• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Boston expanded smoking restrictions

surfish.dave

New Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
268
Sorry for the c&p. A bit long but please read.

BOSTON - Sometimes Justin Hegarty savors his cigars by himself, and sometimes he enjoys them in a cigar bar with friends. "Either way, it's relaxing," said Hegarty, soon after an afternoon smoke at Churchill's cigar lounge.

Hegarty may need to find a new city where he can wind down with his cherished stogies.

The Boston Public Health Commission is scheduled to vote soon on expanded smoking restrictions that would be among the nation's toughest. The proposal would ban cigar bars and hookah bars, which currently enjoy exemptions from Boston's four-year-old workplace smoking ban. It would also eliminate sales of tobacco in pharmacies and on college campuses.

The commission gave preliminary approval to the rules in September, and is scheduled for a final vote Thursday.

Boston would be the largest city, by far, to outlaw smoking bars. Hegarty was baffled about what the city hoped to accomplish, and said it seemed almost unconstitutional.

"The framers would err on the side of freedom when it comes to issues like this," Hegarty said. "People are free to enter (cigar bars) or not enter."

Roger Swartz, director of the community initiatives bureau at the Boston Public Health Commission, said the dangers of tobacco are so great, significant steps are needed to protect public health.

"Regulations based on data are not done just to kind of hassle people," he said. "For a product like tobacco ... even if someone was doing it voluntarily, there is no safe exposure level."

Right now, there are no state bans on smoking bars; 52 communities nationwide have bans that include private clubs and cigar bars, according to Americans for Nonsmokers Rights. Fort Wayne, Ind., is among the largest communities with such a ban, and smaller cities in Massachusetts such as Pittsfield and Lynn also have it.

But a ban in Boston could have "a ripple effect" around the country because of the size and influence of the city, said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association. The ban would not go into effect for five years.

The proposed ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies is not as unique in big cities; a similar ban went into effect in San Francisco in October, despite a pending court challenge.

Bill Rennie, vice president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, which represents pharmacies, said prohibiting the sale of tobacco products there is unfair because nearby competing business could still sell them.

"It's not eliminating the sale of tobacco by any means," he said. "It's just picking winners and losers in terms of who's allowed to sell it and who isn't."

But Margaret LaCroix of the American Lung Association said a tobacco ban is common sense in pharmacies, which by nature sell health products, because "we know that (tobacco) kills."

If the expanded ban passes, the tobacco sales bans on campuses and pharmacies would go into effect in 60 days. Since the smoking bars have five years to shut down, that could leave time for compromise. Mayor Tom Menino supports the expanded ban because of a commitment to stopping youth smoking, said spokesman Nick Martin. But Menino is open to compromise with the city's six cigar bars because they're neighborhood businesses and attract an older audience than the hookah bars, Martin said.

Swartz said the unexpected rise in license requests for the hookah bars was a major reason the city moved to lift the exemption for smoking bars. Just one hookah bar was licensed when the smoking ban went into effect in 2004, but now five hookah bars have permits. The bars are popular near college campuses, and offer tobacco in various flavors, including watermelon and chocolate chip. People use a hookah pipe - common in Asia and Africa - to inhale smoke filtered through water.

Swartz said the hookah is a serious health hazard, and its appeal to young people is alarming.

"It's becoming sort of trendy and you can sit around with a group of people and share and it has sort of a social quality to it," he said, adding it's "viewed as though you're being exposed to other cultures in a way that is fun and exciting."

Eric Kahn, president of the Sherlock Holmes Pipe Club of Boston, says people should be allowed to enjoy smoking. His club has met in various spots around the city over the years, including Cigar Masters cigar bar. Members discuss everything from politics to pipe carvers, and relish the taste of the tobacco. They shouldn't feel like outcasts because the government doesn't approve, he said. They'll smoke elsewhere if Boston bans the smoking bars, but it's the wrong the thing to do, Kahn said.

"It adds to the image of the pariah. It adds to the image that smokers are evil and doing terrible things to the world," Kahn said. "They like what they're doing."

Added by myself: C'mon all you Boston area BOTL / SOTL's. Don't let this happen. Contact you legislators. Tell them you vote and you are against this ban.

If this happens in Boston, which city will be next? We are holding our own in NJ, but I'd hate to see them close Mahogany's in Philly.
 
Roger Swartz, director of the community initiatives bureau at the Boston Public Health Commission, said the dangers of tobacco are so great, significant steps are needed to protect public health.


Hey Roger Swartz,
I wear big boy pants.

Have been for years. Leave me the F&*K alone please!!!!!!!
 
Iowa is considering loosening their ban to let bar owners decide for themselves how to run their business. As a resident of Iowa, I have to do all in my power to stay this madness of free choice. I'd much rather our apathetically voted in officials make those decisions for people. :sign:
 
Okay, I'm sorry. This is going to turn into a rant, so feel free to scroll down and ignore me.

