Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
San Francisco May Damn-Near Outlaw Smoking
Two new proposals on the table in San Francisco:
Smokers would find it harder to buy their cigarettes and light up in public under two proposals under consideration by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
Mayor Gavin Newsom has proposed prohibiting tobacco sales in pharmacies, including Walgreens and Rite Aid. The city's public health chief said the proposal is modeled after rules in eight provinces in Canada but has not been tried anywhere in the United States.
Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit areas where people can smoke.
Gone would be smoking in all businesses and bars, which now make an exception for owner-operated ones.
Gone too would be lighting up in taxicabs and rental cars, city-owned vehicles, farmers' markets, common areas of apartment buildings, tourist hotels, tobacco shops, charity bingo games, unenclosed dining areas, waiting areas such as lines at an ATM or movie theater, and anywhere within 20 feet of entrances to private, nonresidential buildings.
Mitch Katz, director of the Department of Public Health, said he strongly supports both measures - even if they are angering business owners who say it's one more example of San Francisco City Hall overstepping its bounds.
"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."
Jennifer|7.16.08 @ 3:57PM|#
"It's government's responsibility to protect people from
obvious risks."
So do something to protect us from the obvious risk of tyranny,
asshole.
|7.16.08 @ 4:02PM|#
I don't think it's possible to conduct a bingo game without a
heavy veil of smoke.
Next up: no smoking on death row.
BlueBook|7.16.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Theological/Metaphysical question:
Could the San Francisco Board of Supervisors pass a measure so
restrictive that they themselves could not obey it?
|7.16.08 @ 4:18PM|#
"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the
U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to
protect people from obvious risks."
I think I'm going to have to throw a [citation needed] flag on that
play.
Coming soon- Risk Aversion Capital of the World, SanFranGooGoo;
First Car Free City!
|7.16.08 @ 4:19PM|#
"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the
U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to
protect people from obvious risks."
Then just BAN it! Stop pussyfooting around and BAN it! Only gutless
(or smart, depending on perspective) politicians implement a ban by
"Death By 1,000 Cuts".
Nigel Watt|7.16.08 @ 4:20PM|#
"It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious
risks."
ASDLFKJASDLKFA. We're gonna need a bigger flamethrower.
Cool Cal|7.16.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Not sure if there are any other Angelenos out there, but Adam Corolla on his radio show often refers to the aforementioned city as "The People's Republic of San Francisco".
|7.16.08 @ 4:23PM|#
rental cars
Everyone one of the areas that Supervisor DoucheAdaly wants to
regulate has at least a whiff of second-hand smoke. But rental
cars? RENTAL CARS? Now you can get cancer from second hand smell?
GMAFB!
Zeb|7.16.08 @ 4:24PM|#
It's the number one cause of preventable death because people smoke, not because they are mildly annoyed by the odor of tobacco smoke on the way in to an office building. Jesus titty-fucking christ. Shit like this is going to drive me to start smoking again.
Steve|7.16.08 @ 4:27PM|#
It's the number one cause of preventable death because
people smoke, not because they are mildly annoyed by the odor of
tobacco smoke on the way in to an office building.
So you are saying secondhand smoke is harmless?
This may not be about secondhand smoke, but rather a way to
encourage people to quit.
Paul|7.16.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."
This is bogus on its face. Even if one could prove that tobacco
remains the No. 1 cause of 'preventable' death in the U.S.,
wouldn't it follow that it would also be the government's job to
protect us from the No. 2 cause of preventable death... then the
No. 3 and so on and so forth?
|7.16.08 @ 4:28PM|#
"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the
U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to
protect people from obvious risks."
So outlaw it, you irresponsible fuck.
tarran|7.16.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Michael Katz, I have some other ideas for you too.
Every year 40,000 people die on the roads. We need you to save us
from this scourge by banning cars as well.
Oh, and hundreds of people drown every year. That's preventable
too. Ban swimming too, and boating as well.
People die in falls all the time. We ought to ban gravity as
well.
Fucking Pierson's Puppeteer wannabee.
Paul|7.16.08 @ 4:29PM|#
This may not be about secondhand smoke, but rather a way to
encourage people to quit.
You're kidding, right?
If you want to really encourage people to quit, then ban it, just
like heroin, pcp, marijuana and cocaine are banned.
|7.16.08 @ 4:33PM|#
What happens if you slip and fall down one of those really steep hills? I think we should just bomb it flat, and then cover it with really thick shag carpet.
|7.16.08 @ 4:35PM|#
So you are saying secondhand smoke is harmless?
