Weestminster, Mass. to ban sales of all tobacco products?

[user 2031]

Check out this VIDEO Westminster in Massachusetts is trying to ban all tobacco sales, altogether. Cigs, cigars, pipe tobacco, even e-cigs. This is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[bentbulldog]

I enjoyed reading the comments!

At a certain point there is a line to draw. Think back to Prohibition. They couldn't stop the public need to alcohol, they couldn't stop Piracy, making decisions for other people doesn't work.

All I can do is:

:fpalm: :fpalm: :fpalm:

 

[Richard Burley]

Who are these people, these control freaks? I mean psychologically. They remind me of certain girls in high school--girls of both sexes.

 

[Hermit]

I wouldn't spend a cent in that town.
But then again, I wouldn't set foot
in Massachusetts anyway. :evil:

 

[puros_bran]

At least they are being politically and intellectually consistant.. One of my whole oppositions to 'the war on tobacco' is politically they say "tobacco is bad, we need to tax it" which is intellectually dishonest. Same thing with speeding.. If going 73mph is bad why allow manufacturers to build cars that can do 146mph? Don't let them build cars that go faster than the maximum allowable speed limit, problem solved.
If tobacco is bad ban it, don't tax it. Don't tax it $12 a pack.. Or whatever insanity generates $13-17 packs of smokes.

 

[user 2031]

Ban sugar, motorcycles, Mc Donalds, in fact, all fast food restaurants, alcohol, ... just ban everything. :lol:

 

[puros_bran]

If they think it's a serious enough threat that it needs a special tax because it's so evil then that's exactly what they should do.

I'm not saying they are correct in their thoughts just saying they are correct in seeking outright bans if they believe it to be harmful.   I don't let my kids bring cocaine into the house if they pony up a little extra dough, it's outright banned.  
I do not think the State (refering to what yall call government) is entitled to tell us what we can and can not do with the exception of defrauding another's rights or properties but since they've usurped that power via the 'commerce clause' and since we are dumb enough to sit back and allow it. We get what we deserve.

I think "progressives" are harmful and should be banned, no sense in a special tax class..they are dangerous and should be outright banned.

 

[user 2031]

Agreed.

 

[SPUD 15]

If they think it's a serious enough threat that it needs a special tax because it's so evil then that's exactly what they should do.

I'm not saying they are correct in their thoughts just saying they are correct in seeking outright bans if they believe it to be harmful.   I don't let my kids bring cocaine into the house if they pony up a little extra dough, it's outright banned.  
I do not think the State (refering to what yall call government) is entitled to tell us what we can and can not do with the exception of defrauding another's rights or properties but since they've usurped that power via the 'commerce clause' and since we are dumb enough to sit back and allow it.  We get what we deserve.  

I think "progressives" are harmful and should be banned, no sense in a special tax class..they are dangerous and should be outright banned.

Right on PB

 

[idbowman]

Apparently, this has pushed some of the right (IMO) buttons:

Firestorm erupts...

If you don't want to read the full article, this little bit is encouraging (or at least what passes for encouraging among our little community, these days):




"The uproar stems not from a desire by people here to smoke — only 17 percent do (a smidge higher than the statewide average). Many say they have never touched tobacco and find the habit disgusting. Rather, they perceive the ban as a frontal assault on their individual liberties. And they say it would cripple the eight retailers in town who sell tobacco products...

...'They’re just taking away everyday freedoms, little by little,' said Nate Johnson, 32, an egg farmer who also works in an auto body shop, as he stood outside the store last week. “This isn’t about tobacco, it’s about control,” he said."

 

[Feazelle-n-it]

If it passed I would move. But they're right its not about tobacco, its about control. Eff 'em.

 

[user 2031]

Apparently, this has pushed some of the right (IMO) buttons:

Firestorm erupts...

If you don't want to read the full article, this little bit is encouraging (or at least what passes for encouraging among our little community, these days):




"The uproar stems not from a desire by people here to smoke — only 17 percent do (a smidge higher than the statewide average). Many say they have never touched tobacco and find the habit disgusting. Rather, they perceive the ban as a frontal assault on their individual liberties. And they say it would cripple the eight retailers in town who sell tobacco products...

...'They’re just taking away everyday freedoms, little by little,' said Nate Johnson, 32, an egg farmer who also works in an auto body shop, as he stood outside the store last week. “This isn’t about tobacco, it’s about control,” he said."

Good! Maybe a few people are beginning to wake up. 8)

 

[Dutch]

My guess is that one reason you are seeing so much support for this type of change, would be the costs to insurance companies for long term care of critically ill patients who smoked cigarettes until they developed cancer. Truth is, there are very few people who enjoy cigarettes in moderation.

IMO, the cigar and pipe industry should sue the cigarette companies for destroying a noble industry and a dignified hobby.

When I changed occupations a little over a year ago, it changed my smoking habits. There are periods I have gone for 6 weeks without a cigar or a pipe, and I never experienced withdrawal symptoms. Very few non smokers can be convinced of the facts, because of the devastation the chemical laced cigarette has created. At this point, they don't want some tobacco use curtailed, they want it completely outlawed.

If you asked them their view on legalizing marijuana, my guess is that most would say that it isn't as harmful as tobacco.

The bottom line is that the cigarette companies have done the pipe tobacco and cigar companies a great disservice. We are going to have to find a way to enjoy our pipes and cigars, and live with it.

 

[idbowman]

The bottom line is that the cigarette companies have done the pipe tobacco and cigar companies a great disservice. We are going to have to find a way to enjoy our pipes and cigars, and live with it.

To the extent that this is actually about tobacco, I 100% agree. I think it's heartening, though, to see that there is at least SOME movement in certain (albeit limited) circles making this an issue about personal liberty and choice rather than the product/chemical/practice in question.

I'm not naive enough to think that this is a true turning point, but it's a faint glimmer of hope in an otherwise dismal situation.

 

[TMacphersonNH]

Hey guys. I saw this laying in my hospital bed in Massachusetts. I completely agree with the argument for personal choice. I also see it differently than most. As a Board member at our regional hospital roughly 2/3 of the people who are admitted have issues related to smoking and/or obesity. At the same time we are forced to write off roughly 25% of our billables due to lack of insurance.

So I see two sides to the argument. Personal liberty is great. But then we need to take responsibility for our choices. Healthcare insurance is not a risk based model like any other insurance. To be fair I think we should go to a true insurance model and charge more for smokers and obese individuals. Then people can choose what they want and not have organizations like mine subsidize their habits. Just my $.02. Best.

Tom

 

[Thomas Tkach]

Hey guys. I saw this laying in my hospital bed in Massachusetts. I completely agree with the argument for personal choice. I also see it differently than most. As a Board member at our regional hospital roughly 2/3 of the people who are admitted have issues related to smoking and/or obesity. At the same time we are forced to write off roughly 25% of our billables due to lack of insurance.

So I see two sides to the argument. Personal liberty is great. But then we need to take responsibility for our choices. Healthcare insurance is not a risk based model like any other insurance. To be fair I think we should go to a true insurance model and charge more for smokers and obese individuals. Then people can choose what they want and not have organizations like mine subsidize their habits. Just my $.02. Best.

Tom

This. If gov gives you healthcare, they have every right to run your life to make you be healthy.