Could be or at least for retailers who risk gaming the system. I’m alble ro buy some Tabak Especial cigar locally which is coffee flavored but called Dolce something.
Massachusetts and Flavored Tobacco
- Thread starter homesteader
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Could be or at least for retailers who risk gaming the system. I’m alble ro buy some Tabak Especial cigar locally which is coffee flavored but called Dolce something.
I'm just glad that "our rulers" are protecting me from these "flavored tobaccos", and make me wear my seat belt while I drive to and from my local bar where I can drink all I want.
I agree whole heartedly about the food additives. I'm confused as to why everyone has jumped onto the anti-tobacco bandwagon. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction people derive from this particular bandwagon? ?
it’s called “virtue signaling”. And it’s a powerful intoxicant. You’ll find it everywhere.
The MA "flavored tobacco ban" - only "goes so far"...
Dear Fellow Pipers:
Data's Calabash, back after a long absence...in respect to what Smilin' Charlie (Baker, the current MA governor) had in mind when first enacting the "flavored tobacco ban" in 2019, the wording of it has NO specificity about "what forms" of tobacco product(s) could ever BE exempted, and seemed to be a "sledgehammer solution" to take on every single example of tobacco consumption...
...and in contrast to what Washington State's "upside-down" situation (pipe tobacco from out-of-state illegal, while still allowing recreational combustible cannabis ? in-state) and the situations in Utah and Michigan, where - in each of those two states - all mail-order tobacco was prohibited, the Bay State "prohibitions" simply do NOT go that far, and could have a "geographic restriction" built-in that can NEVER let the Bay State's "own tobacco restrictions" go as far as the other, aforementioned states' do.
Take, for example, Washington State...it only borders two other U.S. states, Oregon and Idaho.
Utah, by contrast, borders some five "large-area" states with relatively low populations; in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada - the Utah ban could have something to do with their history, and the "stimulant-free" nature of who first settled it in 1847.
Michigan only borders three other states, in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio.
By contrast, where the Bay State is concerned, we border five states - New Hampshire, Vermont, NY State, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Out of the five states that border Massachusetts, only ONE of them (New York) has a size comparable to Washington State or Michigan, and the other four are, like the Bay State, among the smallest states of the "contiguous 48".
The "flavored tobacco ban" in the Bay State, however, apparently has NO provisions within it for interstate mail-order tobacco bans, for either pipe mixtures or natural-leaf cigars. I'd have to bet that SOME remembrances of "previous attempts" to "do things" against pipe enjoyment in the Bay State - like the failed early 2010 ban attempt, and the near-disaster that happened in Westminster, MA in November 2014 (and how each of them went wrong, or presented significant chances to do so), might still be on the minds of some in the MA State House...
...and with the EVER-present chances of someone "going over the border to New Hampshire", usually for things like fireworks (which I'm not exactly fond of - "only let the pros handle such things") which haven't been "legal" in the Bay State for many years...it's still quite possible for tobacco shops in the "southern tier" of Granite State border towns very likely still do sell pipe mixtures to briar-loving Bay State residents, with many of those likely to have "flavorings" that the "Bay State sledgehammer" would normally target, but since it's "from New Hampshire", tend not to even bother with, as there's simply no urgency to do so, from my own observations.
Mail-order pipe mixture sales from out-of-state - to private individuals in the Bay State - have nothing to restrict them at the state level, or be blocked by the existing "flavored tobacco ban", except the agreed-upon step that virtually all mail-order pipe tobacco vendors have taken nationwide, in sticking to thorough verification that a customer is at least 21 years old, going along with currently-passed Federal legislation.
And, should ANY state-level legislator attempt to "increase regulation" of the above-mentioned "interstate pipe-mixture sales activity" on Beacon Hill (the elevated ground where the MA State House is built upon in central Boston) it would likely only take a few words of protest from either the Wampanoag or Nipmuc native nations, both recognized at either the Federal or state level, to DOOM any state-level restrictions on pipe-mixture availability from out-of-state, to anyone within the Bay State.