I'll wager it's less harmful than charcoal grills and automaobile
exhaust. I'll wager a lot.
This may not be about secondhand smoke, but rather a way to
encourage people to quit.
Like it's anybody business what somebody a free
person does with their own goddam body.
|7.16.08 @ 4:37PM|#
If you want to really encourage people to quit, then ban it,
just like heroin, pcp, marijuana and cocaine are banned.
And we all know how well that's working out.
|7.16.08 @ 4:39PM|#
tarran,
Traffic laws are very similar to area-specific anti-smoking laws.
Both are justified as harm prevention techniques, in the public
sphere, to reduce the chance of Person A harming Person B. And they
are both also endorsed by people who believe that the state has a
duty to prevent Person A from harming themselves.
Thus, to be consistent, if you believe that area-specific smoking
bans are illegitimate, and if you believe that second-hand smoke
poses a legitimate measurable risk, wouldn't you also have to
believe that traffic laws are illegitimate?
I don't think the issue is a police power issue as much as the
illegitimacy of the second-hand smoke argument in the first
place.
Zeb|7.16.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I don't think second hand smoke is completely harmless, but I am
saying that smelling a bit of smoke outside from time to time is
not going to do you any harm that can be distinguished from the
million other non-harmless things you are exposed to every
day.
What they should really do is ban preventable death altogether.
Problem solved.
|7.16.08 @ 4:41PM|#
Maybe dude should pester hospitals over preventable deaths,
rather than grandstand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
(scroll down to Incidence and Importence)
Or, as others here have pointed out, go for atual de jure, not just
de facto prohibition.
Bingo|7.16.08 @ 4:42PM|#
What if my unbridled lust for Angelina Jolie causes me to kill myself if my fantasies are not fulfilled? Thats a preventable death and I demand the government do something about it!
Eric S. |7.16.08 @ 4:42PM|#
What's the point of complaining anymore? Certainly no "slippery slope" argument exists; we slipped long ago.
|7.16.08 @ 4:43PM|#
It's government's responsibility to protect people from
obvious risks.
Not if they are informed, sane adults who want to engage
in the risky activities; and your form of "protection" is to take
away their freedom to do so.
Of course I know I am preaching to the quire.
|7.16.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Traffic laws are very similar to area-specific anti-smoking
laws. Both are justified as harm prevention techniques, in the
public sphere, to reduce the chance of Person A harming Person B.
And they are both also endorsed by people who believe that the
state has a duty to prevent Person A from harming themselves.
Thus, to be consistent, if you believe that area-specific smoking
bans are illegitimate, and if you believe that second-hand smoke
poses a legitimate measurable risk, wouldn't you also have to
believe that traffic laws are illegitimate?
I don't think the issue is a police power issue as much as the
illegitimacy of the second-hand smoke argument in the first
place.
If a few people walk down the street smoking, its pretty easy for
me to not hang around them long enough to inhale a significant
amount of second-hand smoke. Even if someone is hanging out outside
my appartment building smoking, I can walk quickly past them and
inhale little or no carcinagens(sp?).
By contrast, if someone is driving the wrong way on the highway, or
running red lights into perpendicular traffic, avoidance is not
nearly as easy.
|7.16.08 @ 4:51PM|#
This is unwelcome news on the heels of the state legislature's attempt to ban trans fat in restaurants and LA's push to ban fast food in South Central.
|7.16.08 @ 4:52PM|#
"It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious
risks."
Wait a second. If it is obvious, why in the heck does the gov't
need to protect us from it. If it is so stinking obvious we will do
what is necessary to protect ourselves. We don't need gov't doing
it for us. We are adults aren't we. Oh that is right, all the
stinking politicians think we are children and need them to tell us
what we can and can't do.
|7.16.08 @ 4:56PM|#
J sub D said:
MP, see my point about charcoial grills and auto exhaust.
Traffic regulations are not meant to impact auto exhaust.
That's not my point. My point is that if you believed that the risk
factor from second-hand smoke was very significant, then if you
support traffic regulations, you'd have a hard time arguing that
some level of public sphere smoking regulations weren't also
legitimate.
Thus, around this issue, the debate is around the legitimacy of the
risk factor of second-hand smoke, not the legitimacy of the police
power to regulate in the presence of risk factors.
Big Swifty|7.16.08 @ 4:56PM|#
"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the
U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's responsibility to
protect people from obvious risks."
