Old Fashioned Soda Shop Threatened With Misdemeanor Over Sale Of Candy Cigarettes

51s+WPq1ooL._SL500_AA300_I have previously written about the criminalization of America as politicians turn every objectionable act into a crime. I have criticized this trend in columns (here and here) and numerous blogs on the criminalization of using artificial turf to growing vegetable gardens to eating french fries in the subway. Now owners of an old-fashioned soda shop in St. Paul, Minn. were threatened with fines and a misdemeanor citation unless they stopped selling novelty candy cigarettes. Lynden’s Soda Fountain was unaware that it was committing a crime by selling the long-common items.


City inspectors warned Lynden’s Soda Fountain that it was in flagrant violation of an ordinance barring the sale of candy cigarettes and cartoon character lighters. The ban also applies to items like Big League Chew chewing gum. The store sells most of the vintage candy cigarettes to adults in their 40s and 50s but the city has barred the right of adults to buy such items in another example, in my view, of a nanny state mentality.

Making the law even less logical is that fact that Minneapolis allows such sales. The owner said “We have to send them over to our sister city – Minneapolis – to get their candy smokes.”

The ordinance was enacted to discourage youngsters from eventually using real cigarettes. I understand that good motivation. However, even if such items should not be sold to children, I fail to see why they cannot be sold to adults.

Source: IBT

47 thoughts on “Old Fashioned Soda Shop Threatened With Misdemeanor Over Sale Of Candy Cigarettes

  1. I’ve still got a “You’ve Come A Long Way Baby” calendar & other sales items from the 70s that a neighbor gave to me as a kid..should I sue the neighbor for giving it to me or be afraid the government will arrest me for having it in my possession? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    P.S. For some reason, those things never made me smoke…nor did smoking parents or peer pressure. I must be doing something wrong.

  2. Ban candy cigarettes….for kids, but don’t do anything about the easy availability of 300,000,000 guns in this country for those same kids. Is anyone, here, still questioning why the United States is the laughing stock of the world? How do I get a ticket to France… I don’t think I like it here any more………….

  3. When you walk into the drug stores in that town, or stores with drug departments such as Walmart, observe the tobacco products being sold openly to the humanoid schmucks right next to the Oxycotton sold to the cancer victims of the cigarettes. The candy store owner, like the Walmart owner, ought to be shot– not fined. “Smoke em if ya gottem” was the line uttered by John Wayne in the movie The Green Berets when the troops stopped to rest in the jungle after a hard slog. Two things going on there which kill the ones who “gottem”: the Cong were out there with their noses up locating the troops and the troops who survived to the year 2012 are dying off from cancer. Big tobacco has friends like the Koch Brothers and paid lackeys like John Wayne or Walter Cronkite. Good old Walter, who cut an example on the air by smoking and advising his so called “news audience” that “Winston tastes good, like a cigarette should.”.

    If we are to have any laws governing humanoid behavior, one small law which says that candy store owners can not promote cigarette cancer products to children is not so evil. Yeah, I read all the comments about Big Brother and concern for the poor candy store owner. You would not be mouthing this apCray if the candy store owner was promoting pot, heroin, meth or ObamaCare. But I am just a dog talkin and we are not so dumb as to smoke tobacco or buy into all that xmas rush.

  4. Which kills more each year: cancer from smoking or guns. It is smoking, I think we’ve seen the figures, and by a wide margin.

    Disable your gun, and it won’t kill, effective directly. You are not addicted to guns in the same way (?) as to nicotine. You might even leave gun use behind you in your future life.

    Stop smoking and you will still get cancer statistically linked to smoking.
    You will be fighting your nicotine addiction. Breaking the instant gratification habit is hard. Not so with guns, how many carry a gun just to shoot off a round for kicks, just any old where. (Some do, but that is not normal).

    And since we know that adults think it is cute when there kids adopt “adult clothing, mannarisms, etc., we know that candy cigs will be used inappropriately. Nothing convinces a kid better than a sweet thing to put in the mouth.

    Hope this answers the Professor’s question. We need nannying, and so think all our leaders. Or haven’t you noticed?

    “However, even if such items should not be sold to children, I fail to see why they cannot be sold to adults.”

  5. A warning in this case would have been appropriate. The point in stopping the sale of candy cigarettes was to try and change the culture of cigarette smoking and to steer children away from an unhealthy activity. Some tobacco companies were at one time very involved in the candy cigarette market to bring children along.

    As to the posting about guns, the sale of guns really needs to be stopped and has nothing to do with candy cigarettes except that toy guns are part of the training we all receive that guns are fun!

