< Back to front page Text size +

Boston bans cigarette sales in drug stores but delays cigar bar closings

Posted by Gideon Gil December 11, 2008 04:58 PM

By Stephen Smith, Globe Staff

Cigar bars and other swank salons devoted to smoking won a significant though temporary reprieve from Boston health regulators today, who decided that the establishments will face extinction in 10 years instead of the five-year grace period originally proposed as part of sweeping new tobacco control rules.

The regulations, approved unanimously by the Boston Public Health Commission, also ban cigarette sales at drugstores and on college campuses in the city and eliminate smoking on the patios of restaurants and bars with outside service. Those restrictions will go into effect in 60 days.

The restrictions give Boston among the most stringent antismoking laws in the United States and place it at the vanguard of widening campaigns to reduce cigarette smoking, especially among young people and the poor.

While major pharmacy chains and tobacco companies quietly fought the rules, the most fervent opposition emerged from the owners and patrons of cigar bars and hookah lounges, where customers take long drags on flavored tobacco from a communal water pipe.

After considering those protests, the health commission -- which includes a top heart doctor and the leaders of two community health centers -- decided that a five-year grace period would give the cigar bar and lounge owners too little time to prepare for the loss of their businesses.

At the end of the 10-year period, smoking bars may ask the executive director of the health commission for a further grace period, the commission decided. The city now has six cigar bars and five hookah lounges. No new ones will be permitted to open in the city, however.

"Cigarettes are bad, they're harmful to people, there's a need for us to change the social norms around cigarettes," said commission member Harold Cox, an associate dean at the Boston University School of Public Health. "Our responsibility as governmental officials is to protect people."

Email this article

Invalid email address
Invalid email address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

99 comments so far...
  1. The social norms are changing and this is a good thing. Smoking is no longer socially acceptable and those that do smoke are looked down upon, its no longer 'cool' at all just a really stupid thing to do.

    Posted by kristah December 11, 08 05:19 PM
  1. This state is filled with holier-than-thou, Nanny-state jackasses.

    And for the record, I'm a non-smoker.

    Posted by Paul December 11, 08 05:20 PM
  1. It's a sad day in American History when a small group of people can arbitrarily decide to deny the owners of perfectly legal businesses from making a living in the name of reshaping "social norms" as well as prohibiting others from doing the same. So much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If people don't like tobacco, then they don't have to smoke or patronize places that allow it. This sham of a board's decision to force their opinions of how life should be lived upon everyone is borderline facist, and doing so while hiding behind the mask of looking out for the best interests of the people - who can and are supposed to be able to do or not do so as they wish in a free society - is outright socialist. I don't even smoke anymore and have no desire to frequent any of these places, but I understand and appreciate the rights of those who wish to be able to do so. It is NOT "the government's job to protect people " by trampling on the rights of the individual. Boston City Government never fails to completely disgust me.

    Posted by Bob G. December 11, 08 05:24 PM
  1. This is complete BS. I love state government telling me what I can and cannot buy. I've had it. This state sucks, and lest you think I'm some sort of smelly addicted smoker, you're wrong. I don't even smoke, never have but this is out of control. What's next? Will I need a note from my doctor to go to a fast food place? Maybe they should reinstate prohibition to save us pious new englanders from ourselves. This is disturbing. I cannot WAIT to get the hell out of Massachusetts.

    Posted by disko2k December 11, 08 05:24 PM
  1. I wish they would do the same about Booze and SUVs.

    Posted by Little Ethel December 11, 08 05:27 PM
  1. When will the gov't finally understand their job is to protect our borders and not to protect us from ourselves and our own choices?

    Posted by scorp508 December 11, 08 05:27 PM
  1. Next you will not be allowed to drink beer, eat red meat or curse any where. When will these health nazi be put in thier place.

    Posted by James E Stevenson December 11, 08 05:38 PM
  1. I question the legality of pharmacies and college campuses not being able to sell tobacco. I think the City of Boston may be in for a very rude legal awakening. How will they compensate these businesses for lost revenue? Can you ban them from selling something that is legal?

    Posted by DS December 11, 08 05:39 PM
  1. well, at least you can still get your oxycontin and meth lab-kits in these places...what's banned next, sugar?

    Posted by selecter70 December 11, 08 05:41 PM
  1. Isn't it lovely how the people who sell you prescription drugs "fought hard" to continue to sell cigarettes? Isn't it nice to know that they want to sell you the means to kill you as well as the means to cure you? I wonder if they even know the difference.