Is tobacco smoke really worse for you than the exhaust from
internal combustion engines? Or is the automobile just not
considered preventable, but cigarettes are?
|7.16.08 @ 4:58PM|#
BG said:
If a few people walk down the street smoking, its pretty easy for me to not hang around them long enough to inhale a significant amount of second-hand smoke. Even if someone is hanging out outside my appartment building smoking, I can walk quickly past them and inhale little or no carcinagens(sp?).
Again, that's a discussion of risk factors, not the legitimacy of
the police power to regulate in the presence of risk factors.
|7.16.08 @ 5:09PM|#
"Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the
U.S. - period," he said. "It's government's the parents'
responsibility to protect people kids from obvious risks."
I'm sure this has already been pointed out. To death.
|7.16.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Come on, folks, now that they've given San Francisco safe and
clean streets, wonderful public schools, lower taxes, and made MUNI
run on time, our supervisors are just looking for more problems to
solve! /sarcasm
Big Swifty: They'd ban internal combustion engines if they thought
they could, but even in SF they'd be lynched. Also cigarette smoke
has lots of noxious crud not present in exhaust, and nobody sucks
it directly out of tailpipes. Not even in SF.
|7.16.08 @ 5:22PM|#
"It's government's responsibility to protect people from
obvious risks."
If it were obvious, we wouldn't need you to do anything. I can
generally avoid falling into large, open holes in the ground
without help from anyone else.
Steve|7.16.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Like it's anybody business what somebody a free person does
with their own goddam body.
When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as hell
is my business if you don't live a healthy life.
|7.16.08 @ 5:25PM|#
In America today, you can proscribe almost anything that is used by or enjoyed by less than 50% of the voters.
|7.16.08 @ 5:33PM|#
Again, that's a discussion of risk factors, not the
legitimacy of the police power to regulate in the presence of risk
factors.
Ok, fair enough.
The mayor's statement made it sound like, (as others have
suggested) this is calculated to discourage people from smoking to
protect them from themselves; regardless of the presence or absence
of a legitimate externality risk.
The statement: "Tobacco remains the No. 1 cause of preventable
death in the U.S. - period" is implausible unless you are including
actual smokers, not just people who breathe in second hand
smoke.
Steve|7.16.08 @ 5:35PM|#
In America today, you can proscribe almost anything that is
used by or enjoyed by less than 50% of the voters.
What's the problem, that is how democracy should work.
tarran|7.16.08 @ 5:35PM|#
MP,
I agree partly that smoking laws are like traffic laws. here's
where they are different:
No traffic law forbids someone from driving on their own driveway
while talking on a cell phone. Police don't lie in wait on the
property of ranchers watching for seatbelt violations. A drunk guy
who drives his bike into a tree does not face a felony drunk
driving prosecution.
In the case of smoking laws, the state has decided to enter the
property of others and dictate how they use it. In the case of
traffic laws, the state limits enforcement (generally) to
government roads
Otherwise the similarities are indeed there. This is not a winning
argument from my perspective; I am an anarchist. I don't think we
should have traffic laws because I don't think we ought to have
government owned roads.
If a private road owner wants to prohibit people from driving
faster than 100 mph on his road, or talking on a cell phone while
driving on his road, or from driving the wrong way on his road, or
from driving cars with no seatbelts on his road, then that's his
business.
Of course, if there is sufficient demand, some road owners might
cater to commuters who desire to travel at 150mph. And if a
potential customer cannot find a road owner who is willing to
accommodate his desired means of travel than that's OK.
Similarly, I think the owner of a house or building or walkway
should be the final arbiter of whether or not smoking tobacco (or
marijuana or opium or cow-poop for that matter) is permitted on his
property. Unless I own it, it's none of my business what he
does.
|7.16.08 @ 5:40PM|#
When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure
as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.
If that is your complaint, lobby the government to reform medicare
and other programs so that smokers who get sick from it have
reduced coverage (or no coverage).
But fair is fair. Smokers pay more in taxes on average because of
the massive cigarrete taxes. And they consume less social security
on average because they tend to die sooner. So if we do some cost
benefit analysis, and determine that they are actually saving us
money, don't complain if there is a push for lower cigarrete taxes
or some kind of smokers' rebate.
|7.16.08 @ 5:41PM|#
When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure
as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.
One, I didn't ask you, a free person, to pony up for my health
care.
Two, did you go to the gym today? The lack of cardiovascular
exercise causes many an early death. If I inspect your larder might
I find some "unhealthy" foods that you and yours regularly eat.
