Hey, there! Log in / Register

Boston restricts sales of menthol cigarettes

NBC Boston reports on the decision by the Boston Public Health Commission to ban menthols from convenience stores and other places where the under-21 set is allowed in.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Im pretty much left wing on everything but wtf is going on right now in this state?

I dont smoke butts, vape, or drink but this is completely asinine and makes me think there are far too many pols with far too much time on their hands.

Completely %$#@ing embarrassing is what it is

up
Voting closed 102

Disagree. I normally hate nanny-state rules, but I welcome bans on all tobacco products that would appeal to nonsmokers. Ban everything except for the most unpleasant, foul tasting, sewage-flavored tobacco that only existing addicts would want to use.

up
Voting closed 56

...but think ALL booze should be banned except the foulest tasting bathtub rotgut that only existing drunks would want to use"

do you not see how dumb that sounds?

up
Voting closed 67

There is no such thing as secondhand inebriation or something comparable for non drinkers.
Whereas secondhand and third hand smoke do exist and affect everyone exposed to it.

up
Voting closed 40

Secondhand smoke is way overblown. It requires prolonged and concentrated exposure, like being married to someone who smokes in the small apartment you share for 20+ years. You don't suffer anything from casual contact.

up
Voting closed 54

It takes only a whiff of toxic tobacco smoke to set off a migraine or sinus inflammation or a deadly asthma attack.
Third hand smoke can do the same.

Just the offensive smell itself causes suffering.

up
Voting closed 66

No, but there is the potential to be whacked by individual under the influence of alcohol.

up
Voting closed 36

Menthols don't appeal to non-smokers. They're extremely harsh.

up
Voting closed 37

Any idea? Also curious about the tobacco specialty shop caveat, what’s even the point if all sales are banned state wide in June?

up
Voting closed 57

This is overreach by the nanny state looking to save us from ourselves. Let people smoke menthols, if they want to die early, let them. It's not like the dangers aren't well known to people. That doesn't mean you need to ban them. When will (Boston) Massachusetts treat adults like adults? Sincerely, Juul smoker in his 30's who misses mango pods.

up
Voting closed 71

"This is overreach by the nanny state looking to save us from ourselves."

I have never smoked anything in my life, but i have garbage lungs from second hand smoke. My asthma diagnosis at 11 was one of the main reasons my mom ended up quitting smoking. So take your self serving logic and shove it. Smoking is not victimless.

up
Voting closed 75

Had friends who grew up in smoking households from a very young age... sadly they have health problems from their parents' 2nd hand smoke as well. It's a dirty and selfish habit that impacts everyone in the family, esp. when the smoker becomes gravely ill from cigarettes. Depressing.

up
Voting closed 53

Smoking is not healthy for anyone. But, I gotta say if your mom was smoking in the house with you or in the car with you, that's a different story. There are more pollutants in urban air at this point than are caused by smokers. I've personally sucked 100,000 plus cigarettes directly into my lungs in my life (not proud of it), and do not have asthma or breathing issues even when jogging. perhaps you are more sensitive to smoke, or perhaps your asthma is from another issue. So again, 2nd hand smoke isn't a public concern like it once was, or at least it shouldn't be. And no one should be smoking around kids obviously.

up
Voting closed 66

... other pollutants in the air and secondhand smoke is that those other pollutants are often the byproducts of something that provides something never or useful. Unlike smoking and vaping which provide nothing of value.
The other pollutants are also regulated to reduce health hazards, so smoking needs to be as well.
Stop making excuses for your abusive behavior.

up
Voting closed 47

Smoking is cool.

up
Voting closed 56

Drinking bourbon from a flask is cool. Smoking is boring and smells like shit.

up
Voting closed 37

So when I smoke a cigarette away from the public, I'm abusing you? I'm sorry but unless you are a perfect vegan human being engaging in no unhealthy behavior and industries, I could by extension make the same claim to you. And prove to me that there is any even minor significance of tobacco tar in the air causing issues for anyone. The anti-smoking campaign has succeeded in protecting those who do not wish to be exposed. And that's ok with me. Reaching further into people's personal choices however is not. Smokers and non-smokers alike would be on board with healthier tobacco and alternatives and protecting people like you from their choices.... but not to the extent that you're beyond reason about it.