    Posted by Fran Taylor December 11, 08 05:43 PM
  1. What purpose is served by banning the sale of cigarettes at drug stores? Do the city's nannies imagine that's going to make a significant dent in usage among the young and the poor? Does the august health commission imagine that smokers will decide to quit just because they have to shift the location of their purchase from a drug store to a grocery or convenience store?

    Or are they hung up on the more puritan idea that a "drug store" should be preserved by our idiot kings as a place to purchase "healthy" items, like coca cola, candy bars, and methamphetamine ingredients?

    Pathetic, but wholly unsurprising that Boston would be at the "vanguard" of this foolishness.

    Posted by TheScarecrow December 11, 08 05:45 PM
  1. This ridiculous, these "cigar bars" exist for the sole purpose of people who smoke to go and smoke and maybe have a cocktail. This used to be a free country, and it all started in Massachusetts Bay Colony. Our rights and freedoms are now being taken away from us not even by elected officials but oppointed ones. This should go to the vote of the people if anything. Who are they to say you cannot go and smoke in bar made to be for smokers. Whats next?

    Posted by steve December 11, 08 05:46 PM
  1. harold cox is a goon... its called personal responsibility. Why ban a bar whose entire patronage is there for one reason, to enjoy a cigar? The world doesnt all think the same way as you. Lighten up, commie.

    Posted by dan December 11, 08 05:52 PM
  1. Harold Cox, "Our responsibility as governmental officials is to protect people." Thanks Harold, for protecting me from myself. What a joke of a state

    Posted by Adam December 11, 08 05:55 PM
  1. another blow to individual freedoms. Didn't these bozo's learn their lesson when prohibition was repealed?

    Posted by Greg December 11, 08 05:57 PM
  1. We can decriminalize weed, but you can't buy a pack of cigarettes in a CVS. This highlights the madness of Boston politics. I don't understand how a group of people willing to vote for prop 2 can honestly support this legislation. I understand that cigarettes are a public health nightmare, but don't hurt specific retailers to make a point.

    Posted by Kevin December 11, 08 05:58 PM
  1. So-called progress. Whatever happened to being "pro choice?" Cigarettes may be bad for the smoker, but so is aborting a fetus "bad" when one considers the perspective of the fetus. (I'm a non-smoker who is pro choice on both fronts, for what it's worth.) To claim a health benefit to non-smokers from an outdoor smoking ban is incredibly stupid. Smoke outside goes up and into the air, which isn't so clean to begin with in a city like Boston! What this is about is know-it-all attitudes and class superiority by the "public health" do-gooders. People who want to live in a safe and sanitized world that suits their particular tastes and preferences. It's arrogance and a sort of friendly fascism - make no mistake about it.

    Posted by Tim T. Rogers, Jr. December 11, 08 05:58 PM
  1. "Cigarettes are bad, they're harmful to people, there's a need for us to change the social norms around cigarettes."

    Change the social norms? We smokers are already pariahs.

    I also can't help but notice that Mr. Cox's resume is chock full of "outreach" to the GLBT community surrounding issues of AIDS, but it's our behavior he's on the verge of making illegal.

    Where's the outreach to us?

    Posted by Harrybosch December 11, 08 05:58 PM
  1. thank god. it's sickening how many of my peers smoke outside of my college.

    Posted by ennairb December 11, 08 06:10 PM
  1. Associate Dean Cox declares that "Our responsibility as governmental officials is to protect people." No sir.
    Government should protect the public in general, however, the people have a right to decide for themselves whether or not to smoke.
    The Nanny-state liberals who want to make everyone a non-smoking, non-alcohol drinking vegetarian are the real zealots here.

    Posted by W December 11, 08 06:14 PM
  1. so, cigars are bad, and bad for you, but as we tighten the laws on tobacco we loosen them on marijuana? Beacuse, that stuff is like totally healthy for you, right?

    Posted by mollyb December 11, 08 06:15 PM
  1. I thought cigaretts were legal.
    bacon is bad for you too lets ban that

    Posted by matt from Norwood December 11, 08 06:48 PM
  1. I think it's about time we stopped these liberals from interfering in people's choices. Just because they don't allow sales of tobacco in certain stores, doesn't mean people will stop buying. This is just another interference in people's lives. Why don't you try tackling something really important, like crime in the city, corrupt government officials, which appears to be rampant in this country, illegal guns on the streets, or perhaps the ban, sale and manufacture of guns completely. Then you would really be making a difference.

