Hey, there! Log in / Register

Liquid nicotine in a tube now illegal for Boston teens and in the workplace and restaurants

The Boston Public Health Commission yesterday enacted regulations that prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 - and their use in the workplace. the new rules will also soon make it illegal to sell single cigars and doubles the fines for violations.

The new regulations essentially classify e-cigarettes - in which a canister of nicotine is heated to create nicotine vapor - the same as regular cigarettes. Retailers will now have to get a city permit to sell them - and any other nicotine delivery systems clever manufacturers can come up with. Until yesterday, it was legal to sell e-cigarettes to minors, the board says.

The workplace ban on e-cigarettes includes restaurant patios and decks and loading docks, the board says.

The ban on single-cigar sales, which goes into effect in January, is aimed at cutting off an increasingly popular source of tobacco for teens, the board says.

Neighborhoods: 
Ad:

Comments

So if I want to buy a single Padron 3000 from LJ Peretti, it is illegal? Or does it just apply to garbage machine made cigars, such as Phillies?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm wondering the same thing. Is there a place to read the details of this new regulation?

up
Voting closed 0

I am a very occasional cigar smoker. I can't fathom ever wanting to buy more than one. And I can assure anyone who's interested, the single cigars I do buy would never be used by a teen as an easy tobacco fix.

up
Voting closed 0

The reg is not easy to find, but it is on the health commission site. Assuming, as I do, that they passed the proposed form there, the short of it is that any cigar with a retail price of $2.50 or higher is exempt.

up
Voting closed 0

A study by BU determined that there's nowhere near the levels of carcinogens in e-cigarette output that there is in a normal cigarette. That makes sense since you're not burning plant matter soaked in formaldehyde and other toxic crap and then dried. You're talking about nicotine vapor (with a few potential crappy additives to make it vaporize better). I just don't see why the science isn't leading on this (and it's so far been a mix of results but multiple studies seem to think it's about the same as licking a nicotine patch). If there's zero-to-little secondhand effect (the justification for a workplace ban), then for what new justification is this being banned at workplaces?

BU Study summary: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-evidence-e-cig...

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

Proponents argued that e-cigarette solution is known to contain nicotine and a number of toxic chemicals and carcinogens, and that the safety of e-cigarette vapors has not been established by the FDA.

So what if it contains nicotine? What does that have to do with a workplace ban? Also, should the FDA find, as a number of other countries have, that there is little to no risk to the non-smoking co-employee, what's the actual chance they'd deregulate the workplace ban? I'm betting it's somewhere between zero and none.

THIS is the non-scientific, over-reactionary, nanny-state bullshit that makes liberals look bad and feeds conservative anger at their "loss of freedoms to the government".

Instead, they should have led the way by having a detailed study of secondhand effects from these products being used in a workplace setting and compared those effects to a pre-determined "acceptable level" of toxicity for different potential carcinogens. If normal use of the product overwhelmed their thresholds, then by all means go ahead and ban it in the workplace...but this just reeks of "I have a hammer and everything's a nail".

up
Voting closed 0

SPIT!

Unless there is a "smokeless tobacco" ban at workplaces (arguably more offensive then e-ciggy vapor), this makes no sense.

Harmonizing e-cig and cig age laws makes some sense - the rest is just "lets pile on some stuff". If you don't want kids getting cigars, enforce the age restrictions. Period.

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks for the link! Answers my question above, and it looks like finer cigars are safe. Phew!

up
Voting closed 0

Spoke too soon. Looks like I'll still have to buy in "original manufacturers packaging of at least four." No indication of whether that applies to all cigars or just the cheap ones aimed at younger smokers. Time to buy a humidor, I suppose.

up
Voting closed 0

See above. Cigars retailing over $2.50 are exempt from the no-single regulation.

up
Voting closed 0

PHEW!

up
Voting closed 0

The City's slow-motion campaign against tobacco is getting annoying. Just ban sales and consumption of tobacco within city limits and be done with it - that's the end-game here anyways.

up
Voting closed 0

crime to flourish as a black market becomes super profitable!

