This goes double for you young'uns in Brookline.
WBZ reports on a new ordinance in Brookline that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anybody born after Jan. 1, 2000.
I like it.
Better late than never.
However we already know that when people want something, they will find a way to buy it and sellers will find a way to sell it.
With their clogs and their lederhosen and tea time.
Good intentions but it seems like Brookline is overreacting to me. .
… of non users should not be sold or permitted to be smoked in public places, anywhere that children or other defenseless creatures with breathe it or in residences where HVAC means shared air.
Yeah? You doing your own research on the harms of tobacco and want more information before we do anything.
how to make cigarettes cool among teens 101 - forbid it
“It does sound a bit draconian. But yeah, with little kids I’d prefer they stay away from tobacco personally. There are enough dangers in the world,” the father said."
So "Kids" who are 21 now, who turned 21 in the 11.5 months since 1/1/2021 will be discriminated against?
Sounds like a lawsuit to me.
It will be a losing suit and reinforce public support of the law.
You were the one talking about the eviction law being overturned because it wasn't "fair" though legally it was against the law.
If I ever need to lose a case really, really bad, I will call you. If a case ever has to be won on merit and facts, I am calling someone else.
… is meant to be flattering, I know.
But sometimes it a little pathetic.
A losing lawsuit does not represent public support for the law.
You may want to study the law, or at least the concept of judicial review. There’s a reason why judges are not answerable to voters or politicians.
It was a sufficiently short post. At the end of the day, public support of the law has nothing to do with the results of a lawsuit, which was my point.
Serious question - how is this different from the drinking age in terms of discrimination? 18-20 year olds are considered 'not kids' in many contexts but cannot purchase alcohol legally, and the drinking age can and has changed in the past. This is essentially incrementing the legal age every year. Which I think is what New Zealand is doing, though they are starting at 14 and under.
I love Uhub. I would not have expected to see this image here. It is called the Treachery of Images by Rene Magritte, 1929. Also known as "This Is Not A Pipe". Magritte is saying that a painting of a pipe cannot be filled with tobacco. Thanks Adam!
For more on twentieth-century surrealism, consult your local library.
If you are 21 now and born after 1/1/2000, in Brookline, you cannot legally by tobacco which is burned and inhaled but you can legally buy pot which is burned and inhaled.
Brookline must be dipping into their own supply when this was pushed through cause it just doesn't make sense.
Weed is, like, a medicine, man. It cured my anxiety and made my tumor (not in my lung of course) disappear. Rubbing CBD behind my ears allowed me to finally wrap my head around long division. Why do you hate progress?
because people who smoke weed are hippies
No. People who smoke weed hate tumors. Why do you like tumors? Rumors, on the other hand, is a great album.
It's a rare person indeed who smokes the combustion-products equivalent of a pack-a-day.
Nicotine causes cancer, period (and this is made worse by all the various chemicals in cigarettes). There is no documented case of marijuana causing cancer and there are simply not equivalent additives in marijuana products. The comparison is all around ridiculous and shows a profound ignorance to the actual impacts of various substances.
Particles in smoke cause cancer.
Nicotine’s danger is that it is highly addictive, but otherwise it is less dangerous than the psychoactive component in marijuana.
In fact, nicotine has very few other effects than its addictive quality, the withdrawal from which causes anxiety and depression.
Not to those exposed to the secondhand smoke.
Nor to the smokers themselves. Ask any doctor.
weed smoke and tobacco smoke are not equivalent.
Yes, a doctor told me that.
Find a doctor who says it doesn’t.
Tobacco literally kills hundreds of thousands a year, weed does not kill anyone. This is a major difference that the drug war has sought to obscure for years.
Not funny though that you believe that.
Phaseout affecting anyone born after a certain date.
What's weird about the NZ thing is that they're still allowing vape sales (although putting limits on nicotine content).
EDIT: Add link to NZ thing: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/09/new-zealand-to-ban-smoking...
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it...
… prohibition made it possible for laws that actually do cut down on underage addiction, excessive drinking and that hold drinkers and their suppliers responsible for drunk driving deaths and injuries. And for laws that protect from domestic abuse.
Levels of disease related to alcohol abuse have never risen to what they were previously.
Are they also advocating for such a law at the state level? Because it's trivially easy for people in Brookline to meander over to Allston or Mission Hill to stock up on cigarettes, so this is basically a symbolic gesture for now.
Really, though... what realistic basis is there for anyone to think this law has a chance of being upheld if someone pursues legal challenges?
I'm not talking about "anything that interferes with smoking and second-hand smoke is good for public health".
I'm talking legal principle. If it's legal in this state for someone of a given age to purchase, possess and use this product - how can it be legal for a town to say it can be sold to some people of legal age, but not others? It would be one thing if they banned all sales of it in town - there's precedent of having "dry" towns - but on what grounds is this anything other than illegal age discrimination?
That may be the defense. Or it could be turned the other way that addicts who became addicted before an all inclusive sales ban is theoretically proposed, are granted an exception, grandfathered in, because of their status as buyers who could buy legally before a ban is put into effect.
The bigger question is who would bother with such a lawsuit? Someone may, naturally. But is that possibility worth shutting down a good effort?
Better to see where this may go.
nor would it be illegal in this case. You can already restrict the age at which one is allowed to start purchasing these sorts of products, no?
This isn't age discrimination either. Age discrimination would be saying anyone under the age of 21 can't purchase these products. Even if that is true of this ban *right now* eventually those subject to this ban will be pushing 100 years old and they'll still be banned unless the rules change.
… research shows that addictions acquired at young ages are more difficult to overcome and because the substances used have an effect on development.
It’s a matter of public health that trumps any age restriction.
It’s also a consent thing.
Arguments could be made along the same line for people considered mature.
That's my understanding as well @brianjdamico. Currently in Massachusetts it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to buy tobacco or vape cartridges but when they turn 21 they can do so if they wish. This ordinance seems to take away that option.
The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, which means that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy