CITY WIDE SMOKING BAN is imminent in San Francisco... the mayor is posing a ban on tobacco sales in retail drug stores?

Okay.. i'm not a fan of smoking.. but to infringe upon the freedom of choice even for a smoker is the infringement upon my rights as an individual to choose.. the idea behind this tobacco ban is because drugs stores are seen as a place to get items to improve the quality of health and not the destruction.. discerning individuals see the sale of tobacco in direct conflict of being sold in a drug store... that ban would in the sight of retailers and small drug stores would hurt their business as those who come to the store to purchase tobacco would be inclined to stay and shop for other items as well.. What a flaming mess! What about liquor control? They can't even stop drug abuse.. this is down right pushy.. unhealthy snacks have been banned from the schools.. to the point of treating any banned sweet snacks and other items as contraband that leads to suspension.. can a city really go this far?

Isn't something of this magnitude supposed to be decided at state level? WYT? Asked by CALIDEE_MOO!

43 months ago Similar questions: CITY WIDE SMOKING BAN imminent San Francisco mayor posing ban tobacco sales retail drug stores Health.

Similar questions: CITY WIDE SMOKING BAN imminent San Francisco mayor posing ban tobacco sales retail drug stores.

The Smoking Ban Has Been In Effect for Some Years in SF I don't think it's an infringement of personal freedom since the proposed ban is only for one type of store and doesn't prohibit most stores from selling tobacco. SF will still have cigarettes. In an 8-3 vote back in 2005, the SF Board of Supervisors voted on a ban in public places.

Click here for one article on the ban. The bad doesn't really cover everything; it covers parks, squares, gardens, and playing fields. You can still smoke on the street and in private locations.

This is actually not inconsistent with bans in other cities. This Wikipedia article has some interesting findings on this concept, by the way. The trend continues: Currently, there is some pending legislation that would make smoking a "public health risk" and would give persons living next to private businesses that allow smoking the right to go to small claims court and ask the judge to create a non-smoking perimeter.

This legislation is consistent with legislation already passed in other California cities (nearby Berkeley, Belmont, and Emeryville), but not nearly as strict. For instance, in Belmont, landlords must include no smoking clauses in leases of apartments. It will likely pass.

Regarding your statement, according to KCBS, the mayor's most recent proposal only bans the sale of tobacco at pharmacies, not all retail stores. Accordingly, consumers would still be able to purchase cigarettes in SF, just not at pharmacies. And they would still be able to smoke in their homes.It's not a total ban, therefore.

For what it's worth, California is getting more and more press about its non-smoking positions. Effective January 2008, California recently enacted a ban on smoking in private cars if the driver has a child with him/her (not a bad law, I don't think). I think the concept of the pharmacy ban is a little far-fetched (Newson's idea is that pharmacies are places of health and shouldn't carry tobacco), and I don't think it does anything either way to stem the tide of smoking.

That said, I'm in favor of the public place ban. People do have the right to smoke, but should not expose people to second hand smoke for long periods of time. I'm completely fine with people smoking on the street, because it's a passing thing.

At a ballgame, that's a different story.

The ban is not eminent it's already here The landlord can ban smokers from a rental (in SF most of us-70% live in rental units). You can’t smoke in cars with children and we expect it to be cars with any passengers. You can’t smoke here in public parks and golf courses.

The infringement of rights question stops at smoking though. And it is a little silly to ban smoking outdoors when every 10 minutes a diesel belching bus passes by. But stopping the sale of tobacco products in the chain drugstores is ridiculous.

You can go into any Walgreen's and there is more space devoted to candy, ice cream and potato chips than to the pharmacy. There is more shelf space for bug spray than cigarettes. That negates the question of drugstores being a place dedicated to healthy products.

Also remember we have head shops and pot clubs within walking distance of city hall. My special peeve in the argument about govt knows best when it comes to what you ingest is the question of healthy foods in school. They banned the food trucks within 1500 feet (4 blocks) of schools.