Getting rid of cigarettes at the Federal level IS going to be easiest with the Department of Defense, as "getting those damn butts" out of EVERY. SINGLE. BRANCH of the Service is a long-overdue step that MUST be taken...that would give our servicemen (and eventual veterans) much better health, and most of all be the single most effective way to achieve the eventual Federal goal of "separating America's youth from premature nicotine addiction". Vaping-fluids, due to their likely high toxic-petrochemical content, would also be desirable as well to eradicate first in the Services, then for the public at large when any "military markets for vaping products" are legislated out of existence.
I simply want our servicemen to be able to enjoy a pipeful or cigar when it's appropriate, as with the Marine pipe-fan corporal I amicably met in 1983 at an above-ground MBTA terminal station where I then lived in Braintree, MA...at that time, we were from different worlds, yet shared the same passion for pipes; and if the military can keep natural pipe mixtures and handmade, natural-leaf cigars available for our servicemen, and anyone 21-and-over in the US completely legal for both of us to enjoy; that's all that we should need to request and expect.
Dear Fellow Pipers:
Data's Calabash, back after a long absence...in respect to what Smilin' Charlie (Baker, the current MA governor) had in mind when first enacting the "flavored tobacco ban" in 2019, the wording of it has NO specificity about "what forms" of tobacco product(s) could ever BE exempted, and seemed to be a "sledgehammer solution" to take on every single example of tobacco consumption...
...and in contrast to what Washington State's "upside-down" situation (pipe tobacco from out-of-state illegal, while still allowing recreational combustible cannabis ? in-state) and the situations in Utah and Michigan, where - in each of those two states - all mail-order tobacco was prohibited, the Bay State "prohibitions" simply do NOT go that far, and could have a "geographic restriction" built-in that can NEVER let the Bay State's "own tobacco restrictions" go as far as the other, aforementioned states' do.
Take, for example, Washington State...it only borders two other U.S. states, Oregon and Idaho.
Utah, by contrast, borders some five "large-area" states with relatively low populations; in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada - the Utah ban could have something to do with their history, and the "stimulant-free" nature of who first settled it in 1847.
Michigan only borders three other states, in Wisconsin, Indiana and Ohio.
By contrast, where the Bay State is concerned, we border five states - New Hampshire, Vermont, NY State, Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Out of the five states that border Massachusetts, only ONE of them (New York) has a size comparable to Washington State or Michigan, and the other four are, like the Bay State, among the smallest states of the "contiguous 48".
The "flavored tobacco ban" in the Bay State, however, apparently has NO provisions within it for interstate mail-order tobacco bans, for either pipe mixtures or natural-leaf cigars. I'd have to bet that SOME remembrances of "previous attempts" to "do things" against pipe enjoyment in the Bay State - like the failed early 2010 ban attempt, and the near-disaster that happened in Westminster, MA in November 2014 (and how each of them went wrong, or presented significant chances to do so), might still be on the minds of some in the MA State House...
...and with the EVER-present chances of someone "going over the border to New Hampshire", usually for things like fireworks (which I'm not exactly fond of - "only let the pros handle such things") which haven't been "legal" in the Bay State for many years...it's still quite possible for tobacco shops in the "southern tier" of Granite State border towns very likely still do sell pipe mixtures to briar-loving Bay State residents, with many of those likely to have "flavorings" that the "Bay State sledgehammer" would normally target, but since it's "from New Hampshire", tend not to even bother with, as there's simply no urgency to do so, from my own observations.
Mail-order pipe mixture sales from out-of-state - to private individuals in the Bay State - have nothing to restrict them at the state level, or be blocked by the existing "flavored tobacco ban", except the agreed-upon step that virtually all mail-order pipe tobacco vendors have taken nationwide, in sticking to thorough verification that a customer is at least 21 years old, going along with currently-passed Federal legislation.
And, should ANY state-level legislator attempt to "increase regulation" of the above-mentioned "interstate pipe-mixture sales activity" on Beacon Hill (the elevated ground where the MA State House is built upon in central Boston) it would likely only take a few words of protest from either the Wampanoag or Nipmuc native nations, both recognized at either the Federal or state level, to DOOM any state-level restrictions on pipe-mixture availability from out-of-state, to anyone within the Bay State.
