Hey, there! Log in / Register
Why The MBTA Sells Cigarettes and Secretly Killed a Bill To Prevent It
By andylevinsky on Sun, 10/21/2007 - 10:14pm
The MBTA doesn't allow smoking or cigarette advertising on its property, so why does it permit vendors to sell cigarettes in its stations?
And why has the T secretly and successfully lobbied to kill a bill (H. 3594) which would have prevented tobacco sales in T stations?
The MBTA is a state agency. The state spends millions of dollars through its Department of Public Health to combat cigarette use. Yet the T plays by its own set of rules, presumably to protect revenue from vendors who lease property in its stations. There are plenty of other legal products which the T would presumably ban from its premises (alcohol and firearms come to mind). So why does management apparently feel it's perfectly okay to allow public property to be used to sell cigarettes?
Not a single person spoke out against H 3594 at public hearings, but without going on record to oppose the bill, the MBTA worked behind the scenes to defeat it. Representative Joseph Wagner, Chairman of the Transportation Committee which recommended a negative vote, refused to even state why he opposed the bill.
Should a public agency like the MBTA be allowed to surreptitiously lobby legislators? Should they, and the legislators who support them, be accountable to the public to explain their reasons for supporting or opposing a bill?
To register your comment, contact:
Representative Joseph Warner, Chair, Transportation Committee
Telephone: 617-722-2400 413-592-7857
Facsimile: 413-592-1354
E-Mail: [email protected]
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
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.
Comments
They may not allow smoking
They may not allow smoking but they don't do anything to stop anyone.
Over the summer I was on the
Over the summer I was on the last outbound orange line train. It was "standing by" at Downtown Crossing till the station closed so my friend got out of the car and had a smoke with a T employee on the platform. So much for "No Smoking."
The MTA sells cigarettes on their premises because
the MTA, like most other institutions, is into making money hand over fist, so they'll make money any way they feel they can.
the MTA hasn't sold anything since 1964
unless you're referring to the Turnpike Authority, that is
My bad.
I stand corrected here, Ron.
why not?
Cigarettes are a legal product - why shouldn't they sell them? You prohibitionists sure did a great job with alcohol.
Because selling them encourages people to smoke on T property
which is not a good thing for many reasons.
However,
Does selling cigarettes in a Store 24 encourage people to smoke in a Store 24?
Should they all ALL legal products?
Guns and alcohol are legal products, too. Should the T allow their sales on T property?
Nobody is trying to stop you from smoking. This issue isn't even about smoking. It's about a state agency allowing cigarette SALES when it does not allow smoking or cigarette advertising and is part of a state which is spending millions of dollars to prevent smoking. Where is the logic?
even more importantly
but more importantly, why does it matter?
that's what i'm trying to figure out
You can't smoke inside a quickie mart, but cigarettes are sold there. You can't smoke inside a CVS but they sell them too. I'm trying to find the difference here.
Maybe the difference is that the T receives state funding?
It does seem in a way that the state is endorsing smoking when you see packs of smokes sold by a state agency.
Also, the T doesn't enforce the no smoking policy. I imagine 7-11 would tell you to get out if you lit up.
not really 'sold by a state agency'
unless you'd also say that the same 'state agency' sells donuts, popcorn, calzones, newspapers, and t-shirts.
Receives "state funding"??
Receives "state funding"?? Not since the Forward Funding they don't, their budget comes from 1 or 2% of the state sales tax receipts, the rest from the Feds and revenues.
To your other breathless point about the State endorsing smoking through its agencies, you might want to hurl your vitriol at the Mass. Commission for the Blind and all of their sponsored newsstands and convenience marts their consumers run as part of a work program. All of them sell smokes- and lottery. Egad.
Rly?
I don't think I was hurling vitriol. I think I was pondering why it might be that the T selling cigarettes seems kind of off to some of us.
A simple explanation
Perhaps the reason is that they don't think it's their job to play nanny to people's bodies and "protect" them from their own decisions.
We may also notice they haven't banned vendors from selling high-calorie snacks. Better start a crusade to stop this outrage, too.
Two things:
First of all, there is a movement underway in some places to ban the selling of high-calorie snacks.
Secondly, regarding the smoking issue, it's not so much as what people do to their own individual bodies that's aroused concern, but the fact that secondhand smoke has been found to do just as much harm to non-smokers on the long run, especially those with already-existing health problems. Why should non-smokers be subjected to second-hand smoke? They shouldn't, and therefore, that's where the smoking ban in public places comes in, and which I'm very supportive of.
The supernannies strike back
I am quite certain that there are movements to forbid people from doing anything that someone deems is harmful to them, and should have realized that the absurdity of their stance wouldn't deter the supernannies.
Other than that, please reread the original post. Smoking is prohibited on MBTA platforms. This is about SELLING cigarettes. Are you claiming that people are getting cancer from being around unopened packs?
Temptation
Some people can resist anything but temptation. Maybe there are some people who walk past a cigarette vendor and can't stop themselves from buying a pack, lighting up without regard to the rules, and blowing smoke in a baby's face. Is this what this brouhaha is about? Be thankful cigars aren't for sale, or a cigar and leaf blower combo pack.
I KNOW this is about SELLING cigarettes.
However, there's another important issue that has cropped up during this discussion: While I'm aware that smoking is forbidden on MBTA platforms and on MBTA property, generally, it's also true that second-hand smoke in other places has also been discussed here recently on this board. That is a big issue, because people who're regularly subjected to second-hand smoke suffer also, especially those with already-existing health problems, such as asthma, dry-eye, emphysema, etc..
This has nothing to do with smoking
Smoke all you like. That's not what this issue is about. As you correctly point out, this is about SELLING cigarettes, not smoking. So why should the state, which is spending millions of dollars to prevent smoking through one department (Public Health) be promoting it through another (Transportation)? Forget the usual "smoker's rights/supernannies/we're being persecuted" paranoia and simply ask if it makes sense for the state to be in the business of promoting cigarette sales when it claims to be trying to prevent them.
following that
wouldn't it then be properly extended that since cigarette sales are legal in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the commonwealth is promoting it?
Are sales allowed in the snack shops in government buildings? Snack shops that I assume are privately run?
Is this even true? Will the
Is this even true? Will the blogger divulge more info other than simply suggesting that since NO legislators spoke out about it, then the evil T had to have "killed" it. This 'insider' doesn't even have Grabauskas' email correct.
Reply
I got Grabauskas' email online and it bounced back. Perhaps they have changed it. Why do I think the T was working behind the scenes on this bill? Who else has a stake in this bill except perhaps the tobacco or convenience store lobby, and they are usually more upfront in their lobbying.
You ask if it is true. If you really have any doubts, why not simply call the MBTA and find out for yourself? Good luck getting a straight answer. I've tried for more than six years and been shuffled from one department to another.
Or, if you're so confident that the MBTA was not behind it, you tell me. Who killed this bill which nobody has spoken out against publicly?