(Boston) Parks’ smoking ban taking effect immediately

[alp227]

Source: Boston Globe

Put out that butt, or pay up.

The Boston Parks and Recreation Commission approved a smoking ban Monday in city-run parks, immediately making it illegal to smoke cigarettes, marijuana, and other “lighted or vaporized” substances under the penalty of a $250 fine.

The ban covers the 251 parks, squares, cemeteries, and other spaces run by the Parks and Recreation Department, including Boston Common, the Public Garden, and Franklin Park.

“What this has really done is allowed people to understand that this is another place where smoking isn’t allowed, and there is good reason for that,” said Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, who spoke in favor of the ban before the Parks Commission vote Monday.

Read more: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/31/boston-parks-smoking-ban-takes-effect-immediately-penalty/Vam6hCPnkDDVJAp0BoPysI/story.html

---

I wonder how many comments on DU are going to be like the comments on the Globe's Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/globe/posts/10152114777908258

[valerief]

1. Probably the same people who bitched when smoking in restaurants and bars was banned. nt

[Fearless]

2. Good. It'll make them nicer, cleaner places.

Plus it's cheaper for the city. Win-win. If people want to smoke, others should not have to put up with it. Leave it at home.

[former9thward]

13. But people have to put up with exhaust from your car.

Leave it at home.

[Fearless]

16. You can't drive your car in the parks.

[former9thward]

18. Roads all around parks. You think exhaust just stays on the roadway?

More from the anti-science crowd. Not one public health scientist backs you up. Not a single one. Of course that does not bother the earth is flat crowd.

[Fearless]

20. You have no idea what you're talking about.

And back it up with name calling. Have a nice day.

[former9thward]

21. Link?

Link to a scientist who agrees with you. The internet is a big place. Try it.

[Fearless]

25. What on earth do you think i need to link?

I said it would make for a more pleasant place and the city would have less litter to pick up costing them less money. Keep throwing straw men out there though.

[former9thward]

29. That was not the reason for the ban.

The reason was public health. This is not going to "cost less money." The city is not going to be spending less money next year than this. What is pleasant for you is not pleasant for me. Your exhaust is unpleasant to me.

[Fearless]

31. It is the reason for my comment however.

You can't rebut my comment by suggesting that a different comment is wrong. And yes exhaust sucks. But it has nothing to do with smoking. And yes we should work to limit carbon emission too. Like that big dig thing that took the central artery out of the center of the city and replaced it with parks. Stuff like that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. That looks like a ban on e-cigs, too. That seems just a bit much.

"lighted or vaporized substances"

I wonder if it applies to asthma inhalers?

[MADem]

4. I'd have to guess there's a bifurcated purpose to this law.

The cigarette ban gets rid of this:



The vaporizing ban gets rid of stoners hanging out in the park vaporizing their weed. Pot is "decriminalized" (small fine, a ticket is issued) in MA, and it's only a matter of time before the bulk of the country trots along behind Colorado. They don't want people to get the idea that they can party down downtown.

[Cha]

6. Mahalo MADem.. 52.9 Million Cigarette Butts on the Beach".. this was in

2012!



http://usresponserestoration.wordpress.com/

They were talking about something like this on Kaua'i.. it hasn't gone anywhere yet. I'm so envious of you in Boston. And, happy for you!

A Happy Healthy New Year!

[MADem]

7. Wow. I don't understand why people won't clean up after themselves.

How hard is it to "field strip" a cigarette butt? They teach ya how to do that in the military--they used to, anyway--even if ya didn't smoke!

Or just put the thing out, pick apart and roll up the filter, and carry it to the nearest trashcan.

Seems a bit piggy and rude to just throw the things down...

[Cha]

8. The grass that ends at the beach where I run is

filthy littered with them. Not to mention when I'm running and there's a smoker upwind I get to have that take over the fresh Ocean air.



Like I said.. Have a HEALTHY Happy New Year!

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. Well, there used to be ashtrays in public places.

But, yeah, cigarette litter is a drag (heh). I field strip my butts if I'm in a place without someplace to put 'em.

[MADem]

45. I still see them outside many businesses.

They aren't like the old school ones, with a bunch of kitty litter in a tray...they're more like plastic towers where you stick the butt through a hole at the top.



I suppose as smoking declines, they'll go away, too...then again, if they legalize weed, a lot of old schoolers won't want to bake the stuff into brownies or "vape" it.