    Posted by Colin December 11, 08 06:51 PM
  1. Fascism at it's finest.
    I hope they realize this will not induce college students to quit smoking but rather to buy their cigarettes in bulk [cartons] down the street instead.

    Also determining what IS a college campus in an urban environment where college dorms are intermeshed with non-college owned buildings with stores is ludicrous. Out of the dozens of schools in the Boston area I can identify only two that have campuses which do not mingle with non-campus buildings.

    Posted by Andrew Kochan December 11, 08 06:54 PM
  1. This is great news for those of us who do not smoke. There's nothing worse than when you enjoy a nice night on the town in a smoke-free restaurant and you still come home smelling like it because of all the people outside hovering around the door; especially in the winter! I would keep the cigar bars open though. If people want to be unhealthy and smoke - let them in their own place. Good decision to keep it open for another look in 10 years.

    Posted by Peter December 11, 08 06:59 PM
  1. I'm not sure what I would do without the city of boston watching out for me. Glad all the other problems are fixed.

    Posted by Menino's Fat Tounge December 11, 08 07:12 PM
  1. i still do not understand why we cant keep cigar bars... jeez!! a nice cigar is nice once in a while

    Posted by Alexander December 11, 08 07:12 PM
  1. I don't smoke cigaretts although I like to go to Cigar Masters every now and again with my friends. They have lovely waitresses and great selection of cigars and belgian beers. They know how to store cigars properly too. We always enjoy our vists there. I am an immigrant from the former USSR and I do not appreciate this kind of "involvement" of the government in the choices I make. That was part of the reason why my family left Belarus in the first place. Ban smking at airports or restaurants is one thing, but a cigar bar? I am sure employees will be thrilled to loose their jobs there because some politician decided it is too unhealthy for them.

    Posted by Alex December 11, 08 07:35 PM
  1. state tax revenue in the ashes!!! yippeeee

    Posted by mary e fahey December 11, 08 07:38 PM
  1. So if the cigar bars have to close eventually and you get "caught" smoking a cigar, will you get a $100 fine (JUST LIKE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA!?). Nanny state politics.

    Posted by PG December 11, 08 07:43 PM
  1. Hey look at it this way: here in San Diego you can't smoke at the beach, at parks, and at bus stops. Every little bit helps!

    Posted by david wayne osedach December 11, 08 07:45 PM
  1. "Our responsibility as governmental officials is to protect people." – I’d prefer they just stay out of everyone’s business. I don’t smoke, but people should be able to harm themselves however they want.

    Posted by FBAIRD December 11, 08 07:50 PM
  1. "Our responsibility as governmental officials is to protect people."

    Hey, Harold - stay the hell away from me. I don't need your help. How's your health? I say we all try to find something Harold likes and ban that!

    Unbeleivable. Oh, and how do you help the poor with this, especially when the cigarette tax is raised. Do you really think this is going to stop anyone from smoking? Pathetic state...

    Posted by ME December 11, 08 07:53 PM
  1. What about supermarkets that have a pharmacy??? Too many rules and laws that have to be enforced at taxpayers expense.That much less for programs that are needed much more.

    Posted by Maurice Kaplan December 11, 08 07:56 PM
  1. Boston... The San Francisco of the east coast...

    Posted by ME December 11, 08 07:56 PM
  1. Harold Cox, your job is not to protect my health. That's my job. I'm an intelligent person. You're job is to obey me. You are a public servant, and I am the public (along with everyone else). I did not ask you to protect me.

    What you - and those championing this ban - really want is power. Power and a warm lie. It must make you feel good to pretend to protect me from myself. The real reason you've got your feathers all ruffled over this is that it makes you feel good. It makes you feel important. But, you're not Solomon.

    For God's sake, you hypocrits. You miserable self-righteous men who would be king. Leave me alone.

    You're blatant liars too. You purport to protect innocent civilians from the evil tobacco smoke. But, does anyone in a cigar bar not consent to being around smoke? Does anyone on a patio in the rare restaurant that allows people to smoke on the patio not consent to being around smoke? No. They consent. You're simply putting your choice above theirs. It's a perversion of your duty.


    Posted by D December 11, 08 08:01 PM
  1. Anybody with a brain buys cigarettes in New Hampshire anyway, where they are half the price and deprive the Massh*le state of revenue.

    Hmmm, I just thought of a great way to make extra money in a recession! Thanks, Boston!!!!

    Posted by Marcus December 11, 08 08:04 PM
  1. In case anyone realized, tobacco products will still be sold in supermarkets, convenience stores, and tobacco shops.

