Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lazy reporting by the Boston media, as usual. First, calling Westminster a "Western Massachusetts" town when it's solidly in the middle, while concurrently perpetuating their habit of mocking any town under 10,000 people as "tiny" with implication of pathetic when there are plenty of towns under 2,000 people they could be making fun of if they knew where to look for an actual tiny town, but they really don't know how to look west past Waltham or so very well without calling everything the Berkshires. Westminster is actually just a woodsy suburb of Leominster, Fitchburg, and Gardner, and half the town commutes to metro Boston anyways, it's merely the ass end of MetroWest - it ain't quite New Braintree, people. Then, the issue at hand - contemporary do-gooder dingbats on an idiot crusade against human vices, while hairy Middle Mass slimefocks chant uninformed slogans about "socialism" and defending their personal freedom to put themselves into the ground. Hallelelujah! This is a truly amusing circus and democracy in action. Once you make a vice legal, you have to keep it legal, dummies! What ever was that board of health thinking? http://www.boston.com/news/2014/11/1...sub_headline_1
I rolled my eyes at the "nanny state" whiners when it came to "freedom infringement" in the form of seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws. Smoking bans in bars and most public buildings were bad enough, though it does make the indoor environment more pleasant for everybody. But crusading to outlaw it in open areas or a person's own home (Cambridge - what a surprise - is trying to enact tobacco prohibition in their public parks and housing "developments") and put the kibosh on sales definitely crosses the line.
Once CVS installed computerized "checkout" I'd quit taking my business there anyway.
Thanks goodness the casino ban proposal failed at the polls too!
Wow, a bit harsh. Do you have something against the Boston media? I didn't sense any tone of mockery in the article. Also, I think including Westminster as part of Metrowest is just as bad as the Globe calling it Western Mass. Both are clearly false statements because Westerminster is right smack in the middle of both borders.
Being from western Mass, I've barely heard of Westminster. All I know (or think I know) is that it's a town in Central Mass.
I hope somebody keeps banning smoking in restaurants and other public places--some of us get sick from it and many find it unhealthy to breathe. But you can't ban people from smoking in their own homes. In apartment complexes they should have one area of it for smokers. I have lived in an apartment complex where somebody smoked so much that the smoke actually cam right through the walls. I could smell it and it made me sick. Of course, that guy was dead of lung cancer within two years. His choice.
Being from western Mass, I've barely heard of Westminster. All I know (or think I know) is that it's a town in Central Mass.
I hope somebody keeps banning smoking in restaurants and other public places--some of us get sick from it and many find it unhealthy to breathe. But you can't ban people from smoking in their own homes. In apartment complexes they should have one area of it for smokers. I have lived in an apartment complex where somebody smoked so much that the smoke actually cam right through the walls. I could smell it and it made me sick. Of course, that guy was dead of lung cancer within two years. His choice.
Glad someone else around here feels the same way as I do. Everytime someone lights up on the street in front of me I need to cross the street or "run" in front of him so I don't get sick from the smoke. Banning smoking in public buildings and restaurants was a good first move, but they need to expand this to college campuses where 2nd hand smoke is especially bad in the outdoor common areas.
Banning smoking in public buildings and restaurants was a good first move, but they need to expand this to college campuses where 2nd hand smoke is especially bad in the outdoor common areas.
So where do you draw the line and stop?
I can fully see smoking being completely banned in 10-20 years if this sort of policy continues.
I for one am bothered by secondhand smoke as well, but it's just funny to watch the progression of how over time, the policies towards smoking have progressed. At first, it was just to segregate areas of the restaraunt. Then the entire restarant was non-smoking. Then you couldn't smoke within X number of feet from the entrance of the place. Now we are talking about banning it in all public places, and banning sales. When does it stop? 20 years from now it will be banned totally and people will stop and ask "How did this happen"
This goes a little bit deeper than cigarettes for me because personally I can't stand the cancersticks, but in general, I dislike how policy progresses over time. You don't perform an outright ban, you just take little bits and peices over time. People have short memories and soon forget and then you just take a little bit more. If 10-15 years ago, an outright ban was proposed, it would have never passed. These days, due to years of incremental regulation, banning cigs seems like it might happen one day.
This is also why the firearms debate in this country is so hotly contested every time a new restriction is proposed. Death by 1000 papercuts.
I can fully see smoking being completely banned in 10-20 years if this sort of policy continues.
I for one am bothered by secondhand smoke as well, but it's just funny to watch the progression of how over time, the policies towards smoking have progressed. At first, it was just to segregate areas of the restaraunt. Then the entire restarant was non-smoking. Then you couldn't smoke within X number of feet from the entrance of the place. Now we are talking about banning it in all public places, and banning sales. When does it stop? 20 years from now it will be banned totally and people will stop and ask "How did this happen"
This goes a little bit deeper than cigarettes for me because personally I can't stand the cancersticks, but in general, I dislike how policy progresses over time. You don't perform an outright ban, you just take little bits and peices over time. People have short memories and soon forget and then you just take a little bit more. If 10-15 years ago, an outright ban was proposed, it would have never passed. These days, due to years of incremental regulation, banning cigs seems like it might happen one day.
This is also why the firearms debate in this country is so hotly contested every time a new restriction is proposed. Death by 1000 papercuts.
Perhaps in 20 years we will be incarcerating young male demographics for the illicit distribution of cigarettes ... and I'll be able to pick up a joint at my local gas station.
A continued reduction in smoking is best served through education and taxation, not regulated bans. The government should promote the notion that smoking is categorically stupid and not counter culture / rebellious ... ban something outright = insta-cool.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
