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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.