    Having tobacco products in drug stores seems like a holdover from the days when drugstores actually sold "drugs"-- like when Coca Cola actually contained cocaine. The pharmacist or apothecary actually gave advice on which drugs to take for certain ailments. What pharmacist today is going to prescribe you menthol cigarettes or chewing tobacco?

    Posted by Will in boston December 11, 08 08:11 PM
  1. But looking at the rest of your comments.

    I bet all the people decrying the "nanny-state liberals" and saying that they shoudl be allowed to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco - I bet those people support the criminalization of all other drugs.

    And that's not hypocrisy at all, is it?

    Posted by D December 11, 08 08:14 PM
  1. Wrong, very wrong. Protest this awful decison and vote these uninformed people out of office at the first chance.

    Posted by jllll December 11, 08 08:19 PM
  1. Good. I hate cigarettes.

    Posted by Lala S. December 11, 08 08:29 PM
  1. Why is it that so for people so smart, they are indeed so stupid? The more you prohibit smoking, the more you make it "kewl" with young people.

    Once Boston is at the forefront of the back of the line!

    Way to go to encourage smoking among Rebles because Boston decided to flex its legislative muscles! How course, the city does not have to worry about crumbling infrastructure, a subway system from the 19th century or more homeless than you can imagine!

    A parochial decision by a parochial town which is the armpit of the universe!

    Posted by wishing he was dead December 11, 08 08:29 PM
  1. What's next? Alcohol?
    Or too many politicians drink?
    As a non-smoker, I have no quarrel with smoking being banned fom public places. However tobacco IS legal, so I am surprised banning pharmacies from selling it is constitutional.
    We should know that prohibition will only drive markets underground.
    How much longer can we ignore the growing menace from drug cartels, and gangs in the inner cities, and countries south of the border?
    Legalize and tax!!!!

    Posted by Hari December 11, 08 08:31 PM
  1. Cigarettes are bad, they're harmful to people, there's a need for us to change the social norms around cigarettes," said commission member Harold Cox, an associate dean at the Boston University School of Public Health. "Our responsibility as governmental officials is to protect people."


    EXCUSE ME?! That is NOT your responsibility! Please resign NOW! You have no idea what your responsibility is, obviously. Really, we DON'T need your protection nor do we want it... go to your bedroom and get a spanking.


    Posted by jllll December 11, 08 08:37 PM
  1. But looking at the rest of your comments.

    I bet all the people decrying the "nanny-state liberals" and saying that they shoudl be allowed to drink alcohol and smoke tobacco - I bet those people support the criminalization of all other drugs.

    And that's not hypocrisy at all, is it?

    Posted by D December 11, 08 08:43 PM
  1. Don't smokers have some rights too? I'm all for keeping smoke at a distance but this seems ridiculous - and how do Cigar Bars affect the greater health? These laws are being passed by people who would never have a cigarette or go to a Cigar Bar so this isn't a surprise - but it certainly feels like Big Brother is not only watching us, but Big Sister is going to tuck us in.

    Posted by CigaretteDevil December 11, 08 08:45 PM
  1. I agree Alexander a good Cuban cigar is once in a while........

    Posted by Jasmin December 11, 08 08:48 PM
  1. Funny I don't see any cities ot towns refusing tobacco tax revenues. Funny, the hypocrits on Beacon Hill gladly raise the tax on a pack of cigarettes $1.00 per pack to help fund the health insurance initiative. Talk about an oxymoron. Someone observed soon our diet will be dictated, what we drink, how much and soon the local police will come into our homes without a warrent to enforce a no smoking rule IN YOUR OWN HOME law. I don't see the legislators doing anything about wanton bearing of children with no familial unit.

    Posted by XENOPHON December 11, 08 09:02 PM
  1. Menino and his appointees have to go. Vote for re-form the next time around. God only knows if there's a non-commie, non- socialist willing to run for office as the current list, Menino. Flaherty and Yoon are awful choices. People have to learn that the government does not protect us. If they did, there'd be no crime. We are responsible for ourselves and need to take back control of our government.It's supposed to be: Government of the People by the People not Government over the people! And No, I don't smoke. I know they're coming for my chocolate bars, it is just a matter of time. Will there be anyone left to speak up?