Poor diet likewise kills a large quantity of people. Do you suggest
that beause I pay taxes that I make it my business that you take
better care of yourself?
Three, the lie that smokers add to the health care costs above what
they pay in additional taxes has been so thoroughly debunked that
only a uninformed fool would even attempt to raise it in a forun
frequented by intelligent well read folks.
In summary Steve, you are full of shit.
|7.16.08 @ 5:43PM|#
In America today, you can proscribe almost anything that is
used by or enjoyed by less than 50% of the voters.
What's the problem, that is how democracy should work.
Well then, I'm sure glad I live in a Constitutional Republic, where
majority rule is not absolute and certain individual rights are
protected even contrary to the will of the majority.
Marlboro Man|7.16.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Steve | July 16, 2008, 5:24pm | #
When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as
hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.
You don't pay for my insurance, douche bag. Now go fuck
yourself.
miche|7.16.08 @ 5:55PM|#
When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.
That's a taxation/redistribution argument, not a health one. Plus,
as someone mentioned, your poor argument could include a number of
unhealthy things.
FWIW, I went to the doc yesterday for a routine checkup and was
asked about my smoking and drinking. I answered that I do both
regularly but work out daily, try to get 4 six mile runs in per
week, play tennis and have just added golf to my physical
activities list. The doc didn't say another word about my smoking
habit.
Marlboro Man|7.16.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Well then, I'm sure glad I live in a Constitutional
Republic, where majority rule is not absolute and certain
individual rights are protected even contrary to the will of the
majority.
Bingo. Dan T. er, Steve, hopefully you'll remove your head from
your anus long enough to read this post. We don't live under mob
rule. If we did, I'm sure you would've been strung up a long time
ago.
tarran|7.16.08 @ 6:01PM|#
In America today, you can proscribe almost anything that is used by or enjoyed by less than 50% of the voters.
What's the problem, that is how democracy should work.
I take it that when a majority feel that black people should not be
permitted to buy land in certain towns it's just dandy as far as
Steve is concerned.
|7.16.08 @ 6:03PM|#
20% of the country smokes, so i should expect them to drop dead
any time now.
Like when they are in their 80s like my inlaws who started smoking
as teens in the 20s?
it's bullshit to spend the money that the states got from the
cigarette companies. I'm not denying the .2 correlation between
cigarette smoking and lung cancer, but there's a much better chance
to receive an incorrect medication or get an infection during a
hospital stay.
Maybe if more people invested in tobacco companies and less in
insurance companies the propaganda would be going the other
way?
I'm guessing this site skews young, since if you could remember how
much smoke used to be in office buildings you'd know second hand
effects of smoke, while statistically measurable, are really just
nonsense.
|7.16.08 @ 6:08PM|#
tarran,
Except of course that not all smoking bans apply to private
spaces.
My point in general though is that a number of commenters took
issue with the statement:
"It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious
risks."
I suggest that that statement is generally accepted by a vast
majority of the population, including minarchists, as accurate. The
disagreement arises, not with the accuracy of the statement, but
with it's application. There are at least three ways to broaden
that statement:
1) Obvious risks (i.e. risks with high probabilities and high
benefit from prevention) from others while in public. -
This is the one that the vast majority agrees with.
2) Obvious risks from others while in privately owned "public
spaces". - This is the one that most libertarians and
anarchists disagree with but a high majority of non-libertarians
agree with.
3) Obvious risks to themselves - This is the baliwick of
the nanny statists and those like Steve who believe that society
bears the costs of certain individual risk takers.
And of course, finally, one will be debating what is an obvious
risk.
Thus, it's not quote itself that is offensive. What is potentially
offensive is what you find when you peel back the layers.
|7.16.08 @ 6:13PM|#
They can't pass a law telling the homeless to go away.
They can't pass a law making it illegal to be homeless.
They *CAN*, however, pass a law making it miserable to have a smoke
if you're poor. Do you really think that working folk will be
arrested for this crap? No more than they're arrested for
weed.
This is an anti-homeless law masquerading as a public health
law.
Rhywun|7.16.08 @ 6:18PM|#
This is an anti-homeless law masquerading as a public health law.
Hm :/
Maybe there's a kernel of truth there (if there's anything SF knows
about, it's the homeless) but I think it's mostly just anti-smoker.
I lived there for a year and they really, *really* hate smokers.
And that was 10 years ago.
Paul|7.16.08 @ 6:47PM|#
When I am paying your health insurance thru taxes, it sure
as hell is my business if you don't live a healthy life.