Really, we've gone through this before (and currently still are with other soft drugs). Did some BC students just get assaulted over a little bit of weed? Few years back some people were murdered in Allston execution style over drugs, not sure if their assailants were caught...

Policy and law that has no basis in science and human interaction, but instead implements something because some asshole group thinks it's "icky" is bound to be nothing but an expensive failure all around.

up
Voting closed 0

The legal age to buy regular cigarettes in Massachusetts is 18.

In the press release you linked to, I don't see any mention of a 21-year-old age limit.

up
Voting closed 0

I got my drinking and smoking ages mixed up.

up
Voting closed 0

you mean prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 years old, not 21....

up
Voting closed 0

I believe that the DPH includes e-cigaretts in their "quit" literature. I recall a poster in my doctors office from them that included e-cigaretts and a tool for quitting.

up
Voting closed 0

Since nicotine is highly addictive I reason that this is a good example where an ounce of prevention is worth the pound of cure. I don't see this as nanny state excess. It is common sense. Inserting nicotine into an enclosed atmosphere forces non-users an addictive drug.

This might not be a big deal for someone who has not been addicted to nicotine. But for anyone who has been addicted to nicotine inserting the drug into the air that they breathe is dangerous. It opens a short road to resuming nicotine use.

That alone makes the presence dangerous. This is an instance where local government is satisfying its responsibility for helping maintain healthier environments.

up
Voting closed 0

Are we going to ban those next?

Trace amounts are trace amounts, that's why some science is needed here.

As far as I know trace amount of airborne nicotine are not what make cigaret smoke a health hazard. If these e-cigarettes are putting out levels of nicotine similar to whats found in food, I don't think banning their use is very logical or rational.

Letting kids get their hands on them is a different story.

up
Voting closed 0

The local government would enforce bans on people who don't smoke. I am against E-Cigarettes because they are a substitute for real cigarettes which you should be required by law to smoke.

up
Voting closed 0

Uhhhh, do you have any actual scientific literature about secondhand exposure increasing the odds of smokers who've quit falling off the wagon, because we're talking about extremely tiny percentages of nicotine in the air here. Even with a 100% addictive index, it's still got to get into the body in a percentage high enough to actually be effective, and I find it a bit less than credible that e-cigarettes are just spraying nicotine everywhere.

up
Voting closed 0

E-cigarettes are like a nebulizer or inhaler, not like a humidifier or original cigarette. They only heat up the liquid for dispersal to the *user's mouth* when you draw in a breath on them (or some are manually activated by a button on the tube). The rest of the time, it's just a little bottle of liquid in a tube that looks like a cigarette. There's no active dispersal like with a humidifier or burning cigarette.

In other words, the only worry I can see to a secondhand smoker is whatever is going to come out of the "smoker's" mouth after they've had a chance to absorb everything or whatever minor residual amounts get aerosolized by the warm heating element but not inhaled at the end of the smoker's draw.

up
Voting closed 0

This is the most misinformed and ignorant statement I've seen yet on this forum. In the future, please do some research before inserting both feet into your mouth.

up
Voting closed 0

...then we need to include alcohol (Prohibition worked so well), caffeine, sugar, many prescription drugs, gambling, sex and the Internet.

I'd love to see the proposed legislation.

up
Voting closed 0

This is the nanny state-iest part of the article to me. If we're going to ban the sale of single cigars because they get into kids' hands, why not also ban Bud Light and other cheap beer because that's what underage kids drink? Let's also ban prescription painkillers because some people abuse them, outlaw fast food because some people eat it every day, and pass a law against skinny jeans because they're not flattering on some people.

I don't really know what kids get into these days, but I have my doubts that single cigars are really a growing source of tobacco. When I was a teenager we bought cigars to hollow out, fill with weed and roll blunts. Blunt wraps marketed for this purpose are already banned in the city, and I'm guessing that's what they're aiming at here. Seems kind of gross to smoke a Dutchmaster or Philly just for the taste.

