Not even going to bother posting a link. We all saw this was coming and the City of Worcester will lose. No way we should have even gone done this road. As Steve has already commented, how much money is this going to cost not to mention the anti-business message this sends.
This was so predictable. No way big tobacco will let any municipality ban the sale of any of their products. The thing that really amazes me is the banning of the sale on blunt wrap type products. Personally I do not smoke pot, but alot of people do.
When I was in high school, I remember the white EZ rider papers and how some of friends were great at rollimng joints. Over time people have found out that the paper from a cigar is better so they buy cigars, dump out the tobacoo, fill it with pot and smoke. The tobacco companies decided to make it more convenients and just sell the cigars without the tobacco and blunt wraps were born.
If the City of Worcester bans blunt wraps, people will just go back to buying the cigars and dumping out the tobacco or going to the next town to buy wraps. Complete waste of time.
Same Time Next Year
-
It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about the problems that come from
having 11 bosses who are not on the same page about anything, as well as
suggestion...
4 months ago
2 comments:
I mean what is next, they ban the sale of anything in a glass bottle b/c a molotov cocktail COULD be made with an empty glass bottle and molotov cocktails are dangerous to ones health
Although I feel for the folks up on Meadowbrook Dr and their snow shoveling woes....if abutter cleared city sidewalks are essential for safety in Worcester, how can the CC logically preclude sidewalks that abut a rear lot line from the snow sholveilng ordinace. sooooo.........Ok some abutter cleaed sidewalks are now not a public safety issue.
The lack of consistency and logic are 2 more items that have left Worcester.
What about the poor bastard who has 150 ft frontage sidewalk and another 100 ft side yard sidewalk......he's still on the hook for more shoveling than the Meadowbrook crowd.
I just found the a copy of the complaint filed in this lawsuit.
"Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Ordinance violates the Constitution and deprives Plaintiffs of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Ordinance’s enforcement, attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other appropriate relief."
In a "1983" civil rights action, like this one, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees if successful.
Not only will Worcester pay its own legal fees, it will have to pay the legal fees for the tobacco companies.
I wonder it that's in the budget?
Post a Comment