    Posted by Noname49 December 11, 08 09:02 PM
  1. Make no mistake, these people are trying to abolish smoking for one reason only.....money. The costs of health care related to the effects of smoking has been deemed to be too expensive. This is a way to hopefully cut long term care costs. Less taxes for all I suppose. However, I believe in individual freedom and responsibility. I feel I should be able to buy and smoke tobacco in establishments that willingly allow one to do so without committing a crime, civil or criminal. I am willing to pay for any health related illness as a result of smoking tobacco. Perhaps someday freedom and personal responsibilty will be the governing goal for our politicians.

    Posted by Gregory Liacos December 11, 08 09:04 PM
  1. trans fat, then cigarettes, then public forum commenting.

    Posted by shut up December 11, 08 09:07 PM
  1. The peoples republic of Boston has struck again. It's obvious that some people do not have enough legitimate problems to occupy their waking hours. A reminder to these self-righteous folks; the purpose of a democracy is to preserve the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Somehow that message seems to have been lost by the board members.

    Posted by Reed December 11, 08 09:12 PM
  1. Thank God we have such honest & smart political leaders to guide us in all aspects of our lives. They've made the world the fine place that it is. More and bigger government - that will save us.

    Posted by homer December 11, 08 09:21 PM
  1. I have always found it odd that drugstores sell cigarettes as you walk in and prescription medication at the pharmacy further down the aisle. Poison and then antidotes. Good for business.

    Posted by oakman December 11, 08 09:30 PM
  1. The reason for the ban on smoking in public places is because it effects others directly and immediately . As for banning the sale in pharmacies well that should speak for itself. Don't we go to drug stores to get well and not to commit slow suicide by being able to purchase a cancer stick. I have seen many people die terrible deaths due to the use and addiction of this disgusting substance. I am witnessing the slow death of my mom now from lung cancer. Wake up and out of denial regarding the facts of tobacco. The use of tobacco only in the privacy of your own home is way overdue... It is about time, Hooray!!!

    Posted by Marc December 11, 08 09:30 PM
  1. The reason for the ban on smoking in public places is because it effects others directly and immediately . As for banning the sale in pharmacies well that should speak for itself. Don't we go to drug stores to get well and not to commit slow suicide by being able to purchase a cancer stick. I have seen many people die terrible deaths due to the use and addiction of this disgusting substance. I am witnessing the slow death of my mom now from lung cancer. Wake up and out of denial regarding the facts of tobacco. The use of tobacco only in the privacy of your own home is way overdue... It is about time, Hooray!!!

    Posted by Marc December 11, 08 09:30 PM
  1. Why is the city able to regulate what a college sells? Students are at least 18, making them adults, so why shouldn't they be able to buy cigarettes?

    Posted by Liz December 11, 08 09:33 PM
  1. Alexander,

    You can't keep cigar bars because the state government has decided you can't make decisions for yourself, so they're going to make it for you. This is embarrassing.

    Posted by disko2k December 11, 08 09:38 PM
  1. "This is great news for those of us who do not smoke."

    First they came for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Communist.
    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I wasn’t a Jew.
    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn’t speak up,
    because I was a Protestant.
    Then they came for me,
    and by that time there was no one
    left to speak up for me.

    Posted by Harrybosch December 11, 08 10:00 PM
  1. People know cigarettes are bad for you and are making the choice to smoke. Okay I can see not smoking in restaurants where people want to eat without an unpleasant smell trapped in a room. But people who choose to smoke should be able to buy cigarettes in places such as drug and convenience stores. Also, what is so bad about cigar and hookah bars where people can smoke in controlled environments? Boston spends their time with issues such as these while they could be focusing on crime in the city, economic problems, or how the T is one of the worst public transportation systems in the country. Unbelievable.

    Posted by Mike December 11, 08 10:01 PM
  1. I'm from Oregon where we are just getting round to banning smoking in bars, starting in Jan 2009. I visited your fantastic city for the first time earlier this year - the best thing about it (besides the people)? No smoking. Hope the rest of the country gets it together soon.

    Posted by Lia December 11, 08 10:08 PM
  1. I am glad the goverment had the guts to implement this decision. All of you who are against this forget ,outside your house is shared public space. I as a non-smoker have the right to go in public and not be exposed to your damaging habits. You have the freedom to sit at home and smoke to your hearts content. The only loss here is for the ignorant , short sighted and selfish.

    Posted by TK December 11, 08 10:16 PM
  1. Really? Want to protect the air we breathe? Then regulate people who own and operate multiple vehicles and use them casually. They pollute the air at a rate thousands of times more than any smoker. I watch people daily drive their vehicles a few blocks, when they could walk.

    But typically, in the usual words of the apologists, "that's different."

    Freaking idiots.