Steve,
Please forward a copy in an H&R post all of your pertinent
details. Caloric intake per week. BMI, drinking habits, drug use
(legal and non-legal), exercise frequency, sleeping habits, sexual
activity (gay/straight) etc. Your lifestyle choices are potentially
costing me money. Once we get a comprehensive list of your habits,
the H&R posters will come up with a regimen that you will live
by that satisfies us that you're minimizing our cost for your
healthcare.
eric|7.16.08 @ 6:48PM|#
You guys need to post about the Indianapolis airport complete
smoking ban. As of July 1 it is illegal to smoke anywhere on the
airport grounds, including in the parking lots and beyond. I tried
to sneak out into the parking lot for a cigarette WAY away from any
people after being accosted by a police officer in front of the
terminal where normal people smoke. They were actually running
police patrols in the parking lot looking for smokers!!! I
literally had to crouch down between SUVs like I was shooting
heroin or smoking in the high school parking lot.
Unbelievable. No doubt the cops will pay for themselves with nice
fat nanny state citations.
e|7.16.08 @ 6:48PM|#
I concur that this is probably more anti-homeless than anti-smoker. If they were serious about wiping out smoking, they'd first have to send the jackbooted thugs into the numerous larger concert halls (eg Great American, Fillmore) where invariably huge clouds of marijuana smoke hang over the larger shows.
|7.16.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Every year 40,000 people die on the roads. We need you to save us from this scourge by banning cars as well.
Considering the standard leftist response to cars is to strangle
them into uselessness by not upgrading road capacity in concert
with population growth (true moonbat cities like Portland reduce
road capacity in order to intentionally create congestion) and
build monstrously expensive and terribly useless public transit
systems, "ban cars" is exactly what they would do given the
chance.
Chloe|7.16.08 @ 7:38PM|#
Stuff like that really makes me almost hate that city. I know there are normal and non-whacko people there, somewhere, and it's not right to generalize them all. But good god, what a garden party of stuck up, stick up their bums, elitist asses that could benefit a good touching up with a riding crop. Talk about putting your own self on a pedestal.
|7.16.08 @ 8:14PM|#
yeah just like seattle tobacco will be attacked but not weed. and sf is one place that loves its weed. some forms of smoke are more equal than others. any knee jerk liberals want to take that on?
Abhishek|7.16.08 @ 8:59PM|#
Indeed, it's scary listening to these public-health fanatics. By
their logic, speed limits should be lowered to 10 mph, burgers and
cokes banned and motorcycles outlawed. Gambling and extreme sports
ought to be banished from the face of the earth. And did I forget
to mention unprotected sex?
Its a simple enough principle but some don't get it. Costs and
benefits are different for different people. An act that one person
views as self-destructive is completely worth the risk to
another.
Now the smoking ban of course goes beyond nanny-statism. It is also
about protecting other people from the risks of second-hand smoke.
That's a laudable intention and as a libertarian I have no quarrels
with the underlying principle. But how does preventing the sale of
cigarettes from certain shops or preventing their use in private
bars designated for smoking serve this goal? People who enter such
a bar or restaurant usually do with the intention to smoke - those
who do not can always choose not to enter.
And whats this about banning smoking in rental cars? Second-hand
scent? WTF?
Ultimately, we must recognise these type of bans for they are - an
act of those who are pompous enough to believe others' well-being
is their business and deluded enough to think they are in a better
position to make these value judgements than the individual
involved. The result is further expansion of government power in an
era when the threat to civil liberty and personal freedom from such
intrusions gets bigger every day.
I realize of course that I am preaching to the choir here.
|7.16.08 @ 9:34PM|#
What get's me is the brain damaged attitude that San Fransisco is somehow in favor of freedom. Libertarians gleefuly wet themselves over gay marriage and medical marijuana, yet shit like this only demonstrates the underlying fasco-communism at the heart of San Fransisco politics. Newsome isn't a hero, he's a dangerous public enemy.
Catal Hyuk Hyuk Hyuk|7.16.08 @ 9:57PM|#
B.P. | July 16, 2008, 4:02pm | #
Next up: no smoking on death row.
Silly wabbit, smoking is death row!
BG | July 16, 2008, 4:43pm | #
Of course I know I am preaching to the quire.
Naw, we went paperless a while ago.
|7.16.08 @ 10:25PM|#
I wonder how SF liberals can reconcile this with their laissez-faire attitude about smoking pot. Obviously that is second-hand smoke they wouldn't object to being exposed to.