  6. I ate those things all the time as a kid and have never smoked. Seems like another dumb law that is well-intentioned and not thought about at all.

    And on the guns note – it has everything to do with guns. People are proposing poorly thought-out laws which will not be a solution but will restrict the rights of adults who are law-abiding citizens… It’s a lot like this law.

  7. When I grew up in the 50’s they made not only candy cigs but fake cigs w/ a fake glow and powder smoke. I guess if you sold those now you would be facing 5-8 years in the joint. Our govt. is out of control and we remain passive.

  8. The last sentence in the article as to why these candy cigarettes can not be sold to adults is a good point. We could house the candy cigarettes over by the real cigarettes.
    This way the adults who are on a track of not living to see their grandchildren reach candy age can look back on their own childhood days when everyone was promoting cigarettes to them. Greta Garbo, John Wayne, Walter Cronkite– all the stars in granpa’s world smoked.
    And while we are at it selling candy cigarettes to adults, lets sell them candy guns, candy meth pipes, candy joints, candy naked girls, candy weenies. Suck on those thoughts. Smoke em if ya gottem.

  9. Jude,

    Why do you and others try to claim you are the rule. You are statistical exceptions. And no study will confirm your conclusions.

    We, holier than thou in Sweden, long ago abandoned guns etc war toys.
    Parents would not buy them. There was no law, or regulation, just realizing that it was not healthy teaching kids to solve conflicts by shooting.
    For the smallest, it is simply a question of acting out and making noise. They don’t even realize death on a personal plane. But TV films help there.

  10. ‘City inspectors warned Lynden’s Soda Fountain that it was in flagrant violation of an ordinance barring the sale of candy cigarettes and cartoon character lighters.’
    ———————
    So if they were one of the ignorant few, they were given a warning to remove the items. This is not Nanny state behavior, it is enforcement of the current prevailing statutes….maybe Washington could take a lesson!
    And being told to comply with the law does not preclude that the silly things aren’t available to adults through a different legal market mechanism.
    Also, what P Smith said….

  11. Anonymously Yours 1, December 28, 2012 at 8:55 am

    Dredd,

    That’s the edible kind….
    ==============================
    Edible ciggies or edible panties?

  12. OTOTOTOT

    I posted a link and an excerpt from Alan Grayson’s recipe for politics.

    He said in one case, that we should break out that we can agree on, and leave the rest for quarreling over later.

    Here’s Harry Reid’s attempt. And the Rep-dominated House won’t buy it.
    And what are you doing to help NOT raise your taxes on Jan.1st?
    Sitting on your hands?.
    =======================

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/us/politics/senate-leader-fears-not-enough-time-for-fiscal-deal.html?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20121227&_r=0

    Senate Leader Says Deal Is Unlikely Before Fiscal Deadline

    By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

    Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, criticized House Republicans for not approving a Senate-passed measure to extend lower tax rates on some households and said a compromise seemed to be out of reach.

  13. OTOTOTOTOT

    We don’t have an active thread on gun control just now. Has the “extremism and hysteria” deplored by some ended now.

    We know that NRA scores politicians re gun rights. And actively fights the election of those who don’t score A’s.

    Did you know that they are reportedly cooperating in their “symbiosis” with the Republican party nationally to oppose Sct candidates, not on real gun scores, but because the party asks them to do so.

    Their reach is down to the lower levels of the federal system. Where will it end?

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/the-n-r-a-at-the-bench/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121227

  14. OK, to get back on topic, “Nanny Laws” need not be taken to a criminal level. I currently have a felony conviction as a direct result of back child support issues in a case that was decided under a bought and paid for judge. So is there a remedy when a financially strapped individual is harmed by the state and made further impoverished through laws which can not possibly aid the child? Commen sence dictates that a law must not harm the party that it is intending to protect? Legislatures do not look past the “Amber Alert” emotions at the time they vote on quickly developed and exceptionally faulty bills which become law. In Florida, over only twenty years, the number of volumes of statutes has risen from two manageable books to five oversized tomes. Should the conservative movement really decide to shrink government it would sunshine laws with short term limits and if the fault is adequately shown then the law would then join the dinosaurs by default. Again, I say, do not criminalize civility. Bad behavior is going to be around as long as parents, teachers and the media encourage that behavior.
    About guns and control of weapons; ignorance is fed by greed and paranoia, America was built by these components, Those that wish to change this dynamic will fail as now at least five generations have thrived on those components. Today our basic instincts are being threatened and to civilize our very core these tenants will need to be softened which is not the macho tendency of the US. Two cents hell I gave you a dollar today.