Getting rid of cigarettes at the Federal level IS going to be easiest with the Department of Defense, as "getting those damn butts" out of EVERY. SINGLE. BRANCH of the Service is a long-overdue step that MUST be taken...that would give our servicemen (and eventual veterans) much better health, and most of all be the single most effective way to achieve the eventual Federal goal of "separating America's youth from premature nicotine addiction". Vaping-fluids, due to their likely high toxic-petrochemical content, would also be desirable as well to eradicate first in the Services, then for the public at large when any "military markets for vaping products" are legislated out of existence.
I simply want our servicemen to be able to enjoy a pipeful or cigar when it's appropriate, as with the Marine pipe-fan corporal I amicably met in 1983 at an above-ground MBTA terminal station where I then lived in Braintree, MA...at that time, we were from different worlds, yet shared the same passion for pipes; and if the military can keep natural pipe mixtures and handmade, natural-leaf cigars available for our servicemen, and anyone 21-and-over in the US completely legal for both of us to enjoy; that's all that we should need to request and expect.
The phrase "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" isn't a part of the Constitution. It's part of the Declaration of Independence.
The right to smoke flavored tobacco isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
So this prohibition, while annoying isn't unconstitutional. Rights and freedoms are always limited. Your freedom to smoke El Stinko Profundo may infringe on the freedom of others to not have to gag over the stench.
The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights reserved to the States and the People all powers not granted to the United States. Individual states and their populations can impose such laws as do not contradict federal law. So Massachusetts can enact a ban on flavored tobacco if they so desire.
Massachusetts: drunkenly driving a campaign worker into a lake and waiting a day till you sober up to report it. COOL.
Massachusetts: tax paying adults enjoy flavored tobacco. UNCOOL.
Massachusetts: tax paying adults enjoy flavored tobacco. UNCOOL.
Ever since I was a teenager I’ve been a big proponent and supporter for the legalization of marijuana, but sometimes I feel like we’re in Bizzaro world when tobacco is becoming more illegal and marijuana is becoming more legal.
The the Wampanoag or Nipmuc native nations should open tobacco shops with big smoking lounges and bars. There has been a number of court cases throughout the country that has given Native Nations the right to ignore state laws. Louisiana state law prevents land based casinos (except for New Orleans) but two separate Native American tribes went to court and won the right to built casinos in Marksville and Marksville.
The release of Mac Baren's Vanilla Roll Cake reminded me of this, and my frustration with ordering certain blends from Smokingpipes. I'm not sure why they're unable to ship aromatic blends to MA. I was under the impression that the state law only forbid retailers within MA from selling flavored tobacco products (some retailers are still selling, others are only shipping aromatic blends out of state), but I couldn't find a specific mention against shipping it in from another state akin to the ban in Washington.
There also seems to be a bit of a double standard where SP is concerned, and maybe some blends are slipping below the radar, while others have tweaked their description to omit flavors or the word aromatic. E.G. I'm able to order Lane HGL but not Sutliff Aromatic English, they're rather similar but I prefer the latter. It's certainly been interesting finding alternative, yet similar, blends that have escaped the ban hammer. And maybe it'll lead to me finding a new blend I like.. It also means I have to get Black Frigate from another vendor.
There also seems to be a bit of a double standard where SP is concerned, and maybe some blends are slipping below the radar, while others have tweaked their description to omit flavors or the word aromatic. E.G. I'm able to order Lane HGL but not Sutliff Aromatic English, they're rather similar but I prefer the latter. It's certainly been interesting finding alternative, yet similar, blends that have escaped the ban hammer. And maybe it'll lead to me finding a new blend I like.. It also means I have to get Black Frigate from another vendor.
I just wanna know who in Jiminy Cricket's name is smoking peach White Owls. Did they just release enough of these to fill a shelf in every sulfur smelling truckstop across the country and then stop, allowing them all to just collect dust, or does someone every now and then actually buy one?
I put them in the same category as gas station sushi... just don't.
I put them in the same category as gas station sushi... just don't.
- Status