S.F. fires up two-pronged attack on smoking

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."

I sincerely hope that you have the toughness it would take to quit smoking if you can. I've known some few that can do it, but it's usually more than normal people can overcome. I still have the memory of one of my closet friends, smoking away, while she was dying of her cancer.

Condolences for your friend.
You, however, know very little, it seems, about rights, powers, liberties, and what it takes to stop smoking.

Rights are granted from G*d, powers are what people grant governments, liberties are what governments grant people.

It is not a "right" to smoke. It's not a "right" to breathe clean air.

Government ALWAYS tries to take as many "powers" as the people will let it.
That doesn't mean that the governmental "powers" should be held by the government.

Property "rights" are things that people should be able to have.
If you know that someone allows smoking on their property, whether the public is invited or not, then it is YOUR decision to enter that property.
The government should have no say in it.
In the same manner, if a property owner allows the burning of tractor tires on their property, whether the public is invited or not, and you KNOW that this takes place on that property, it is YOUR decision to enter the property, or not.

Just because a liberty is harmful to the people that indulge in it is not a reason for the government to be involved.
There is no consensus of scientifically valid proof that ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) is harmful to an otherwise healthy person. As a matter of fact the percentages for scientific studies runs about 80% to 20% against there being any permanent harm done from ETS. This includes the largest three studies ever done.
Therefore, the government should have no say whether a property owner allows, or disallows, smoking on their property, whether or not the public is invited onto that property.

Now, as for what it takes to stop smoking, all it takes is will power. I know. I am a former smoker.
Some types of drugs can help but unless you are committed to stopping, the drugs will make no difference.

Will power is all it takes.
While it is true that some personality types are more easily addicted than others, smoking was not even listed as an addiction until the surgeon general changed the definition of addiction back in the 60's.
Some people will tell you that nicotine is more addicting than cocaine or heroin. Bull s***.
Those people don't know what they are talking about.

For most, note: not all but most, smoking is a habituation. Habits can be broken but you must have the commitment to break them.

"So, what is your issue on these threads? Since you agree that you have the ability to stay off property when the owner allows smoking and you also agree that the government should not claim rights to property in the name of the “common good,” what is your actual issue?"

My actual issue is that smokers used to abuse the rights of nonsmokers and all other bystanders in recent history. They would not be considerate, they would not be responsible so laws had to be enacted representing the majority.

Just as stop signs are built to keep all people safe, so were smoking restrictions were put in place. Would've been nice if people would take turns at intersections - or not light up in public areas...but people don't.

“Just as stop signs are built to keep all people safe, so were smoking restrictions were put in place. Would’ve been nice if people would take turns at intersections - or not light up in public areas...but people don’t.”

I think I see the crux of the problem for you. You are confusing publicly owned property (government roads) with private property that has open invitations to the public. I am fine with government dictation of tobacco use on publicly owned property. I am not fine with government dictation of tobacco use on privately owned property that has open invitations for putlic access. I am fine with the owner of the property banning the use of tobacco.

Are you fine with letting the owner of the property make the decision?

Gotta go, have a good weekend.

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.