  15. I find other’ writings far better than mine. Surprise?

    So here an excerpt from a subject that will not go away. Why? ´The previous commenter touched on, but spoke in own cause. Do we want the NRA to control the Republican party? See link above for more.

    Excerpt: NYTimes

    “Well, a cataclysm just occurred, a few dozen miles from my office at Yale Law School. (My late father-in-law was born on a farm in the Sandy Hook neighborhood of Newtown.) There will be legislative proposals, and members of the Senate and House will debate them, maybe even enact a few, and people back home can decide what they think. How to get a handle on the gun problem is not my point. Rather, I want to offer the judicial nomination story as a canary in the mine, a warning about the depths to which the power of the gun lobby has brought the political system.

    My point is this: It is totally unacceptable for the N.R.A., desperate to hang on to its mission and its members after achieving its Second Amendment triumph at the Supreme Court four years ago, to be calling the tune on judicial nominations for an entire political party. Free the Republican caucus. Follow Lisa Murkowski’s lead. Recognize a naked power play for what it is. Voters who think they care about the crisis of gun violence in America are part of the problem, not the solution – they are enablers if they aren’t willing to help their elected representatives cast off the N.R.A.’s chains. Call for an end to the cowardly filibuster against Caitlin Halligan, whose nomination the president resubmitted in September. The next time a senator announces opposition to a judicial nominee, demand something other than incoherent mumbo-jumbo. Tell the senator to fill in the blank: “I oppose this nominee because ____.” If there’s an answer of substance, fine. That’s advise-and-consent democracy. But if, upon inspection, the real answer is “because the N.R.A. told me to,” we have a problem. Based on these last few years, I think we do.”
    ===============

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/the-n-r-a-at-the-bench/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121227

  16. idealist707 1, December 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Nannyism is not the threat to the nation. Instead it is anti-democratic independent autocratic organizations driven by simple greed. Greed for more of all things.
    ===================================
    Tru dat.

    The nanny state is for MOMCOM, not the people.

    The MOMCOM theme:

    “I am my mother’s only one … I am my mother on the wall”

  17. A stupid law in the sense that it criminalizes selling these to adults as well.

    Are candy cigs really a significant factor in why children or adults smoke? I find that hard to believe.

  18. The following items are legal to sell to consumers.

    .1 microcurie of Strontium-90 (a radioactive beta emitter)
    X-Ray Tubes
    Uranium Ore
    grade N50 NdFeB magnets. (can lead to injury if mishandled)
    Flamethrower (most states)

    Illegal in St. Paul

    Candy Cigarettes

  19. Why do kids smoke cigarettes? Many adult cancer victims started out at age 10 or so. It does not help the population control because the schmucks all sire kids before they get cancer or heart disease or emphesema. Perhaps a middle path would be to require them to buy a life insurance policy before they buy their children candy cigarettes. Our population is out of control and the self induced cancer thing is one way to knock some of the dumb ones off earlier than the normal life expectancy.

    Sure you can have a pack of candy cigarettes Cindy. Then we will go home and watch old movies on TCM with all the stars glamourizing smoking. You can be Marilyn and Johnboy can be John Wayne in the Vietnam War or Richard Burton sitting on the throne of England.. Smoke em if ya gottem.

  20. Darren,

    “Darren Smith1, December 28, 2012 at 3:54 pm

    The following items are legal to sell to consumers.
    ———-

    You are obviously avoiding the point. Of the objects you listed, do you have any stats on their mortality rate in the USA? Compare them with tobacco, particularly cigarettes. Are any of them offered over the counter, sometimes to underage customers. Are they strongly addictive and thus daily use. As to causing cancer in the general public, tobacco leads by the thousnands every year.
    =================

    Juris,

    A little googling should change your mind. Nuf’ said. Good searching.

  21. itchinBay,

    Other than SantOrump, I think that “smoke’em if you gottem” is the worst?best? words this year.

    Of course he said it years ago, but some things are forever. As long as cigarettes exist.

  22. idealist707 1, December 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Dredd,

    Should be appreciated at JT’s, I believe.
    ====================================
    Way tru dat.

    And dig: Black Merda (“They are considered to be the first all black rock band”):

  23. Here me “for cryin out loud”.

    Deejus, criminal penalties for the selling of the idea of tobacco.

    Thoughtcrimes, here they come again.

    Am only I and JT here critical of this nonsense?