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah I agree with these statements. Once again the nanny state tries again to ban something that really doesnt need to be banned. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Banning something doesn't stop whatever you trying to ban, kids are going to get them whether we want them or not.

So fine, they'll start buying the 4 pack of them now, and save them for later. And as far as the blunt wrappers, did it stop the kids? nope. They just go to another town now (on the T) and buy several of them at a time.

I do have to say, I see kids in DT Xing smoking Dutchmasters on their own. Ew.

I also gotta laff at the new BPH commercials on TV, with the kid who can't buy the video games cuz he's smoking cigars. The laff part is that maybe if these were taxed to death, they wouldn't be so expensive. Just sayin.... When I started smoking years ago, a pack of smokes was a buck. Now its almost 9, and the vast majority of the cost is taxes. So really where's the money going, not to the manufacturers..

up
Voting closed 0

Sixty six cents. The rest is taxes.

up
Voting closed 0

... that bad government is taking money from teens that might be better spent on computer games?

... that smoking should be cheap so people can play more computer games?

... that smoking costs society nothing, therefore the costs to state governments and the federal government are pure profit? (actually, the taxes are only now coming close to the expenditures ...)?

Meanwhile, there is good evidence that people are more likely quit smoking permanently if they spend that money on something for themselves that reinforces the decision to quit. My mom wanted more books, so she quit. My dad wanted a computer - and quit. A friend bought an expensive bicycle and quit, and I convinced another friend that she probably could afford a pet if she ditched the ciggies - and she quit. So I'm quite glad to see it laid out so graphically - regardless of whether ciggies are expensive due to government recouping the costs of smoking from them or not.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not saying that smoking isn't expensive nor do I think it should be less however, I just find it funny that these ads, paid for by taxes from cigarettes, are like "well maybe if cancer doesn't stop you, the money will". I just find it kind of like an oxy moron.. maybe if we didn't tax them to death, that their whole point of this ad campaign would be moot.

Even as a former smoker, I do however, smokers get nailed to a cross on over taxation. Smokers are always the scape goat when we need more $ for something. Fine tax a little, but when 8 bucks (as the poster above said) is nothing but taxes, its a little bit much. This means the tax rate on cigarettes is almost 1200%, talk about 'no taxation without representation'.

If tomorrow we wanted to tax alcohol or some other time of vice this much, people would be rioting in the streets.

up
Voting closed 0

There are no studies showing any significant amount of toxicity in e-cigarette vapor. They are monumentally safer than smoking, and even a reliable method to help people quite smoking altogether.

There's no science in this ban, just a bunch of nanny's trying to control the lives of others.

up
Voting closed 0

I want my liquid nicotine... wah, wah, MOMMMMYYY!! Wow, if this new restriction is your biggest gripe in life, count yourself lucky!

up
Voting closed 0

Or do you do this for free?

up
Voting closed 0

No one would pay good money for trolling that weak.

up
Voting closed 0

I think taxes and bans on cigarettes are hilarious. I love watching people complain about the prices yet they still buy only 1 pack a day like that day is their last day smoking. I don't get why people don't at least buy in bulk, or better yet roll their own cigarettes out of nice tobacco. If you live anywhere near Indian reservations you can buy 200 cigarettes for 10-20 dollars. If you're concerned about the legality of that you are truly retarded and you should just directly inhale your car exhaust for 10 minutes a day and pay an extra 5,000 dollars on your income taxes.

I think the government should constantly increase the tax on cigarettes. It's pretty apparent that people will pay whatever price they have to for cigarettes, and I'm sure that the price could go up to $20 a pack no problem. There's nothing funnier to me than people who are part of the "99%" and complain how it's all the government's fault that they can't make money at a good job while they are paying off a flat-screen tv, a car that far exceeds their budget, smoking a pack+ a day of cigarettes, drinking beer every night and going to bars (which is the absolute dumbest way to spend money) on the weekends. The best part is they say they have to do all of this stuff because being poor makes them depressed and it helps them forget their situation temporarily.

up
Voting closed 0

as a daily blunt smoker, i guess ill just have to give all my hard earned money to the city of cambridge...

up
Voting closed 0