Just sayin\'|7.16.08 @ 10:49PM|#
If you want to really encourage people to quit, then ban it,
just like heroin, pcp, marijuana and cocaine are banned.
And we all know how well that's working out.
It is undeniable that, like prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of
a substance *does* reduce consumption. The question is, do the
negative consequences of prohibition outweigh the bennefits (my
answer is yes.)
Just sayin\'|7.16.08 @ 10:54PM|#
What if my unbridled lust for Angelina Jolie causes me to
kill myself if my fantasies are not fulfilled? Thats a preventable
death and I demand the government do something about it!
You might as well off yourself and give darwin his due; she's not
that hot. (and I'm betting she is not going to age well at all, you
can already start to see it.)
But if you said either scarlett johansen or anne hathaway, then,
sir, that is a matter of national greatness, where we must pay any
price, bear any burden, etc.
|7.16.08 @ 11:05PM|#
FWIW, I went to the doc yesterday for a routine checkup and was asked about my smoking and drinking. I answered that I do both regularly but work out daily, try to get 4 six mile runs in per week, play tennis and have just added golf to my physical activities list. The doc didn't say another word about my smoking habit.
I have read that strenuous cardiovascular exercise is very hard on
smokers' cardiovascular systems - even somewhat dangerous. I don't
know how heavy a smoker you are, but I would think your doctor
would have advised you to either give up the smokes or give up the
exercise - especially the running.
e|7.17.08 @ 12:38AM|#
Double standard fascism though it may be, I'm fine with banning cigarettes but letting people puff weed, cigars and pipes. Pipes smell good because of all the scents they mix in the tobacco, and cigars (good ones especially) have a nice aroma too. But come on, cigarettes just smell nasty!
The Bearded Hobbit|7.17.08 @ 2:05AM|#
.. Mrs. Hobbit and I used to love to go to San Fran for
vacations .. lovely place, and the food! (I am a hobbit, after all)
.. but ever since the handgun ban I have not spent one cent there
.. a smoking ban will drive another nail in the coffin ..
.. Montery is our new favorite place .. it's still in the PRC but
free enough for now ..
.. (burp) Hobbit
dr_dog|7.17.08 @ 8:00AM|#
The Canadian laws that this is modelled after have merely
resulted in pharmacies and grocery stores walling off a portion of
their floor space, adding a separate entrance, and calling it a
different business.
So, extra cost to business, and no effect on whatever the problem
was supposed to be. Ain't that always the way.
While you're at it, check out the
ban on cigarette displays in Ontario.
|7.17.08 @ 8:08AM|#
It's government's responsibility to protect people from
obvious risks.
So, since there is an obvious risk to having unprotected sex with
multiple partners, is San Fran going to outlaw that, too?
It is undeniable that, like prohibition of alcohol, prohibition
of a substance *does* reduce consumption.
Sure, casual, harmless consumption. Really heavy/compulsive users,
the only ones who are harmed by their habit, are probably mostly
unaffected.
|7.17.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Govt isn't going to ban smoking. It gains too much in tax
revenue from tobacco sales. Here in Texas our most recent tax
increase was slated to go toward education. I can't find any sign
that it was so directed. In this instance I propose a bumper
sticker: If you can read, thank a smoker.
In addition, this state received $17.3 Billion in a settlement with
tobacco industry. AFAIK the state has probably spent $17.3 thousand
on anti-smoking programs. So where's the money?
Am always amused when sitting at an outdoor patio on a busy street
when people glare at smokers. Would you rather have a chat with a
smoking friend in a garage rather than in a garage with a car
engine running? I thought so.
Given that children are serious disease vectors (they catch all
sorts of stuff from one another) I propose child free venues. Too
much perfume free areas. As well, I'd like to propose 'disapprover'
free zones.
I consider the practice of banning smoking in private business a
property rights infringement.
I'm old enuf to remember when I'd have a smoke in my OB's office
after regular examinations. I remember smoking in my hospital
room.
Ah, the good old days when the HealthScare industry didn't
exist.
The government that governs least governs best.
Neu Mejican|7.17.08 @ 5:10PM|#
MP,
A nice contribution to the debate with the traffic law/smoking
regulation analogy.
I don't think the issue is a police power issue as much as the
illegitimacy of the second-hand smoke argument in the first
place.
The legitimacy of the 2nd-hand smoke argument is very context
specific. It is valid in enclosed spaces (we share the danger), not
in open spaces (danger only for the smoker).
Regarding the health impacts of tobacco.
They include lung cancer, but are not limited to lung cancer,
particularly for children.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245