  24. Idealist contributed:
    You are obviously avoiding the point. Of the objects you listed, do you have any stats on their mortality rate in the USA?
    ~+~
    Oh how about the fact that it is a misdemeanor to sell a candy cigarette to an adult but it is not illegal to sell actual cigarettes to the same person.

    And I don’t have numbers readily available to me, and I don’t see the need to spend my time researching them, but here is some other supporting evidence:

    Strontium 90: Strontium 90 is a byproduct of nuclear fallout among other things. Since human physiology interprets it to be similar to calcium the body uptakes it into bones. If ingested into the body, it tends to collect in bones which has led to cancer. The half life of strontium 90 is if memory serves me 28 years. During nuclear testing the winds carried it world wide. Children alive during that time in parts of the world have it in the bodies. If ingested it can lead to bone cancers.

    X-Ray Tubes: X-rays are a mutagen and if the technology is mishandled it can lead to genetic issues among other pathologies. The use of x-rays upon the human body is regulated. At one time x-rays were used in the fitting of shoes and other quack medical practices. Some states, Washington for one, outlaw the use of X-ray devices in the fitting of shoes because there were widespread cases of people being burned by these. RCW 70.98.170

    Uranuim Ore: Uranium ore emits Radon gas which is carcinogenic. Exposure over long terms can lead to lung cancer. Ingestion of uranium is poisonous. Before better suited mining techniques were brought forward the deaths of miners via lung and other cancers was an order of magnitude worse than members of the general population in the same area. Additionally, the families of uranium miners were significantly more likely to have genetic defects and other illnesses.

    High Magnets. No stats here but large sized grade n50 magnets can cause crush injury if a body part is between them and the magnets are a foot apart before being attracted to each other.

    Flamethrower: Is it obvious?

    Compare these to a candy cigarette made of sugar.

  25. idealist, why don’t you save me the time and post your basis for being so certain? I will be the first to tell you I was wrong. At least throw me a bone.

  26. Darren

    it’s not the ones made with cane sugar that bother me. the ones made with HFCS that are bad for you.

    and they’re damned hard to light

  27. Have you ever tasted those things? They should be illegal as per se child abuse, if sold to children. If sold to adults, they should be illegal as tending to cause violence.

  28. When I was a kid, I loved candy cigarettes. Now I am old and do not smoke so I doubt the supposition that candy cigarettes lead to tobacco addiction. In any event, what bothers me is that we have to have a government law prohibiting the sale with punishment metted out to the perpetrator. It seems to me the proper authority in this case is the parent who is responsible for rearing the child. When Dad said “no”, I obeyed. Have we adjusts become so inept that we must have government running our lives for us?

  29. Happy Pilgrim,

    Saying no to a child only increases the objects attraction and the child’s curiosity. Being surrounded by adults who smoke, and an adult will all children become, kinda makes if diffícult the withstand the constant reminder.
    Children also notice the relief that it offers to emotional distress to adults.
    So the rewards are there. It is also good against hunger pains, which they’ll discover on their first use.

    How did I stop smoking? Just by banishing them from my thoughts as attractive. Smoked for years in my dreams.

  30. Juris,
    Hope my comment to HP helps you understand.
    I don’t bite on the “show proof” challenge. If your mind were open to how children grow, you would have understood. And stats don’t change minds.
    Do they?

  31. Darren,

    That threats exist is a given. But you give no stats on those
    threats pertinence to individual and national health.

    I contend that tobacco smoking surpasses them all together.

    Previously made points; aping adults, availability, addiction, etc. prove my theme. Yours IMHO are unproven as to the danger they offer to the general public.

    We seem to be divided here at JTs, all the better. So be it. Out of respect for you, what basis other than those given motivated you. No labels, but is libertarianism, every man for himself, etc. have any influence. No insult intended, nor a snark. I ask questiions freely and with no intent other than collection of info.
    That is one of the things I live. on.

  32. Gary T1, December 28, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Here me “for cryin out loud”.

    Deejus, criminal penalties for the selling of the idea of tobacco.

    Thoughtcrimes, here they come again.

    Am only I and JT here critical of this nonsense?
    ======================================

    Thought crimes? Hardly.

    Just thinking of the children. ;-)

    They are impressionable or have you noticed. And should be protected from many things and taught many things.
    To respect others. To ape and adapt. To not use violence as a solution to conflict. And to not use tobacco smoking as a way of appearing self-assured and adult, and not as a vent for uncertaintly in meeting youth’s challenges.