[salimbag]

94. Smoking ban in Hawaii

Just saw where the state is considering a total ban on smoking at ALL Hawaii beaches. On the Big Island, we already have a ban for county parks. Sure cut down on cigarette butts!

[Live and Learn]

5. +1 nt

[SheilaT]

9. Most smokers are pigs who just don't care.

I know that will offend all of the smoker who will virtuously state that they NEVER drop butts, and they NEVER smoke where it is unwelcome, but sorry, you are wrong. Smoking is stinky, nasty, disgusting and is never welcome.

It's not as though the dangers and disadvantages of smoking are breaking news. All of you who took us smoking since the Surgeon General's report in 1964 have no excuse.

Please do not ask me to be sympathetic to your addiction. You willingly decided to be addicted. Live with it. Or die with it. But do not smoke anywhere near me.

[jtuck004]

10. Pigs? I've always been treated better by smokers than judgemental assholes (JA) like John Boehner or

Ted Cruz, people of that ilk, people who think they know so much better than anyone else how someone ought to live, the kind of people who think it's perfectly acceptable to tie a woman's pregnancy to being raped with an ultrasound wand being among a thousand other behaviors they exhibit to prove their superiority over others.

This isn't about you, of course, and I will reiterate that in a moment.

Frankly, I think people such as that have been the cause of as much misery and death as smoking ever was. At least smokers die mostly knowing that they were hurting themselves, although the cigarettes gave them pleasure, perhaps to offset other pain. It's fairly common knowledge that second-hand smoke might be dangerous for others, and most, in my experience, at least go outside so as not to hurt others, or because they are mandated.

On the other hand, it's a pity there are no rules that prohibit the pain administered by those seeking a feeling of pleasure and boost to the ego from the vindictive pummeling they distribute to the target of their ire. Something that would make them hold their vicious tongue in check.

It's too bad compassion isn't among the gifts of the JA. Cigarettes are drugs, and rightly or wrongly people often turn to drugs to ease the pain which comes from being on the receiving end of bullying behavior, or just ordinary meanness and disrespect, or when they have just been unlucky in life or not had the privileges the ungrateful privileged have. To tell the truth, I understand the drug users behavior a lot more than the person who just wants to hurt others and then hide behind a veil of self-righteousness, pretending that they are making things better when they are, in fact, simply adding to the poison that swirls around all of us, the misery that may well have started their neighbors behavior, the root of what they see as the most horrid act ever in the history of person-kind.

I don't smoke cigarettes anymore, but I would rather be around smokers than people like that. There are worse ways to die, and for sure worse people to be around when you do.

So let me make this clear. None of this has been about you, of course, because you aren't that kind of person, right? I'm almost certain that, if asked, you would agree with that. Regardless, I hope you get what you want. And I want you to know, even though I don't smoke anymore, if I could have but one wish granted, I wouldn't waste it on this. But if I were given 3, I might use one of them to make sure I don't have to spend any time around you at all. Because I'm pretty sure you would be happier with that, and I know I would be.

Happy New Year!

[Sheldon Cooper]

15. Well said.

[dipsydoodle]

11. Not sure any Muslims or Jewish people who smoke would appreciate that remark.

.

[Comrade Grumpy]

40. Most non-smokers are not judgmental assholes.

Some are.

[SheilaT]

93. It's the smokers, in my opinion,

who are the judgmental assholes.

They're the ones who are constantly complaining that they are being judged, that they are being unfairly discriminated against, when they just don't get it that they stink, that they are creating all sorts of situations that are awful.

I simply have no sympathy for anyone who took up smoking after the Surgeon General's report of 1964 -- almost 50 years ago now. Do NOT ask me to have compassion for your deliberate addiction. You chose it. You must understand that it's yours alone.

Maybe I'm a judgmental asshole. I just want to acknowledge who is responsible for what. You took up smoking after 1964? Fine. But you did that with the full understanding of the dangers.

I work in a place where smokers think they are being thoughtful by smoking outside. All well and good, but when the walk inside and come talk to me I can clearly tell they've been smoking. No, I don't gag or say anything. Maybe I should. Maybe all smokers need to be reminded that all of us can tell when they've been smoking.

[Scruffy Rumbler]

99. LOL

It must be so nice to be sooo perfect and not need to practice compassion!

[beaglelover]

91. I would not want to be anywhere close to someone

as unpleasant as you.

[truthisfreedom]

12. Wow, that will make life more pleasant for non-smokers and

Children.

