SAN FRANCISCO: No signs posted on eve of outdoor smoking ban

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/25/5 | Charlie Goodyear

[Gabz]

My kind of man.................

[softwarecreator]

My kind of man.................

I forgot, I'm also straight.

No wonder they hate me.  =)

[JennysCool]

You have a point, Dr. Freud.

I guess what I'm really trying to figure out is the almost fascistic zeal some of these women take in making people kowtow to behavior they think is "proper" -- at the expense of everybody's freedom. I'm honestly in the dark as to how one's life could be ruled by such a mad need for control.

One thing I do know: No one into this sort of behavior has any sense of humor at all.

[metesky]

In light of the recent SC fiasco, I think we should all be proud that we were out there shouting about property rights for years before the Supreme Bozos cut everybody off at the knees.

Just thinkin' out loud...

[Gabz]

LOL!!!!!!!!!

And other than that he is Methodist - you perfectly match the description of my husband!

[Gabz]

I have been thinking the exact same thing.

[Max in Utah]

No one into this sort of behavior has any sense of humor at all.

You got that right. They're the True Believers, convinced of the absolute correctness of their position, and we're the wretched sinners who must be subdued and made to obey.

A cow pie in the face for every one of 'em! And make it fresh!

[JennysCool]

we're the wretched sinners who must be subdued and made to obey.

The ironic thing is, they're usually atheists!

[Thank You Rush]

Will defecating on the city streets still be allowed? I sure hope so! Taking away that right would be absolutely intolerable. Maybe an ordinance can be passed that will allow that to take place on the City Hall steps instead.

[softwarecreator]

And other than that he is Methodist - you perfectly match the description of my husband!

Hahaha ... we are the Few, the Proud, the Hated.

[Gabz]

And with my husband it's actually one step further - not only doesn't he hate smokers, he is one himself :)

[SheLion]

I don't like to be around smokers. Personally, I think--are you ready for this?--smokers really need help.

I think your attitude needs help! heh!

So, what is your relaxation of choice?  Prescription drugs or booze, eh?

[Mears]

Unbelievable!

I thought the reason for banning smoking in enclosed spaces was because of all the nasty litte "critters" that were left in the smoke.Now you can't smoke in a park.What's the rationale now?

Every smoker in SF should have a weekly "smoke-in" at the parks. They do it once a year in Boston for the marijuana crowd and that's an illegal activity.

Madness,absolute madness.Civil disobedience is in order here.

[SheLion]

No madame supervisor - what is an outrage and totally irresponsible is the fact you introduced this idiocy in the first place .............

Ahh San Fran.  The home of gay men, lesbian women and transvestites!  All is well in San Fran land as long as no one is seen smoking.

~gag!

[Gabz]

Every smoker in SF should have a weekly "smoke-in" at the parks. They do it once a year in Boston for the marijuana crowd and that's an illegal activity.

Great idea, because now in San Fran the tobacco smoking is the illegal activity :(

[SheLion]

In light of the recent SC fiasco, I think we should all be proud that we were out there shouting about property rights for years before the Supreme Bozos cut everybody off at the knees.

Oh yes!  Maybe this eminent domain issue will get the anti-smokers the hell off of our backs!

[Gabz]

Oh yes! Maybe this eminent domain issue will get the anti-smokers the hell off of our backs!

Are you kidding? This SC ruling just validated the claims of the antis.........they will use that to crank up the attacks on private businesses.

[Mr. Jeeves]

I'm genuinely curious: what is it about socialism that seems to appeal to this vast swath of women (our hyper-intelligent, stunning and witty FReeper women excluded, of course)?

I don't even blame those women for it, really - it's rooted in biology. She is going to do whatever is necessary to make sure her children survive to adulthood, and if that means adoping government as a surrogate husband/father, then so be it.

Generally, once a woman is married and realizes just how big a bite the government is taking out of her family's income to fund all those socialist programs (thereby hurting her children's chances of surviving to adulthood) her whole attitude changes, and she starts buying Anne Coulter books. ;)

[metesky]

I'm afraid you're correct. Pressure must be applied at the state level now if anyone's property is to remain safe.

[exnavychick]

Civil disobedience is in order here.

You know, I've always been something of a goody-two-shoes (with the puzzling exception of my terrible smoking habit, hee hee), but the idea of a smoke-in has got some appeal to me. I am sick and tired of watching these guys (liberals, and people too lazy to do anything but go with the flow) get away with this incrementalism.

The SC is going to hell in a handbasket, and it's a cancer spreading to the rest of the government. Federal, state and local. When the little guys see the big guys getting away with stuff, they just hitch their wagons to it, and away we go. (Precedent-the sneaky, backdoor friend of pols everywhere...not just the ones in black robes)

I am sick of being pressured into eating healthier (no trans-fat versions of favorite products), exercising more, and quitting smoking. If I want to be a chain-smoking fat slob couch potato, that ought to be my choice. By the same token, I don't believe my fellow citizens should be forced to subsidize that lifestyle, either. If I make crappy lifestyle choices, then I ought to pay for them (literally and figuratively).

I swear, if ONE PERSON pipes up about the so-called "dangers of second-hand smoke", I think I'll scream.

Rant off.