    Posted by Allston December 11, 08 10:23 PM
  1. Smoking tobacco is a disgusting habit. I had to endure the arrogance of smokers throughout my youth. i was always told " if you don't like it leave"

    So turn about is fair play. If i had my way the only placed they should be allowed to smoke is in Antartica!!

    Posted by paul December 11, 08 10:36 PM
  1. smoking is not illegal....why are there so many restrictions?

    as a non-smoker i definitely appreciate being able to go to a bar and not smell like an ash tray when i get home, but let's be serious here. this is a free country.

    Posted by gosachems92 December 11, 08 10:39 PM
  1. Whatever happened to voting? Aren't we a democracy? Massachusetts is a communist state. I think the reason why there are very little conservatives in this state is because they have just given up and moved away. That's sounds like a good idea. The fact that the people can't voice their rights and instead the state and city decides what is better for you is down right wrong.

    People should have the right to buy cigarettes in a drug store. People are aware that cigarettes cause cancer and shortens their life. I say "smoke up johnny" that's one extra person that we won't have to pay medicare for because they'll be dead. The state and city shouldn't ban the sales.

    I can't believe there is even a cigar bar debate.........PEOPLE CHOOSE TO GO THERE AND WORK THERE BECAUSE IT IS A CIGAR BAR!!!!!

    Can we please stop voting these bozos in office? Mass and Boston needs to clean up.

    Posted by boston234 December 11, 08 10:47 PM
  1. A terrible terrible decision by the BPHC. Cigar lounges are places where cigar smokers, or those who are not bothered by the smoke can go and relax. They are legit businesses that provide people with jobs and generate income for the state. I was fine with no cigarette smoking in regular bars when that went through, that made sense. But this? All those arguments go out the window and all this shows is that the BPHC has too much power and something needs to be done about that before more is taken from all of us. I can only hope that the decision is reversed within the 10 year grace period.

    Posted by Brian December 11, 08 11:08 PM
  1. leave hookah lounges alone! it's completely different from both cigars and cigarettes. first off, it's social and a great way to meet up. second, its no worse than sitting in a bar with friends, better in fact because the odds of getting in a drunk driving accident while not intoxicated are far lower!

    Posted by jk December 11, 08 11:09 PM
  1. Alcohol, fast food, sex, and the freedom to choose what to read and watch on television are next. Brought to you by the red party and citizens of the the republic of Massachusetts. DEMOCRACY IS DEAD IN MASSACHUSETTS AND IT'S SPREADING ACROSS THE COUNTRY. IT WAS GOOD WHILE IT LASTED. EVERYONE DROP AND COVER!

    Posted by jimmy faletra December 11, 08 11:13 PM
  1. Kristah! So glad you like that you like this nanny state that we live in are you going to enjoy it when the state goes after all bars and restaurants for serving alcohol? That kills too? What about fast food??.....this is such a s slippery slope......good job Boston Health Commission you just cost CVS in Charlestown over 50 bucks a month from one customer alone....guess what I'm still not going to quit I will now just buy them from Store 24??? What good did that do?

    Posted by HadenoughofBostonBS December 11, 08 11:27 PM
  1. Oh my gosh! [sarcasm] How will I ever be able to buy cigarettes? Certainly not at a grocery store ... or liquor store ... or ... what? ... a convenience store?? ... how inconvenient!

    [Cry me a river, smokers]

    Posted by Mortorn December 11, 08 11:28 PM
  1. Please people, this is Fascism, not Communism.

    Posted by Area Man December 11, 08 11:33 PM
  1. i was in Japan earlier this year and observed people smoking in restaurants and you know what? it made me realize how much freedom of choice we have lost. public smoking (with good ventilation, i might add) is really not a bad thing, IMO. i am a non-smoker but think that these bans (drug stores and colleges) are wrong. also, i think cigar bars should be entirely legal, period!

    Posted by tommyb December 11, 08 11:37 PM
  1. Let me get this right: you can kill a viable baby into the 3rd trimester.. so much for the rights of the unborn; you can dismiss centuries of the sacred term Marriage and "marry" someone of the same sex..so much for the rights of people who believe in the sacrement of marriage; all this in the name of "liberal, individual freedom" Yet now, in Boston, an adult can't have a cigar in a dedicated establishment. ...Please stop kidding yourself, the liberal elite have their agenda and we the public are letting them re write the Constitution and our laws according to what ever they please! Shame on Menino, shame on Boston... former Cradle of Liberty!!