[former9thward]

14. No it won't.

It is anti-science. Not a single health study or science study backs it up. Not one.

[Fearless]

17. .

[former9thward]

19. After you finish laughing I'm sure you will link to public health studies that back you.

But that may be a long time.

[Fearless]

22. Ok the increase in business after smoking was banned

In restaurants and bars. If you want look it up. If you want proof that it will make a more pleasant experience ask a waiter or waitress.

[former9thward]

24. Nice try at deflecting.

But I won't let you do it. The OP is about parks. Not restaurants. Where is the public health scientist who says someone smoking in a park is a danger to someone else in the park? Anti-science.

[Fearless]

27. Number one you made up the word dangerous.

I said pleasant. It will make the park-going experience more PLEASANT. Do you really think i need to find a study showing that nonsmokers feel it's more pleasant not to be smoked around in public places?

[former9thward]

30. I find you to be unpleasant.

Do I get to ban you and people like you? There is a lot of "unpleasant" things in life. You don't own this world.

[Fearless]

32. Nor do you.

[geek tragedy]

64. smoking is a public nuisance, and only libertarian extremists object to public nuisance

laws.

People have a right to indulge in their own personal filthy, unhealthy habit, but they don't have a right to subject other people to it.

[former9thward]

66. Why isn't illegal then?

It is a public nuisance to you. You don't own or control the world.

[geek tragedy]

68. It is illegal in many places where it's a nuisance to non-smokers.

Restaurants, bars, workplaces, to name a few.

Public nuisance is a nuisance to the public, who do get to control public space.

"You don't own or control the world"

Deep.

[former9thward]

73. To name a few...

All you named were indoors. Not relevant to the OP. The public is not you. Despite you hopes and wishes. I live in the largest college town in the U.S with 80,000 students as residents. The University tried to impose a outdoor smoking ban and the students rebelled. They were forced to withdraw the ban. Thank god for a new generation that rejects authoritarianism and does not accept every piece of nonsense the government hands down without question.

[geek tragedy]

74. It's been banned in NYC since 2011.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/23/new.york.smoking.ban/index.html

And, before you can cry "Nanny State Bloomberg" . . .

New York City follows in the footsteps of 105 municipalities (in states including California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New Jersey) that have banned smoking on public beaches, according to data from the advocacy group Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. Major cities include Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Seattle.

In states including California, Texas, Illinois, Minnesota and New Jersey, 507 municipalities impose laws that prohibit city parks, or specifically named city parks, to allow smoking. Major cities include Los Angeles, San Francisco and Salt Lake City.

Puerto Rico prohibits smoking in all parks and beaches.

So, yeah, turns out smokers don't have a right to control what nonsmokers breathe. Smoking is an indefensible habit, and no one disagrees that the fewer smokers and the less smoking that occurs, the better.

[former9thward]

78. You are posting old news why?

Of course some places have banned it. So what. Does not mean it was based on science. What about the ban on e-cigs. Do those send you into a panic also? Are they polluting your environment? A new generation is rejecting this nonsense. Yours will be gone soon enough.

[geek tragedy]

80. The only shrinking demographic is the nicotine addict/air polluter demo.

Banning people from exposing others to lethal toxins is science-based. The onus is on the polluters to prove that exposing other people to their filthy toxins is harmless.

[former9thward]

82. Nope, young people reject this anti-science nonsense.

You are part of a dying generation, literally.

[geek tragedy]

85. now you're just talking gibberish.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6035.pdf#page=21

smoking is on a downhill trend. Also, public smoking bans are becoming more common, not less, your vague anecdote notwithstanding.

[Bandit]

101. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The entire premise of the discussion is that it has been made illegal in State Parks..

[former9thward]

102. Did you read any of the thread?

It was others who have brought up EVERYTHING but parks. I pointed out there is no scientific evidence or study which shows smoking in parks harms anybody. None. Zero. It is YOU who is being deliberately obtuse.

[jamzrockz]

71. Public places you say?

Now some cities are trying to make it illegal to smoke in your own apartments. Personally, I think we should still have smoke bars in public, places designated solely for those who want to smoke and for workers who do not mind inhaling said smoke.

If you have a problem with it, then ban smoking already instead of this creeping legislative route to slowing cut off every possible place for smokers to smoke.

[geek tragedy]

76. "worker safety optional" zones are a Libertarian idea, not something

that workers' rights and public health advocates take seriously.

