enough that people who hate smoking so much went to bars that had smoking. Now they are going into these bars and the designated area's for smokers and complaining? And being outdoors the toxins will disipate. You will probably get more toxins from the local traffic jam than second hand smoke from outside.

Anyways the point stands. They initially pushed these smoking bans indoors for the health of the workers. And are clearly venturing into outdoor spaces and outright prohibition. Like many predicted when these people started this push 30 years ago.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh these are area's designated for people to use for smoking. As if it wasnt dumb enough that people who hate smoking so much went to bars that had smoking. Now they are going into these bars and the designated area's for smokers and complaining? And being outdoors the toxins will disipate. You will probably get more toxins from the local traffic jam than second hand smoke from outside.

Anyways the point stands. They initially pushed these smoking bans indoors for the health of the workers. And are clearly venturing into outdoor spaces and outright prohibition. Like many predicted when these people started this push 30 years ago.

Of course b/c these enclosed outdoor areas still provide a health danger to workers due to secondhand smoke.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think many people predicted this decades ago. The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists.

Prove that, or you're blowing stale, second hand carcinogens out of your ass. :thumbsdown:

You and McMoran share the same birth mother?

The rules, approved unanimously by the Boston Public Health Commission, mean that starting in two months, about 75 pharmacies and a handful of campus convenience stores will be prohibited from selling any tobacco products. Starting immediately, smoking will not be permitted on the patios of restaurants and bars with outdoor service.

Damn, your a pathetic, amoral twit. No, I mean try proving your unsupportable bullshit that "The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists." Before you embarrass yourself further, deal with this from the University of Minnesota's School of Perodontology:

Secondhand Smoke Facts

Secondhand smoke, also known as passive or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a combination of:

• Mainstream smoke: exhaled by smokers
  
• Sidestream smoke: given off by the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe

Between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population, children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe. If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes.

Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons.
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a Class A carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans.
Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzpyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia. Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so (Mayo Clinic release, Aug 97).

Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer.
Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease.

Secondhand smoke increases heart rate and shortens time to exhaustion. Repeated exposure causes thickening of the walls of the carotid arteries (accelerates atherosclerosis) and damages the lining of these arteries.

When a pregnant woman is exposed to secondhand smoke, the nicotine she ingests is passed on to her unborn baby.
Women who smoke or are exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy:

• have a higher rate of miscarriges and stillbirths
• have an increased risk of low birthweight infants
• have children born with decreased lung function
• have children with greater risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to experience increased frequency of:

• asthma, colds, bronchitis, pneumonia, and other lung diseases
• middle ear infections
• sinus infections
• caries in deciduous teeth

Ventilation systems and designated smoking sections do not protect patrons from ETS.
Current estimates of how smoking increases the risk of various diseases are dramatically underestimated because the ill effects of secondhand smoke inhalation are not taken into account.

We'll be waiting to see if you can come up with ANY credible evidence to counter the above, or your sincere, abject apology for your bullshit, whichever you care to provide.

 

[Genx87]

link not found Harvey McMoran.

And what in my post doesnt back up what I said? The push for banning indoor smoking within private establishments was done for workers who have to work in that environment. Now we are moving outside and outright banning the sale of the substance. What definition of prohibition do you use?

edit: using a link to a dental program? Not that it really has anything to do with our discussion anyways, but that is funny.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh these are area's designated for people to use for smoking. As if it wasnt dumb enough that people who hate smoking so much went to bars that had smoking. Now they are going into these bars and the designated area's for smokers and complaining? And being outdoors the toxins will disipate. You will probably get more toxins from the local traffic jam than second hand smoke from outside.

Anyways the point stands. They initially pushed these smoking bans indoors for the health of the workers. And are clearly venturing into outdoor spaces and outright prohibition. Like many predicted when these people started this push 30 years ago.

Of course b/c these enclosed outdoor areas still provide a health danger to workers due to secondhand smoke.

Heh I can extend that logic to almost anything to a point where you arent even allowed to leave your own home. Even if the dangers of second smoke are as big as the prohibitionist crowd would have you believe. There are many many many other things in this world that cause bodily harm. Are you going to ban all of those as well?

The argument is pretty weak anyways considering they are also banning the sale of the substance for people who would use it within their own home.

 

[DarrelSPowers]

What bothered me is why more regulation was already needed? Obviously non smokers will be offended by second hand smoke, but wasn't the ban inside enough?

And why ban cig sales near college campuses? I mean I figure if someone is smart enough to get into college, they're aware of the dangers of smoking.

I feel like these new resolutions are doing nothing but putting people out of business.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

I think many people predicted this decades ago. The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists.

Prove that, or you're blowing stale, second hand carcinogens out of your ass. :thumbsdown:

You and McMoran share the same birth mother?

The rules, approved unanimously by the Boston Public Health Commission, mean that starting in two months, about 75 pharmacies and a handful of campus convenience stores will be prohibited from selling any tobacco products. Starting immediately, smoking will not be permitted on the patios of restaurants and bars with outdoor service.