    Posted by Dan, Boston December 11, 08 11:40 PM
  1. I think the Public Health Commission is taking the non-smoking bad too far, especially in regards to the Cigar bars and hooka bars. I hate smoking and this is the reason that I would avoid those establishments. But, if someone wants to go there to smoke, that is their choice. Let 'em smoke! These regulations are an infringment on smokers rights. Hopefully they will come to their senses in 10 years.

    Posted by Hilary December 11, 08 11:48 PM
  1. Just for the record, there isn't a SINGLE health benefit associated with smoking and it is just as addictive as heroin. The only reason it is legal is because of the tobacco lobby. I would also have to concur with commenter #25, it would be nice to go somewhere and not have go through the clouds eminating from the tobacco junkies hovering around doors.

    Posted by Mcsharry December 11, 08 11:53 PM
  1. So you can not sell a legal, non prescription drug at the drug store??????????? This is ridiculous.

    Posted by Cal December 12, 08 12:02 AM
  1. "Harold Cox, an associate dean at the Boston University School of Public Health. "Our responsibility as governmental officials is to protect people.""

    People choosing to engage in a voluntary. legal activity are not seeking governmental protection.

    Posted by m,cotter December 12, 08 12:04 AM
  1. Seems like the only place they should be sold are 'drug' stores. Afterall, nicotene is a drug.

    Posted by Kevin Smith December 12, 08 12:08 AM
  1. Haven't you heard? They are already talking about raising taxes on booze. It's supposed to "help people drink less". Does this sound familiar? They used this same story for smoking. Now they just say we want all the cash we can get by raising the cigarette tax. They don't even bother with the old stories "it's for the children", etc... Ever see the movie Demolition Man? Remember how everything that was bad for you was illegal...

    Posted by Tony A December 12, 08 12:18 AM
  1. As a group smokers are continuosly ostrocized from society. I enjoy smoking. Am I wrong? am I dangerous,? should I be locked up for smoking??

    Is this my decison?

    I agree that this country was built upon freedom... And the further oppression of smokers is further oppression of our freedoms.

    Posted by Klh December 12, 08 12:40 AM
  1. Harrybosch,
    I'm curious as to how Mr. Cox's involvement in supporting the GLBT community is at all relevant to the matter at hand. Your prejudicial tone seems to imply you have a point, but I don't see it anywhere in your comment.

    Also, to all those who are complaining about how bad Massachusetts is and how much you cant wait to leave, please don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    Posted by Jackie December 12, 08 12:47 AM
  1. absolutely ridiculous - cigarettes are legal to sell and consume if you are 18 or older. This is a gross violation of the pharmacy's right to run their own business as they see fit.

    Posted by WVW December 12, 08 12:59 AM
  1. You would think that if one walked down the street with a burning object, emitting foul smoke, and deliberately inhaling the hazardous fumes that are known to cause death, that one would be arrested and locked up as a public menace and a suicidal maniac.

    Posted by Fran Taylor December 12, 08 01:11 AM
  1. An open letter to the Boston Public Health Commision:

    I appreciate your deep concern for my health and well-being. These new policies will undoubtedly be insturmental in helping my understanding of healthy lifestyles. Unfortunately, it would be irresponsible of you to stop simply at the regulations outlined regarding tobacco sales.

    I am seriously considering becoming a Vegan, and of course wil be forcing my children to do the same. Unfortunately, during a recent visit to my local supermarket, I encountered several items stocked with fatty, unhealthy options, many of them meat products. I should not be forced to be exposed to these dangerous products. Please ban them.

    Then I went to my local CVS for a box of Band-Aids, having accidentally sliced my finger while slicing celery. On a nearby shelf sat several boxes of lightbulbs, readily available for purchase. Exposure to them was a threat to my safety, given their potential to shatter if dropped, further wounding me. I go to pharmacies to feel better, not to expose myself to products that can cause injury. Please ban light bulbs as well.

    Finally, I took a stroll across the Boston University campus, where I passed several public phone kiosks. Not only were there no labels warning of the choking hazard should the cord be wrapped around my neck, but the phones themselves were covered with harmful germs. In general, I choose not to use public phones because they're expensive and dirty, but I must admit I did have a very strong urge to use one today because they were so prominently displayed, and I imagine it must be even more difficult to resist for the vulnerable college students. Please ban them, especially on college campuses..

    These are just a few changes I feel could be made; I do hope you'll continue your vigilant effort to promote the welfare of your high-risk citizens.

    Thank you.

    Posted by T. Bob December 12, 08 01:31 AM
  1. They should ban SUVs also.

