Comments on: Boston Bans Cigarette Sales In Drug Stores

CBS Evening News: Beantown Widens Its Effort To Get Its Residents To Kick The Habit; Now Taking Aim At Cigar Bars

[hologram5]

@rudy6543:
Take a look at the air you are breathing, it contains just as much if not more bad things for your lungs than that of cigarette smoke. Take a good whiff of diesel exhaust, that is MUCH worse than cigarette smoke.

[hologram5]

Who do these people think they are? It is unconstitutional for these people to tell us how to live. If someone wants to trash their body then it is their right.

[andie52]

Banning is just a minor inconvenience for smokers.

[evian_ycnan]

Criminalization of cigarettes and tobacco... brought to you by Aetna.

[evian_ycnan]

Posted by omnibus66 at 08:31 AM : Feb 09, 2009


"Banned in Boston" was never a deterrent to progress,... it was built-in advertising and a prelude to a Supreme Court decision requiring Boston to pay all legal expenses.

Puritans! Spit!

[evian_ycnan]

So, let me see if I have this straight...

A 7-11 (Piggly Wiggly to our southern friends) can sell food, greeting cards, and various dry goods and cigarettes.

A drug store cans sell food, greeting cards, and various dry good, but no cigarettes BECAUSE they have a pharmacy attached?

And there is reason for this? Aside from the fact that 7-11 and other stores PAID some politician to propose an ordinance that directly conflicts with "restraint of trade" laws.

"At Sullivan''s Pharmacy, a family-owned drug store in Boston, owner Gregory Laham worries about diminished foot traffic, but will remove cigarettes from the shelves without protest."

All that is necessary for the loss of freedom is for good men to stand idle.

Eventually, the city will have to pay a bunch of lawyers a wad of dough for their stupidity.

[omnibus66]

Fifty years ago, Boston banned certain rock and roll music. After fifty years have passed, we can certainly attest to the massive harm that that music genre has done to this country. (A sarcastic comment, don''t take it literally)

Now they are at it again, this time banning the sale of a legal commodity. It will have no effect on the sales of tobacco products, it will only serve to inconvenience a few people. Do-gooders sticking their noses where they don''t belong.

No, I personally don''t, never have, and never will use tobacco.

[fanenough]

I don''t mind if other people use tobacco. I really don''t. I choose not to use tobacco and I choose not to judge them.
However, what I do mind is being made to pay for the documented increased health care costs of smokers through not differentiating their rates in group health insurance plans. Smokers are differentiated in life insurance plans; it is certain that this could be done.
It is much more than lung cancer. Try increased risk of heart disease, stroke, oral cancer, esophageal cancer, blood system cancers, poor healing of connective tissue, blindness, upper respiratory infection, chronic bronchitis, pulmonary disease, and on and on. It''s all documented.
The drive to raise prices of tobacco products in an attempt to cover health care of users is a great step in the right direction. Differentiating tobacco users in group health insurance plans with a separate rate schedule is an idea whose time has come.

[rudy6543]

This is so funny. Boston is the second city to ban cigarette sales in drug stores, but permit dope to be sold from them. Real classy Boston. Way to go. Replace one nasty drug with another.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by IndependentI at 08:11 AM

Ignorance is an amazing thing. Since there are medical needs for certain drugs, you think that somehow compares to the commercial sale of a product that is only known to cause harm. Shame these place don''t also sell cyanide as that seems to be the thinking that makes you happy.

[rudy6543]

yes, but he certainly didn''''t leave those pharmaceuticals alone. After all, it wasn''''t lung cancer that killed him.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by shameonbush at 08:04 AM

So? Dying from lung cancer looks 100 times worse, or haven''t you seen that happen to someone to make you so non-chalant about something so serious?

[shameonbush]

yes, but he certainly didn''t leave those pharmaceuticals alone. After all, it wasn''t lung cancer that killed him.

[rudy6543]

If only Elvis Presley would have smoked cigarettes and left the pharmaceuticals alone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by shameonbush at 07:59 AM

Presley did smoke.

[shameonbush]

If only Elvis Presley would have smoked cigarettes and left the pharmaceuticals alone.

[rudy6543]

How about banning people with bad breath from entering drug stores. They spread those unbearable fumes all over the place. They should set up mouth washing stations outside stocked with Listerine that must be used before entering.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by JackP32 at 07:54 AM

If second hand bad breath caused lung disease in others, I would support such a ban. That''s a pretty weak comparison.

[jackp32]

How about banning people with bad breath from entering drug stores. They spread those unbearable fumes all over the place. They should set up mouth washing stations outside stocked with Listerine that must be used before entering.

[rudy6543]

nostraden, you can''''t buy booze in any drugstores anywhere in my state. That post is so unrealistic for so many people. Alcohol (not that I drink the stupid stuff, I value my life) does not maim, cause spousal and child abuse, nor does it rape, murder, kill itself or cause an accident. PEOPLE cause those things. Alcohol just gives them "courage" to do it. Show me ONE mass study that shows that alcohol itself CAUSES it.
Posted by VcofReason at 06:52 AM

In fact it is the abuse of alcohol that causes trouble. Alcohol in and by itself is like any drug that when abused it''s going to cause damage. Health benefits from moderate intake show great advantages.

That being said, our lungs were never meant to take in smoke for any reason whatsoever. Smoking is definitely dangerous and the additives put into the product make it even worse. But think smokers are about to care, oh yes, some do of course, but you won''t see them here on this forum.

[shameonbush]

Ok, let''s weigh this, should I have a cigerette or a valium? Boston seems to think Valium would be the drug of choice.

[rudy6543]

Yeah! Good for Boston for caring, and boo to all of you who think otherwise.

[usanative1]

What is a old indian to do? Move twwo doors down to the hardware store. Take the cigar out of his old wooden hand and replace with it a pamphlet on saving mother earth.Very few listened when they spoke of this two hundred years past but just watch the pamphlets fly.

[nostraden]

HEY VcofReason:
EXCUSE ME,You said It DONT ?

Oh Really
A study in the December 2004 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research looks at alcohol consumption and perpetration of spousal abuse by male U.S. Army soldiers. Findings indicate that soldiers who drink heavily are more likely to abuse their spouses both when they are and when they are not drinking alcohol; heavy drinking is also associated with subsequent episodes of spouse abuse even when drinking habits are measured years prior to the event.
Researchers know that alcohol disorders amplify suicide risk. At least one-third of individuals who committed suicide also met criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence; alcohol-use disorders are a potent risk factor for suicide attempts that are considered medically serious; and up to seven percent of alcoholics die by committing suicide.