Cigarette sales should be banned--at least an argument can be made for marijuana's medicinal properties along with cocaine, opium poppy etc. If something is indisputably bad with zero benefits, that's the kind of thing that should get banned.

[jamzrockz]

81. Serious some of you older liberals are no fun

I mean whats next? forcing porn stars to use condoms because of worker safety? Also stop calling everything libertarian ideas. I was against all these smoking ban laws before I knew there was anything like libertarianism.

[geek tragedy]

83. I will call libertarian ideas libertarian ideas.

Sorry that 'fun' is less important than human life and health.

And, FYI:

http://news.yahoo.com/los-angeles-voters-approve-mandating-condom-porn-performers-214650731.html

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - Los Angeles County voters have approved a measure requiring porn performers to wear condoms while filming sex scenes, prompting a pledge by the adult entertainment industry to sue to overturn the measure.

With 100 per cent of the county's precincts reporting, Measure B passed 56 per cent to 44 per cent in Tuesday's election.

The measure requires adult film producers to apply for a permit from the county Department of Public Health to shoot sex scenes. Permit fees will finance periodic inspections of film sets to enforce compliance.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsored the initiative, says the measure will help safeguard the public, as well as porn workers, from sexually transmitted infections.

LA County, btw, voted Brown/Boxer over Whitman/Fiorina 62-32, and Obama over Romney 68-28.

[jamzrockz]

84. Oh my, talk about truth being stranger than fiction

This is why we really need younger, progressive and more open minded people to start voting again. Safety is one thing but it has to be with some reason. 2 people deciding to have sex without a protection is not the voting public's business.

Sorry, but its these kind of laws that is destroying this country. Land of the free my ass.

[geek tragedy]

86. Funny how you defend libertarians and spout libertarian talking points

nonstop here.

Can't have it both ways--if sex is a private matter, then it's a private matter. If it's economic activity and labor, then it needs to be regulated by the state for health and disease issues.

If someone's getting paid for it, it's economic activity and labor. And all but the crackpot libertarian fringe agree that economic activity needs to be regulated, especially when it comes to workers.

[jamzrockz]

87. Hey if its really that dangerous

Why just restrict it for people in the work place. I mean 2 people having sex should be required to wear condom. It is for safety right?

Come on man, you continue on this path, you'll end up bubble wrapping everybody alive to protect them from danger.

[geek tragedy]

88. Another idiotic libertarian talking point.

Hey if its really that dangerous Why just restrict it for people in the work place.

Hey, if people are willing to do something around their home for free, why have a minimum wage law in the workplace?

Hey, why have OSHA at all if none of its provisions apply to people working around their own home?

[jamzrockz]

89. What the hell are you talking about?

We have many laws in this country against living in dangerous places. Watch the show hoarders and you will see state health departments removing people from their homes for being a danger to themselves.

That is more in line with what I am talking about than the minimum wage and house chores.

[geek tragedy]

90. the discussion was worker safety regulations.

Your answer to a worker safety regulation on condom use was to suggest that it didn't make sense to regulate it in the workplace but not in the private space. Or, to be more precise, that we shouldn't regulate the paid labor space if we wouldn't be willing to regulate the same behavior in the privacy of people's homes.

Which is utter nonsense.

None of the OSHA regulations apply to people working in the privacy of their own homes:

https://www.osha.gov/law-regs.html

By your standards, they should be abolished entirely.

[jamzrockz]

62. One evidence to know that this increased in business thing is a lie

is to watch how much restaurants bitch when say a Keno places that serve food is excepted from the "No smoke" law. If it was so good for business, the business would have done it without the help of the various state health departments banning it.

You can say that it is good for non smokers who may not care either way for smoking but please don't tell me it is good for business.

[Fearless]

69. You're talking to a restaurant manager

And you're statistically wrong.

[jamzrockz]

70. My dad owned as restaurant too, so am not totally clueless on the issue

But riddle me this, if it is really good for business, why would restaurant bitch about it when some establishments are exempt from the law? I mean the less number of places with smoking ban should take all the business of all those people that want to patronize a smoke free place.

If anything they should be mum about it, but instead they complain and complain until the rule covers every establishment that sells food.

[Fearless]

92. Who has complained within a year of the ban being implemented?

No one. Because, people were biased at first, afraid they would lose profit. Eventually they realized that they were actually making more money. It makes fiscal sense, because you get more kids and families and people who don't smoke stay longer. People who do smoke still go to these places, they just step outside if they need to. It's really not a big deal to anyone in the restaurant industry.