    Posted by furball December 12, 08 02:11 AM
  1. You would think that this stupid state would worry more about about the corruption that is going on here instead of worrying about cig. MA has become a Nazi state that's for sure.

    Posted by kickyoubutt December 12, 08 02:12 AM
  1. You morons keep voting for these idiots!!!!

    Posted by dfljl December 12, 08 02:20 AM
  1. Hey, I have an idea, let's tell people how to live their lives. We can make choices for them, tell them what to eat, think, everything. Since when has people thinking for themselves and making their own choices been a good thing?


    This is absolutely idiotic. Nothing wrong with cigar bars. If you don't like it, don't go in. Let the pansification of America continue.

    Posted by Steve December 12, 08 02:42 AM
  1. Worse yet, I offered a comment about raising taxes on cigarettes to fund the Mass health initiative noting it as an Oxymoron but it was apprently censore. So much for a duscussion forum!

    Posted by XENOPHON December 12, 08 03:56 AM
  1. Mr. Cox, it's YOU we need protecting from.

    Posted by Audrey Silk December 12, 08 04:26 AM
  1. Slowly they will control everyone...

    Posted by Babaganosh December 14, 08 04:54 AM
  1. The ban does not apply to big box stores like Wal-mart and Target that have pharmacies, nor does it apply to grocery stores that have pharmacies. How is that fair? And why does the city of Boston feel they need to make so many special laws against college students? These people are adults, we need to stop treating them like children.

    Posted by Mr. Scrooge December 14, 08 01:45 PM
  1. Intersting how manyh of these people have the attitude that just because they don't like something it should be illegal. We've become a very intolerant society. Also funny how they want to close the few places smokers can go, even though no one there is there for any other reason than that they want to be. They're not even pretending it's to "protect nonsmokers" any more. Can we finally call this what it is: a persecution?

    Posted by chris December 18, 08 10:37 PM
  1. For a while there, it looked like NY or San Francisco might steal Boston's traditional title of "America's most repressive city". Yes, indeed, "Banned in Boston" is back. You should all be very proud.

    Posted by bzar December 19, 08 12:29 PM
  1. I'm a lifelong liberal, but I'm kind of curious as to why so many "progressives", who preach "choice", "tolerance" and "diversity" are beating up on smokers. After all, most of them are the working class folks we lefties say we support. Why deny them places for their pleasure? This is one reason left-wing politics is such a hard sell in this country--it IS largely the province of a cultural elite and if you don't fit their culture (if you smoke, drink, eat meat, own a gun, watch NASCAR, etc. etc.) you are the enemy to them. We liberals stand up for despised groups like gays, illegal immigrqants and convicts. Why can't we stand up for smokers???

    Posted by atlas December 20, 08 06:48 PM
  1. the city will get sued and spend thoudsands to defend its postion that will implode to the cigar bar attorney's already in the works. it's a matter of crossing the line and every law has exemptions. specialty and private uses in particular. the thing that bothers is the mayor i voted for has appointed these cronnies - "personal agenda biased out of touch with the majority" people that drive around in Volvo's making laws that are meaningless and unwanted by the majority that THEY are supposed to represent? smoking cigaretts and cigars in the open are legal. how can one pass a non-smoking patio law and not be challenged and also for those hard working loading dock blue collar workers that want gov't out of their pocket!? what is happening to society, what is happening to this city?? someone step up to the plate....please!

    Posted by steve January 12, 09 12:01 PM
  1. DO NOT VOTE FOR THESE IDIOTS. Collect signatures and request that they resign on their own! Very very soon you will have government in your bedroom.

    Posted by People On The Rise June 22, 09 05:11 PM
  1. This new smoking ban increase to outdoor spaces could be a GREAT contributor to business failure, and the economic status. Another point if this is being done to improve the general quality of the public's health Why has Massachusetts health care insurance cost increased by nearly 34%? Of the health care professionals I have spoken to the quality of care has not increased it is the same.

    Posted by John Stanley August 21, 09 08:49 AM
add your comment
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

about white coat notes We post updates every weekday about the region's hospitals, labs and medical schools – covering everything from the latest research findings to what's on the minds of the innovative doctors, nurses and scientists who work here. Send news items and tips to whitecoat@globe.com

Contributors

blogger

Elizabeth Cooney is a former health reporter for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, where she also was a business reporter and an editor. Earlier in her career, she edited medical books and journals at Little, Brown, and worked for Boston magazine.

Boston Globe Health and Science staff:

archives