Damn, your a pathetic, amoral twit. No, I mean try proving your unsupportable bullshit that "The push for indoor smoking bans due to the health of workers was just a charade. These people are nothing more than prohibitionists." Before you embarrass yourself further, deal with this from the University of Minnesota's School of Perodontology:

Secondhand Smoke Facts

Secondhand smoke, also known as passive or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a combination of:

• Mainstream smoke: exhaled by smokers
  
• Sidestream smoke: given off by the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe

Between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population, children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe. If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes.

Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons.
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a Class A carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans.
Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzpyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia. Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so (Mayo Clinic release, Aug 97).

Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer.
Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease.

Secondhand smoke increases heart rate and shortens time to exhaustion. Repeated exposure causes thickening of the walls of the carotid arteries (accelerates atherosclerosis) and damages the lining of these arteries.

When a pregnant woman is exposed to secondhand smoke, the nicotine she ingests is passed on to her unborn baby.
Women who smoke or are exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy:

• have a higher rate of miscarriges and stillbirths
• have an increased risk of low birthweight infants
• have children born with decreased lung function
• have children with greater risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to experience increased frequency of:

• asthma, colds, bronchitis, pneumonia, and other lung diseases
• middle ear infections
• sinus infections
• caries in deciduous teeth

Ventilation systems and designated smoking sections do not protect patrons from ETS.
Current estimates of how smoking increases the risk of various diseases are dramatically underestimated because the ill effects of secondhand smoke inhalation are not taken into account.

We'll be waiting to see if you can come up with ANY credible evidence to counter the above, or your sincere, abject apology for your bullshit, whichever you care to provide.

Which journal was this published in?

Also, I can use the same logic about alcohol, but because the masses consume alcohol, it cannot be bad or wrong.

Banning an item because it is harmful is agreeable IF and only IF the logic is held to ALL people and ALL harmful addictions/substances. If alcohol is not subject to the same treatment, then why should cigarettes?

 

[TallBill]

At least they get 10 years of notice. Better then a complete slap in the face.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

link not found Harvey McMoran.

Link fixed DeGeneratex87

And what in my post doesnt back up what I said? The push for banning indoor smoking within private establishments was done for workers who have to work in that environment. Now we are moving outside and outright banning the sale of the substance. What definition of prohibition do you use?

I truly hate the tobacco companies. I think every tobacco exec for the last fifty years should be tried for crimes against humanity for the killer products they continue to market. I watched those lying assholes raise their hands before Congress and swear that tobacco was not addictive or carcinogenic.

A few years ago, California passed an initiatiative that is one of the strongest anti-smoking laws in the country. Despite the tobacco lobby spending a record amount for a private interest to defeat this initiative, it passed by a record margin of 80% - 20% margin. In the very next session of the state legislature, our elected representatives in the State Assembly passed a bill to overturn that initiative. Fortunately, the media stink that followed caused the State Senate to think better of the idea and kill it. I still have to wonder how much money it takes to get over half of a state legilative body to overturn a law passed by 80% of the voters.

Philip Morris' saccherine anti-smoking commercials were equally lame. If they believed 10% of what they say, they would immediately stop selling their tobacco products.

To hide the association with their other products, they put the company under a parent company, Altria. A few years ago, they boasted on their website:

Marketing Excellence and Innovation

Philip Morris International?s brand portfolio includes seven of the top 20 international brands, including Marlboro, which has been the best-selling international cigarette brand since 1972, and L&M, which is now the No. 3 brand in the world over the last decade. Other brands include [/i]Philip Morris, Chesterfield, Bond Street, Lark and Parliament.[/i]

Does this sound like a company that wants people to stop smoking? Can you say lying, two faced mofos, boys and girls?

I've lost far too many friends in far too short a time to tobacco related illnesses. And before any of you children go off on me about my friends making their own choices, remember, they target their ads at kids. I'm 67, and when my friends and I were kids, there were no warnings on cigarette packs. However, there were lots of ads on radio and TV glamorizing smoking, including ads that said strange things like, more doctors recommend one brand over another.

Altria has since sold off their interest in Philip Morris, but the tobacco murderers continue to pimp their death to the public. They need to replace the customers they kill, which is why they still target kids.

Death to the tobacco murderers! :| :| :|

 

[JS80]

lulz @ harvey

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Genx87
Heh these are area's designated for people to use for smoking. As if it wasnt dumb enough that people who hate smoking so much went to bars that had smoking. Now they are going into these bars and the designated area's for smokers and complaining? And being outdoors the toxins will disipate. You will probably get more toxins from the local traffic jam than second hand smoke from outside.

Anyways the point stands. They initially pushed these smoking bans indoors for the health of the workers. And are clearly venturing into outdoor spaces and outright prohibition. Like many predicted when these people started this push 30 years ago.

Of course b/c these enclosed outdoor areas still provide a health danger to workers due to secondhand smoke.

Heh I can extend that logic to almost anything to a point where you arent even allowed to leave your own home. Even if the dangers of second smoke are as big as the prohibitionist crowd would have you believe. There are many many many other things in this world that cause bodily harm. Are you going to ban all of those as well?

The argument is pretty weak anyways considering they are also banning the sale of the substance for people who would use it within their own home.

Why don't you say smoking is good for you and recommended by doctors like that 1950's commerical?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JS80

lulz @ harvey

Please step outside or go into your own home, and smoke a pack. You'll be hastening the advent of a favor to the world.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Dammit, forgot I was in P&N. Forget that.