Previously our guy agreed not to carry candy, chips, soda and he was selling chow fun, chow mein, kebobs, chicken and veg over rice, water, milk, juice, yogurt, sandwiches and fruit salad. The food gestapo decided the Chinese food was too high fat so bye-bye food truck. Our cafeteria can only serve 1000 meals at lunch time and we have more than 2200 students so at lunch there is an exodus to the KFC, In & out, pizza joints and the favorite lunch of all-a family size bag of Cheetohs and a couple of Jolt sodas.So much for healthy school eating.

The glories of the America political system! San Francisco is a case in point of the glories of the American Way! Any 7 (or 9, not sure how many) people can get elected as councilmen or City Supervisors or whatever they call it on the Left Coast.

Remember, all politics is local. So all they need to do is to appeal to (and deliver to! ) their small sector of the city - their precinct or ward - and they can get elected forever.So you have a bunch of yahoos with an agenda.

In this case, it's an anti-smoking agenda. Tomorrow it could be anti-cars. Or anti-people-with-short-hair.

Or anti-people-who-are-not-baptists. Or any other stupid but populist type of initiative.It doesn't matter if it is constitutional or not. The chances of being sued (and losing) are pretty small.

After all, who is going to sue the city and say they are in favor of the (highly politically-incorrect) right to buy tobacco and smoke. The city council has god and motherhood on their side; they're not going to be sued! And for those people who like tobacco?

Tough s*(%. You see, those people on city council are smarter than you and want to make you live your life in their vision. Your wishes aren't important, because society -whatever that is, but represented by your elected councilmen - has decided that tobacco is bad.

Welcome to 1984!.

OK, I'm probably sticking my foot in my mouth on this one... But I am just simply answering with an opinion only and nothing more or less. No, I'm not a smoker and have never used any kind of tobacco products but have suffered the effects of 2nd hand smoke in clubs, dance halls, etc. But those are places I expect smoke to be found.As for selling it, I'm not sure what a ban on selling tobacco producs would accomplish. If the govt.

Is going to step in anywhere and stop sales of something, it should be the sale of items that impair the overall judgement and abilities and thought processes of the purchasers rather than something that doesn't really "impair" the purchaser. I grew up in an alcoholic home with a father who got behind the wheel of a vehicle every day extremely impaired while putting the lives of his wife and children at risk every time and I still have nightmares to this day (I'm 40) of driving at night in heavy traffic because that's when he would be at his worst and he would be all over the road and we came so close to dying more times than I can count. I remember as a child and teenager, lying awake in bed until all hours of the night waiting for him to get home because I just knew that would be the night he'd kill someone else or some other family while he was driving.

And there is never any talk about banning the sales of alcoholic beverages. Yes, you have to be a certain age to legally purchase them but that age is an older age than when the govt. Says you are legally able to get behind the wheel of a very heavy vehicle that can kill others if you make a mistake; that age is older than when the govt.

Says you are considered a legal adult; that age is older than when the govt. Says you can legally join the military and die for your country; and that age is older than when you have a say (by voting) in who will be our nation's leader. It just doesn't make sense to me because while tobacco products have their fair share of health risks, I do not see where they have the same impairment effects that other items do that are readily on the market with no concern or talk of a ban.

Just my opinion...my 2 cents...my thoughts and that's all. Good question, by the way, to get some discussions and debates going to find out what others think about the situation even if they are like me and don't live in that area. Sources: personal opinion/ideas/thoughts only .

First, this is San Francisco-it doesn't have to make sense. I would say it is UnConstitutional. SF wants the right to decide who will & who will not conduct business within the city limits.

They wish to force the small family owned pharmacies * the attached store out of business. WalMart, Target, KMart & the large chains would be exempt. It may not be Unconstitutional because size of a business is not a suspect class & not covered by the Equal Protection Clauses of the 5th & 14th Amendments.

SF has no problem with , especially the illegal ones. What about alcohol? Give them time.

If this works, alcohol is probably next. Then maybe no cars that excede 65 mph. There is no limit on how these libs will interfere with & seek to control the citizens.

Why were those snacks sold in the schools? 1. Popular demand.

Kids wanted the unhealthy snacks & parents rushed in to demand what their offspring demanded. 2. During the '90s schools were encouraged to "make" money to cover some costs.

Well they sold exclusive concession rights to various businesses.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.