DC considering local ban on cigar sales

[Cutterhead]

Link

WASHINGTON, DC (WUSA) -- The DC Council may be going after stores that sell single cigars that are used to make "Blunts."

Ward Seven Councilmember Yvette Alexander is pushing a bill that would ban gas stations and convenience stores from selling single cigars.

According to people who know, pot smokers buy the cheaper stogies, then replace the tobacco on the inside with marijuana, keeping the outer layer tobacco skin which allows the "blunt" too burn slower and longer.

Operators of tobacco stores are worried about the language in the bill. They say their customers also purchase "premium" cigars, one or two at a time.

If they are forced to abandon single cigar sales they say they would be forced yo go out of business.

Councilmember Alexander says tobacco stores and cigar bars would be exempt from the ban.


Written by Bruce Johnson

Hardly national news, but I can't help but shake my head in wonder every time I hear another hair-brained policy like this one come out of DC. From the district that already bans indoor smoking and heavily taxes tobacco, it wouldn't be too surprising to see this pass.

Even if you consider "blunts" to be a problem, this bill would do nothing to deter them from being created. People would just buy them from unaffected tobacco shops, or go outside the district to Virginia or MD to pick them up. Either that, or they would just smoke pot via different means. The only thing this bill would accomplish, is artificially moving demand from one enterprise to another, all while inconveniencing the individual and harming revenue for those businesses that can no longer sell the cigars. And yes, this particular bill is merely an inconvenience, but it is years and years of policies like this one that make the district such a wonderful place to live. Owned, operated, and populated by liberals, the district is ever a microcosm for what unchecked left wing politics get you.

 

[rudder]

yeh that will end the crack problem in DC.

And they better ban aluminum cans... because you can turn one into a pipe in about 3 seconds after drinking the contents.

 

[Mursilis]

So many things wrong with this proposed policy. Going after potsmokers, despite the fact smoking pot does no real harm to others? Check. Seeking an overbroad, overbearing 'solution' to something which isn't really a problem in the first place? Check. Potentially losing sales tax revenue by forcing a previously-legal activity underground? Check. I can't see any real benefits from such a ban at all. Maybe someone can point some out? And I thought it was only the GOP who wanted to "force their morality on others"?

Otherwise, the OP's right - DC is a nanny-state Disneyland, and as such, it's a disaster. I'd have to be paid to live there. It's hardly a wonder that city's been bleeding residents for the past 25 years (although that trend seems to have reversed slightly recently).

 

[Genx87]

The moral war on drugs consumes another victim.

 

[40Hands]

My god. This will make it impossible to smoke pot. They've got us now!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Sounds like more anti-tobacco legislation in disguise.

 

[Modelworks]

Next law" We are going to ban hands because people do bad things with them !"

 

[Fear No Evil]

But lets let these yahoos run our healthcare system.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

this will clearly end the war on drugs

if making the SUBSTANCE ITSELF illegal is not doing shit, what makes them think this will? fing idiots.

 

[TruePaige]

Because people won't just buy a pack of cigars and keep them for later? Retards.

 

[OCGuy]

That is actually pretty racist.

 

[MovingTarget]

I fail to see how this will help the anti-drug crowd achieve ANY of their stated goals with this. This will have no effect on pot useage and will hit convenience stores' bottom lines, and during a recession to boot.

/facepalm

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: OCguy
That is actually pretty racist.

It's stupid, but not racist.

 

[marincounty]

What's ironic is that by replacing the tobacco with marijuana, the blunt is actually less harmful than straight tobacco.
As for the OP, "Owned, operated, and populated by liberals, the district is ever a microcosm for what unchecked left wing politics get you ", and Mississippi is a microcosm of what happens when right wingers control the state-poverty.

 

[halik]

Yeah that's gonna make people stop a) smoking weed in general b) smoking weed from blunts.

Who the hell is on that council?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Why would anybody empty out a perfectly good cigar when they could just buy blunt wraps?

Are blunt wraps and rolling papers illegal in some areas?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: halik
Yeah that's gonna make people stop a) smoking weed in general b) smoking weed from blunts.

Who the hell is on that council?

Someone that has a tobacco license that would be exempt from the restrictions

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Why would anybody empty out a perfectly good cigar when they could just buy blunt wraps?

Are blunt wraps and rolling papers illegal in some areas?

Not that I know of.

This is just a game like anything else, pretty much no one actually smokes those shit cigars, in the same vein that no one goes into a head shop looking for a "water pipe". It's a bong, for smoking weed, period.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Cutterhead

According to people who know, pot smokers buy the cheaper stogies, then replace the tobacco on the inside with marijuana, keeping the outer layer tobacco skin which allows the "blunt" too burn slower and longer.

Yuck! What a horrible way to the pot. :thumbsdown:

It doesn't say much for the pot they're smoking, either. Good stuff goes out if you don't hit it.

 

[JSt0rm]

does this thing discriminate between a swisher sweet and a macanudo vintage 1997 No.5?

 

[Schmide]

What else would you insert into an intern?

 

[Patranus]

LOL - So the government wants to tell you what to do in one instance because government knows best and that is A-OK with the majority of posters on this board but when it hinders their ability to smoke pot!!!! OMG the sky is falling!!!!

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Patranus
LOL - So the government wants to tell you what to do in one instance because government knows best and that is A-OK with the majority of posters on this board but when it hinders their ability to smoke pot!!!! OMG the sky is falling!!!!

what is this one instance you are referring to?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Patranus
LOL - So the government wants to tell you what to do in one instance because government knows best and that is A-OK with the majority of posters on this board but when it hinders their ability to smoke pot!!!! OMG the sky is falling!!!!

what is this one instance you are referring to?

Pat-r-anus is a good, anti-drug republican, that's all.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Pat-r-anus is a good, anti-drug republican, that's all.

Way to change the subject. You pick that up from the Saul Alinsky playbook?

Why is it that nanny government is bad in this case but wonderful in other cases?
How many gun control threads are there justifying nanny government?