Posted on 06/25/2005 9:41:53 AM PDT by SmithL
With a law barring smokers from lighting up in nearly all city-run open spaces in San Francisco scheduled to take effect next Friday, "No Smoking" signs have yet to be posted, raising questions about how well the ban will be enforced.
Six months ago, the Board of Supervisors passed what is believed to be the most comprehensive outdoor smoking ban in the country. The ban covers parks, squares, gardens and playing fields under city jurisdiction. First offenders could be slapped with a $100 fine issued by a police officer or member of the city's park patrol.
At the time the legislation was passed, city officials estimated that more than 1,000 signs might need to be posted at hundreds of locations around San Francisco. But so far, the Recreation and Park Department has not budgeted any funds for the new signs, according to Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, who sponsored the legislation creating the ban.
And department officials conceded last week that they haven't even created a mock-up of a sign that would alert residents to the new ordinance.
"That's an outrage,'' Alioto-Pier said, adding that she had written Yomi Agunbiade, the department's acting general manager, a letter about the issue. "They're supposed to be implementing this next week. It's wholly irresponsible. "
The signs are important because city officials are hoping that peer pressure will do more than ticket-writing police officers can in curbing smoking -- and the littering of cigarette butts -- at city parks. But without the law clearly posted, civic-minded citizens might find it hard telling scofflaw smokers to "put it out."
"I think it's fair to say it's going to be a slow rollout,''
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I really hope they were just being facetious, and not serious with that remark.
Which is exactly why we need to be prepared to fight for changes in state laws.
Unfortunately the person was dead serious.........I was absolutely astonished.
I guess when the rest of the country has the same kind of attitude towards the gubermint in general, it shouldn't really surprise us.
After all, that same attitude is what gives the libs traction for their little pet projects. If people actually cared enough to do something (besides complain on the 'net like me, lol!), we could actually get some of this nonesense reversed or stopped in it's tracks.
I honestly think many people actually PREFER the Big Brother-type government. They talk about liberty and freedom, but what they REALLY want is security and predictability. I prefer not to be that much at the mercy of well-intentioned (and not-so well-intentioned) do-gooders.
I don't get it ... don't a lot of libbers smoke? Shouldn't there be a bunch of rallies and protests over this?
You'll see the gay male population of San Francisco as a group declare "We made a mistake, and we really like girls" first.
I tend to side with Frank Zappa on the anti-smoking issue, it's all a bunch of pie-in-the-sky dreamers who are terrified of their own mortality, and taking responsibility for their own lives, so, they feel that if they stamp out smoking - they'll LIVE FOREVER. Their goal is their wierd quasi-Socialist daydream where war is outlawed and erased from human nature, nobody suffers even a hangnail, and everybody sits around in circles sharing and eating cracked wheat and springwater (pid for by our loving Government, of course).
San Francisco cracks me up. Tourism is a major business in that city, and when the tourists start getting tickets, when people in town to attend conferences and trade shows at Moscone get written up, well, it's going to be funny as hell watching the tourism trade dry up as people who live in places where they write reasonable laws decide to take their business elsewhere.
Of course, the idiots in the city council and nincompoops like Alioto will spend millions "studying" the tourism "problem", and drop more millions on advertising and marketing, all the while denying the real reasons with every ounce of their being, it is impossible for a liberal to EVER admit they were wrong. No, really, it causes them phsyical pain to admit they were wrong Really. You HAVE to be compassionate for them, it HURTS them. Or else. Don't make them write laws about it!
I live on the other side of the bridge from SF, and I havent been there in probably 8 months. I have no need to, there's nothing there i NEED, and quite frankly, I have no need to return, except possibly catch a live show or play.
Rents are insane, the city council is talking about doing away with private ownership within city limits (the recent SC decision will give them free reign now), they've outlawed guns even though crime is through the roof, now you can't smoke in public - and they've outlawed smoking on the beach too, don't forget, the more colorful districts have been gentrified into Starbucksvilles, and the homeless are paid a monthly stipend, so they can continue to poop on the street, toss syringes everywhere, harrass residents and tourists, and make a huge, stinking toilet out of public parks like Golden Gate Park.
But there's less cigarette smoke, so it's NIRVANAH! Don't you just love the clean, fresh ai...cough cough cough, I'll wait until this truck goes by. Cough. Cough. What? No, i don't have any spare change. Hey, don't say that about my mother! What, officer? No, I was'nt harrassing that bum. What? You're kidding. Seriously? Okay, fine - I was'nt harrassing that "street person". Jeez. Where was I? Smoking? Oh, the hell with it, I'm moving out of this cesspool.
So feel glad, while the stench of urine and poop make your eyes water as you're mugged in broad daylight on one our traffic clogged city streets - hey, it could be worse, someone could be SMOKING.
I'm stuck here in CA for a couple years more, but the way things are going, I'm going the grab the woman who I have an eye on for marriage, and move to New Zealand. You guys can have SF, it's detroyed, and will never come back. What once was a treasure of our nation, is now just a dirty, gritty, "urban reality" zone sponsored by Starbucks and political corruption. I moved here with my parents in 1980, and fell in love with the Bay Area, now I find little left to cling to. It's just a breeding ground for leftists, wastrels, and #&$^ing Politically Correct Shitheads.
It should be burned to the ground, and started over - maybe somebody upstairs had the right idea with the big quake at the turn of the century.
They won't fine you if you are just smoking marijuana.
They'll find something else to tax.
Why should you be allowed to breathe air without paying a tax?
I'm with you.
Great rant!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great rant, imo. :) I really liked this line, btw...
You'll see the gay male population of San Francisco as a group declare "We made a mistake, and we really like girls" first.
ROFL
Noooo....you're suppsed to tell me that I'm crazy, and that things really aren't THAT bad! LOL
I'm getting fitted for my tinfoil hat this weekend...I'll be mad if I can't wear it, after all.
Just a note in passing, but eminent domain would have an ED acronym, which is (of course) just about perfect for those that want to practice it to enhance tax revenue!
Then I guess I'm as crazy as you and will be getting fitted for my tinfoil hat as well!!!!!!!!
Most likely the person complaining would get the fine :)
Or locked up for being a peeping Tom. lol
Closer still :)
LOL! Only in California.
Here's my take:
Feminists: because men 'dominate' and women 'relate' or 'link', they decided that hierarchy is a bad thing, so they scraped hierarchy in favor of equality- in other words, everything is equal, there is no such thing as better or worse, good or bad, right or wrong, because they're all equal.
So what does this give us? A hierarchy that says equality is better than hierarchy- basically a hierarchy that denies the existence of hierarchies. This is an operational fallacy. To deny the existence of hierarchies is also to deny the existence of values, since a thing has value in relation to another thing- more valuable or less valuable, which is why self-destructive behaviors such as homo-sexuality, and a lack of education, etc. are seen as equal to hetro-sexuality, a quality education and so on- there's no value distinction.
Hierarchies exist, no amount of denial will change that, but in order to balance the scales, feminists and liberals emphasize the traditionally negative and minimize the traditionally positive.
That, in my opinion, is what it is about socialism that seems to appeal to that vast swath of women. Now, I believe there is such a thing as 'equal but different', but have you noticed how many publicly prominent women have hair styles that make them appear disturbingly like men? The more we minimize the differences between men and women, the less attractive the one will be to the other.
"I think your attitude needs help! heh!
"So, what is your relaxation of choice? Prescription drugs or booze, eh?"
Reading. Every tried it? Or hear of it? LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.