up
Voting closed 42

Either we continue on this course of reducing/eliminating the creation of new smokers/vapers ("nanny state") or surcharge the bejeezus out of anyone who uses tobacco. As a taxpayer and health insurance rate payer, I object to underwriting to tremendous cost to the health care system and society (lost productivity, etc) of tobacco-related illness and death. I'm all for covering pre-conditions and unforeseen diseases and injury all the way, but if you want to exercise your "rights" (btw, there are plenty of other ACTUAL rights that you should be fighting for) to poison yourself (and that goes for weed and booze too I suppose) pay up! and, mango? Really? LSMFTIMHO

up
Voting closed 54

if you included eating fatty foods, foods with added sugar, sodas, candy, MSG, etc etc on your list.
Booze and tobacco and weed and heroin and anything else are bad for you, yes. But so are the other things I listed. At issue is WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE? If I eat enough candy to go diabetic then I am straining the healthcare system as well, but society says that is totally fine I guess.
It's not an issue if what individual things we can and cannot have, it's an issue of an elected body giving and taking away things that are totally legal products to/from the population. We have boarded up storefronts now where a legal, "safe" (only in so far as "not the thing killing people in the news") product was being sold, jobs created, taxes generated. Products with known effects and dangers. Things people should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to use.
The "underwriting" healthcare BS is just one more case for medicare for all. The uninsured guy going to the emergency room to have his life saved that later cannot pay for it is doing more harm there than any ingestible substance by the way.
Also calling shenanigans on the post above regarding asthma. Car exhaust is more dangerous than second hand smoke. A night around a campfire is worse than occasionally walking through a cloud of cig smoke on the sidewalk. If you are in a house all day with a smoker, yes, that is as bad as hanging out in a room with a fire burning and no ventilation, because that's literally what is happening. However banning tobacco wholesale is not going to make up for your mom blowing smoke in your face as a child. That was on her, not the rest of society.
Full disclosure: I do occasionally smoke tobacco but have always hated menthol cigarettes, even as a teen. However, I still think people should be able to buy them. Also, flavored cigars are nice once in a while, even my 71 year old mother occasionally smokes a coffee flavored cigarillo. These bans are just plain stupid, and make the Commonwealth look bad in my opinion.

up
Voting closed 78

Big MAC's?

up
Voting closed 52

as vaping nicotine. Nicotine is not the cause of tobacco smoking and chewing cancer. And vaping ( not vape juice from a questionable street source; almost all the people who got sick during this recent alleged epedemic vaped THC juice from questionable sources.) is far safer vs tobacco products.

up
Voting closed 49

I think smoking should be mandatory and NoKappa think smokers are better, cooler people than non-smokers. But even I will acknowledge that nicotine is probably the most problematic thing about smoking, not even because of the addiction issues, but that it narrows ones arteries to the point of inducing heart attacks. It's far more of an issue than any lung problems.
E-Cigarettes are not any better for you than smoking tobacco.

up
Voting closed 43

There are many more reputable sources. I choose this because it's easy for a lay-person to understand

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-bad/

I'm amazed how resiliant puritanism and moral bullying is in America.

up
Voting closed 41

$3.51 per pack in tax.

Thats a lot!!!!!

up
Voting closed 44

Everyone knows that tobacco kills. The government has tried (with a good deal of success) to cut consumption via taxation. They could never quite get to the next step of banning cigarettes, as logistically that would end up being as successful as that old ban on alcohol. However, due to the vaping lung issues, the momentum and public opinion has suddenly shifted. Feeling empowered, they are taking the drastic steps of banning flavored smokes and vapes that until recently seemed unattainable. The business side of me feels like the people selling this stuff are getting screwed ("WTF, this was legal last week!") but the public health side says, "Good riddance."

up
Voting closed 55

To do whatever makes them happy, so long as it doesn't interfere with others. Banning smoking in public I get, but just restricting outright? If a person wants to smoke themselves into an early grave what business is it of the state to interject?

up
Voting closed 60

well, stopping preventable illness is an important issue. And the fewer people we have taking up hospital beds for completely preventable reasons is a net positive for us all.

plus second hand exposure harms people needlessly.