[truthisfreedom]

23. What does "pleasant" mean to you?

I detest cigarette smoke. I find it pleasant when none is around. End of story. Go spout your public health studies somewhere relevant. If it was up to me, cigarettes would cost $50 / pack and rising.

[former9thward]

26. At least you admit it.

You reject science. You reject public health studies. I find your exhaust to be unpleasant. I would like gas to be $100 a gallon and rising.

[Fearless]

28. So would i

Global warming sucks.

[Eleanors38]

34. There is a strong prohibitionist streak in DU which WILL NOT be changed.

[Nye Bevan]

46. Regardless of health issues, smoke smells disgusting and is unpleasant to breath.

Even leaving aside any associations with disease, I fully support public smoking bans.

[former9thward]

48. Some people are authoritarian, some are not.

Do you go "ewww" at a barbecue where there is smoke? About a campfire? Or maybe you have never been invited to any of those... There are some people who just can't stand if someone else is enjoying themselves. Drives them nuts.

[Nye Bevan]

52. I'm old enough to remember when smoking was allowed in bars.

After 2 or 3 hours in a pub, the stench of my clothes the next day was absolutely disgusting. I'm not surprised that restaurant and bar custom has increased since smoking has been banned in these places. Oh, and I also remember cigarette smoke drifting around on airplanes before those fun-hating "authoritarians" banned that too.

[former9thward]

53. So if you are in a park your clothes are going to have a "stench".

It sounds like you are literally on top of that guy who is smoking.

I don't know about the bar business increasing or decreasing. Everybody with an agenda pro and con posts anecdotal stories but never any hard information. Where I live it is warm at night year round and every bar has an outside patio. We can sit outside and smoke and drink and enjoy ourselves so no one cares about the smoke ban inside. The few anti-smoking freaks are stuck inside instead of being in nice fresh air.

It was not public health people that got smoking banned in airplanes. It was the airline industry who saw a way to increase profits. When smoking was allowed the airlines had to bring in large volumes of fresh air to ventilate the airline. Since you are flying at 35k feet the air is about -40 F and needs to be heated or you will turn the passengers into icicles. That cost a lot of money. Now the airlines simply circulate the same stale air over and over and passengers all get to have everyone else's disease. That is why it feels so refreshing to get off a plane. So it was increasing profit for the airlines not authoritarians who got rid of airline smoking. Have fun!

[Nye Bevan]

56. Hey, the more the "authoritarians" get their bans, the more pleasant it is to breathe.

Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2014, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Reading this whole thread, it's pretty obvious that you're fighting a losing battle.

[former9thward]

58. Do you really think this thread reflects the views of the nation?

It doesn't reflect young people I guarantee you that and they are the future. But no matter I enjoy life despite the failed attempts of others to control me.

[LanternWaste]

59. And traffic lights determine which are which.

"Some people are authoritarian, some are not....


And traffic lights determine which are which.

(Insert distinction without a difference here)

[Scout]

95. BBQ smells good, and so does a campfire...

they don't stink like cigarette smoke and cigarette smokers.

your silly little comments about people not being able to stand it if others are enjoying themselves, or that they've never been invited somewhere really aren't helping your argument. they make you appear infantile and unable to actually debate your point.

[former9thward]

96. Wow, looking at threads a month old...

Some people have alot of time on their hands... Well guess what? You don't get to decide what smells good or stinks -- except for your self. But I'm infantile and unable to debate my point. See ya next month.

[Scout]

97. ooooo well pardon fucking me!

another poster called this thread up to the top of the list ... see post #94 ... pardon fucking me for commenting on a post. don't worry, you're not so important that i was combing through old threads LOL

as far as appearing infantile, this is what i said:

your silly little comments about people not being able to stand it if others are enjoying themselves, or that they've never been invited somewhere really aren't helping your argument. they make you appear infantile and unable to actually debate your point.

but you won't see this, cuz you're not checking for another month!!

[former9thward]

98. I lied!

[Zorra]

47. Anytime I smell tobacco smoke, it makes my life less pleasant,

because the smell of tobacco smoke is extremely offensive to me.

As are the hundreds of millions of cigarette butts that inconsiderate smokers throw on the ground every year.

Fact.

I don't need a scientific study to prove that.

[former9thward]

49. Your car exhaust is extremely offensive to me.

But I know, that's different. Because its YOU.