I am so F***ing sick of people in this country trying to pass money making anti-tobacco legislation under the GUISE (and yes I SAY GUISE, because that's what it is) of being pro health. This is America, we are consenting adults and we deserve to be able to choose to go to an establishment that serves the sole purpose of tobacco sales to enjoy a relaxing smoke. That tobacco is of "too great a health risk" is fallacious because it is the CHOICE of such an establishment's patrons to enter the premises. It comes down to personal accountability, like most things in life. If you choose to smoke, you accept the inherent health risks. If you choose to eat fast food, you accept the inherent health risks. If you choose not to exercise, you accept the inherent health risks. If you choose a high stress job YOU ACCEPT THE INHERENT HEALTH RISKS. I do not want the government telling me what to do. This country was founded economically upon tobacco crops, and ideologically upon freedom, and I for one am getting sick of the health diversion used by these greedy lobbyists to undermine both of these.

I live in the Boston area, although I'm currently at school in NYC. Boston is a BEAUTIFUL city, and is my favorite, but the liberal utilitarian agenda is starting to really PISS me off and make it an unappealing place.

I'm going to stop before I have a stroke, but personally I'm about ready to start making calls. This is a blatant attack on our civil liberties, and one that sets out against hard working people who just happen to enjoy a good smoke. I guess we should have expected this after the precedent we, as a country have chosen to set in the past 2 decades. Bull Shit.

And yes, I will join the cigar rights club or whatever its called.

THE END.
 
I really am getting tired of the governments deciding what is right for us and what we need to to to protect ourselves from ourselves. It is really getting out of hand everywhere, next thing you know they are going to be installing smoke detectors in our homes and cars to alert "the man" to when we are smoking. I know that seems out of hand and way too far but if things keep going like they are and how "they" want it to, it's like 1984 and "Big Brother" is watching.


Spelling, oops. :blush:
 
I wouldn't expect less from the Socialist Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Doc.
 
Bah! You guys have it easy. For the last year, smoking is banned inside ALL business with NO exceptions in Australia. The government is now passing laws that enable your landlord to ban smoking in his property, as well as forcing a ban in apartments.

Seems Australia loves the money gained from all these bans.
 
I was talking to a man at my local B&M who used to bar tend in Chicago while he was in college for some extra money. He told me he loved cigar smokers because they would sit down and smoke for an hour and a half and have quite a few drinks which translates into a large tip.

Those of you who aren't familiar with Chicago's laws, you are not allowed to smoke in public places. However, you can smoke in hookah and cigar lounges with the grandfather clause.

Anyway, the man said that people couldn't smoke cigars in the bars he made so much less that he quit his job. People would come in and have a beer then leave to go smoke their cigars.

The cities just don't realized that they are shooting themselves in the foot by banning tobacco. They don't make the tax money and they will have to make in up in a sales tax or property tax. My guess is if the question on the ballet was

"Would you rather allow smoking and have no tax raises or ban tobacco and pay higher taxes?"

95% percent of the people would want to keep the tobacco shops.
 
What happens when the revenues (say taxes) stop coming in to the states from tobacco sales (in my state, 37% of the wholesale cost plus a 7% sales tax on cigars alone)?

Can you say higher property and/or income taxes?
 
What happens when the revenues (say taxes) stop coming in to the states from tobacco sales (in my state, 37% of the wholesale cost plus a 7% sales tax on cigars alone)?

Can you say higher property and/or income taxes?


'Higher property and/or income taxes.'
 
What happens when the revenues (say taxes) stop coming in to the states from tobacco sales (in my state, 37% of the wholesale cost plus a 7% sales tax on cigars alone)?

Can you say higher property and/or income taxes?
Taxachusettes already has those. Which is why they come to NH to buy their cigars and booze. The bastids can't drive worth a shit and it makes it dangerous for those of us who live here. Fuggin' Massholes. No offense to our Mass brothers here who I'm sure don't fit that description. :whistling:


Doc.
 
What happens when the revenues (say taxes) stop coming in to the states from tobacco sales (in my state, 37% of the wholesale cost plus a 7% sales tax on cigars alone)?

Can you say higher property and/or income taxes?


'Higher property and/or income taxes.'

Love the Aussie sense of humor. :thumbs:

I read an article a couple of weeks ago stating how roughly 30% of the money "big tobacco" has paid to the states in their settlement is being used for health concerns. They stated example after example of states using the money for earmarks and pet projects such as museums, stadiums, etc. This lawsuit and I'll even say the smoking bans have little to nothing to do with health concerns. It's all a pile of rotting BS IMO.
 
There is a grave irony in Boston, of all places, impeding more and more into people's freedoms. I realize that it's a national thing, but this thread is about Boston.
 
There is a grave irony in Boston, of all places, impeding more and more into people's freedoms. I realize that it's a national thing, but this thread is about Boston.


Oh you mean like how Boston was the place of such important anti taxation anti monopoly protest events as the Boston Tea Party? Boston Massacre? Yeah its ironic, and it is sad.
 
We have a smoking ban here in Holland since July 1 but a lot of bars don't care and let you smoke, they would go bancrupt!
And our fine gouvernement is going to raise tax on beer an wine +30% jan 1.

Good luck,

Rene
 
Top