I don't have an issue with people effectively killing themselves, but it shouldn't be at a societal cost the rest of us need to bear

up
Voting closed 42

... sure. Those adults with free choice and full-coverage health care that doesn't burden taxpayers, businesses, or municipalities; no obligations to dependents or loved ones; and no moral qualms about supporting an industry that markets disease and death to anyone inclined, both domestically and abroad. "So long as it doesn't interfere with others", as you say.

up
Voting closed 41

"doesn't burden taxpayers, businesses, or municipalities;"

And this is another reason why government controlled health insurance/care will never be a win for me.

Sounds like rationing will be next.

up
Voting closed 50

"logistically that would end up being as successful as that old ban on alcohol"

Would it? Alcohol could be made in a bathtub. It could be diluted to make it last longer. It could be trucked around from Canada and the Caribbean because we had weak federal trade controls at the time.

You think everyone's going to grow enough tobacco in their house to feed their addiction and roll their own bootleg cigarettes? You think it's as easy to illegally traffic across the border as it was to move alcohol in the '20s? You think all the cigarette smokers will just turn to Mexican cigarette cartels and buy a pack here or there to satisfy their habits?

And whether it was a wise move or not at the time, Prohibition *did* work. A LOT of people no longer drank alcohol until it became legal again.

up
Voting closed 46

Next day, an outlaw. Meanwhile, next door at the pot shop . .

up
Voting closed 87

Menthols are now restricted in Boston. Never change Boston.

*It's a stereotype, but it's kind of true.

up
Voting closed 64

Are you saying this ban is discriminatory against Black people?

I think it's a great thing to save the lives of Black people by banning a dangerous product that has been marketed to them.

up
Voting closed 51

Thought they were marketed towards kids?

up
Voting closed 34

I foresee many legal challenges yet to come. Banning the same at convenience stores? OK... what about supermarkets? Many still sell cigarettes at the service counter, and minors are neither banned from there, or can buy there. If the ban truly is banning the same at neighborhood convenience stores due to access to minors, the problem is the proprietor selling to minors, and not all of them are doing that. The problem is enforcement of existing laws.

So we have legalized marijuana and created a black market for cigarettes. Way to go.

You think the issue of fireworks being sold over state lines is an issue? NH is going to get rich at the border as people flock there for carton after carton.

Oh... you have too much in your possession so that indicates a plan to illegally sell? Didn't we do that with marijuana too? Something is not right here.

As to the 2nd hand smoke argument... you'll be worse off from the auto and diesel smoke and particulates in this city.

I'm not a smoker and can do without it around me but this is political correctness gone off the track. Yeah, smoking kills people. That's why we have the Darwin Awards. And the same people are also working toward "traffic diets." I lean hard left but all fo this is an over-reach.

Let me save you the effort to typing a response.

"OK BOOMER"

up
Voting closed 58

“ As to the 2nd hand smoke argument... you'll be worse off from the auto and diesel smoke and particulates in this city”

Advocates are working to ban most motor vehicles from downtown so there goes your motor vehicle pollution is worse than cigarette smoke cop out.
Ban it all.

up
Voting closed 45

Note that it only applies to places that those under 21 can access. Adults can pollute their lungs with the stuff as much as they want, whatever their race or ethnic group.

The reason is that menthol cigarettes are more appealing to teen smokers because they taste better and aren't as harsh.

up
Voting closed 51

whelp Rhode Island or New Hampshire

up
Voting closed 41

The public’s tolerance for being subjected to secondhand smoke and vapor is shrinking.
If people must have menthol flavored tobacco, they can just eat it.

up
Voting closed 56

There's a fundamentally insoluble conundrum that will never yield to a principled, consistent solution:

  • I'm not willing to have a society that will let your kids starve to death if you die without providing for them
  • Therefore I have a direct financial interest in your well-being
  • It's consistent with that direct financial interest, to regulate behavior that puts you at risk (e.g., to require you to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, or to restrict smoking)
  • But that is, of course, a slippery slope that runs smack into liberty, which is also a core value of mine. Where does it end? Banning skiing? Outlawing cheeseburgers?

So we muddle through with a series of compromises. We restrict liberty a little more than would be ideal. We allow others to expose us to the financial consequences of their choices a little more than would be ideal. It's not a clean, pure, principled solution, but it's the best we can do. It shifts over time. It's not all bad.

up
Voting closed 46