[FailureToCommunicate]

51. What is it about you and car exhaust? This thread is about an attempt to clean up public places and

public health. Massachusettes has had universal health car for years now and so it makes sense to take additional steps to minimise the price we all have to pay for unhealthy behavior anywhere, and public spaces in particular.

(By the way, I see upthread that you are inclined to, eh, not let go of things... so I may not be responding.)

[former9thward]

54. I like to point out hypocrisy in people's positions.

Others don't like to see that.

[AuntPatsy]

55. Sadly your wasting your time, one of the many reasons DU is not a very healthy every day habit, they

Won't choose to get it because if they did they would have to cease some of their enjoyed habits...

[geek tragedy]

63. Your statement is true if you consider the tobacco industry the only source of science

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12649

[former9thward]

65. Fail.

There has never been a study of second-hand smoke showing a danger in an open area such as a park. None. Try again. Show the science geek.

[geek tragedy]

67. So, you're not disputing that second hand smoke is dangerous, just complaining that

no scientific study has been conducted to measure its danger given the circumstances in question here, where those conditions are impossible to model or study in a scientific study.

[former9thward]

72. Your lack of science is telling.

At least public health science. It would be the easiest thing in world to set up air monitors in a park where people were smoking and determine if there was any exposure. I know, I have done those studies. When I was doing graduate work in public health science for the U of I, I monitored coke oven emissions in Chicago neighborhoods surrounding steel mills. The EPA still uses the data to this day in their air quality modeling.

The science is against you not for you in this case. But that won't stop anti-science types.

[geek tragedy]

75. Science says second hand smoke kills thousands each year. It is not anti-science to treat

the equally dangerous and disgusting practice of smoking as the problem it is.

There is no right to pollute your neighbor's lungs. Boo hoo.

[former9thward]

77. You are desperate to move the goal post.

No science has ever said SS has killed even one person in an outdoor setting -- or even injured them. Not one. Science hater.

[geek tragedy]

79. Project much?

Undisputed fact, per science: second hand smoke is bad for people's health, killing thousands per year.

You: Well, they didn't conduct scientific studies as to whether second hand smoke kills people under xyz conditions, so nyah nyah nyah.

Sorry, 'science' doesn't say there are no health consequences for second hand smoke in public parks. To the extent it has spoken, it has spoken in general terms that second hand smoke is so toxic that it kills thousands every year. Whether certain environmental conditions mitigate that so that exposure to the toxins and carcinogens in public parks creates only short-term health consequences (e.g. triggering asthma attacks) is an open question, and one that is not particularly susceptible to scientific studies.

[hughee99]

50. I think they should look at banning children next.

That would make it more pleasant for non-smokers without young children.

[AuntPatsy]

57. Your giving some ideas, quite a few have already praised some restaurants banning children as well

As praising the idea of childless flights....

[Nye Bevan]

61. As a father, I have no problem at all with restaurants deciding to ban children.

Even Disney has banned children at one of its restaurants in Florida (Victoria and Albert's).

[Eleanors38]

33. General prohibition of tobacco IS coming closer.

Bringing with it the mis allocation of police & court resources, corruption, black markets, smuggling, and the usual trappings of U.S.-style Prohibition.™

It appears that most of the Facebook comments ring far truer than the ones in this thread.

[truthisfreedom]

36. Why shouldn't a pack of cigs cost as much

As the equivalent amount of weed? Cigs cause far more health problems for their users. We can't drink on the streets of many major cities. Is that prohibition?

[Eleanors38]

43. When you tax something inordinately high, a black market ensues.

I don't believe we are dealing with alcohol policy.

Keep in mind that tobacco is addictive, so people will continue to seek it -- at the cheapest price, which will be set by the smugglers. Same as ut ever was.

The "controversy" over vaping revealed the tobacco ban movement to be just that: General Prohibition, not second-hand smoke

[gopiscrap]

37. Good

[seveneyes]

39. What possible justification was used to ban electric cigs?

No smoke and no litter from them. This kind of complete ignorance and stupidity of lawmakers helps support the negative remarks against them. Common sense is elusive for these people.

[Comrade Grumpy]

42. One poster upthread has an explanation:

The vaporizer ban is aimed at pot, er, inhalers.

Of course, the law doesn't specify that (I don't think), so we get a baseless ban on a harmless (to others) activity, using e-cigs.

The prohibitionist impulse is strong.

[Eleanors38]

44. See #33 & 43.

[RandiFan1290]

41. Time to ban eating in parks too

[RadleyJ]

60. This will put a real damper on the Boston Hemp Fest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Rally