  33. Dredd,

    So glad for these guys. I did write an essay on just their faces alone. But it went down the internet hole.

    Just will say, they feel like my brothers. And play real “black” And that means real good.

  34. Idealist wrote:
    Darren,

    That threats exist is a given. But you give no stats on those
    threats pertinence to individual and national health.

    I contend that tobacco smoking surpasses them all together.

    Previously made points; aping adults, availability, addiction, etc. prove my theme. Yours IMHO are unproven as to the danger they offer to the general public.

    ~+~
    First, as I said, I was not willing to waste my time compiling statistics on death rates for those examples because it is not necessary to prove the topic of this debate.

    In a previous thread you had mentioned

    You are obviously avoiding the point. Of the objects you listed, do you have any stats on their mortality rate in the USA?

    Again, there is no reason to generate numbers such as mortality rates on cigarettes or compare them with other objects. The topic / subject of this blog entry was the erosion of personal liberty in the United States through the increasing criminalization of certain minor acts by people as evidenced by the example of enforcing a criminal sanction by a business selling candy cigarettes to adults. That was the topic the author had provided. It was not on the mortality rate of cigarettes vs other objects.

    I chose to contrast the ridiculousness of making a criminal charge for selling essentially sticks made of sugar against items that are legal to sell to nearly anyone on most states in order to further show the absurdity of it all along with showing the selectiveness in the enforcement of the law.

    Your insistence on getting me to offer numbers to show death rates is NOT consistent with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is erosion of liberties by criminalization of behaviors. Your insistence upon providing these numbers serves only in your approach to, when I won’t provide them, provide only to yourself the illusion that you have won your argument with me because the next step is “Well Darren, you did not show the mortality rates, so your argument is wrong. I win.” I’m not going down that path.

    Every one of those objects that I listed will cause death at some point depending on time or degree. At what arbitrary point do you think the mortality scale of a cigarette smoking is surpased by any of these objects in order to be successfully argued according to your logic? Do you believe that getting hit by a flamethrower is less lethal than smoking a cigarette? What is more dangerous, a cigarette in the hand of a 9 year old or the flamethrower. Or do you need statistics from the government to decide?

    So if you want to go down this path saying I am ignoring the point. Perhaps it might be time for you to ask yourself the same thing. To reiterate, the point of this topic was the erosion of liberty through the increasing criminalization of acts that are minor, impolite, or as Gary T had so correctly pointed out “thought crimes.” It was not on the statistical mortality of cigarettes vs Strontium-90.

  35. Darren,

    Thanks for your lengthy reply. That in itself proves that my argument has merit as the points I made stand.
    To call OT OT OT is a retreat in itself, and you know this or you would have taken to it earlier.

    I didn’t ask for stats for reasons of proof, but in an attempt to get you to look at the problem of “selling”cigarette smoking to children at a very early age from another angle.. Faiiled apparently.

    I acknowledge that I failed to convince you. But does not change the fact that we treat flame throwers with greater respect than cigarette smoking.
    The innocuous habit of smoking is still not known for its dangers—-as long as there are smokers. May tobacco companies go bankrupt.

    Tobacco causes even birth defects. Which some pregnant women know.
    How can anyone use ANY argument in favor of smoking escapes me.

    As for the “nanny state”. I would hope for more. And less civil rights violations by my government.

    We know that where the feds fail to pursue a goal, then the local state or community goes on. Witness California.

    Most of our fed regulatory agencies are controlled by the indústries they are given to regulate. So our last defense other than non-consumption is our local government. At this point, we have lost the choice to choose non-GMO foods, so non-consumption is no good as a way out for the individual.

    Good luck with yours. If I offended, it was not intended. i still need practice in being mealy-mouthed. And that was no snark, just a comment on our conformism.

    Hope that my promoting Noam Chomsky video in this blog will be helpful to all. It was posted here by Dredd. I offer it as to the value of non-conformism. Think if all agreed with Bibi.

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.se/2012/12/epigovernment-new-model-2.html

  36. PS

    Think what you like. Just protect your kids from certain perils.
    That to the issue of thought crimes. What a laughable argument.

    That is our last refuge so far. Our thoughts. Our peril there is that the feds are collecting info which can allow them to judge you as a potential criminal, terrorist, wrong-thinker. A pre-crime measure will be motivated.
    So use cash at the mall, don’t let them know you like military-style garb.

  37. Just want to say your article is as astonishing.
    The clarity in your post is just great and i could assume you are
    an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab
    your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post.

    Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable work.

Comments are closed.