Skip to comments.
San Francisco Bars Smoking in Its Parks
=your home is next
ap ^
| Tue, Jan 25, 2005
| Adam Tanner
Posted on 01/25/2005 5:57:44 PM PST by Flavius
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-155 next last
To: zert_28
It's the War on Drugs which has provided them with the road map that they are now following to the letter.
21
posted on
01/25/2005 6:32:04 PM PST
by
thoughtomator
(Favorite Dish: Spotted Owl Teriyaki)
To: ElkGroveDan
no kidding.......can't smoke in a park my friends but you can spread AIDS in an SF bath house......
To: Gorzaloon
and pan handling at the same time......
To: Flavius
If it is a firm belief for smokers that private property owners should decide whether smoking should be done on their private property, there should be no complaints when the public decides to ban smoking in public places.
24
posted on
01/25/2005 6:36:44 PM PST
by
Raycpa
(Alias, VRWC_minion,)
To: Flavius
I wish the city of San Francisco would also ban the smell of stale urine that pervades most of Market street.
25
posted on
01/25/2005 6:37:10 PM PST
by
glorgau
To: Flavius
Here in a jurisdiction in Maryland, called "The Peoples Republic of Montgomery County", a few years ago, they tried to ban smoking in your own home if anyone could smell it outside. So if in the summer you had your windows open and a passerby smelled your smoke, the fag police ( can I still call cigarettes fags?) will take you away. It did not pass but they will keep trying.
26
posted on
01/25/2005 6:37:20 PM PST
by
hophead
("Enjoy Every Sandwich")
To: zert_28
I think that people will get fed up with this nanny state nonsense and there will be a backlash against these busybody's health Nazis who like to tell everyone how to live their lives.The process over the last 50 years has been higher taxes and more and more bans and there has been no backlash. In fact, the backlash is that smokers no longer want to tolerate rooms full of smoke just so that a smoker can avoid the discomfort of his addiction.
27
posted on
01/25/2005 6:39:54 PM PST
by
Raycpa
(Alias, VRWC_minion,)
To: Flavius
This crap wouldn't happen if Americans were elected.
To: BikerNYC
To: NorCalRepub
and pan handling at the same time...... HAhah! Sorry, how could I forget that part! It has been a while since I was there. The contrast in SF is amazing..the delightful shops and restaurants, then, one glance in another direction, and.."Quick..find a sign somewhere...I think I am in Calcutta."
Comment #31 Removed by Moderator
To: Gorzaloon
not a smoker myself,
but what happens when the outrageous "sin taxes" get so high that people quit "sinning" and the precious tax money goes away also. seems like a catch 22
Comment #33 Removed by Moderator
To: mrfixit514
I respect the rules of FR and so will not say what I would like to say to you.
Considering the crapola that is permitted and ENCOURAGED in San Francisco the idea of prohibitting smoking tobacco is idiocy.
I don't care how much you hate smoking you've got to see that.
34
posted on
01/25/2005 7:05:27 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
To: choclabguy
"...but what happens when the outrageous "sin taxes" get so high that people quit "sinning" and the precious tax money goes away also."
That is the plan. Governments have become dependent on these "sin taxes". They fund all kinds of "social" issues, especially for children. When the funds dry up what do you think the average sheeple taxpayer will do when the local elected idiots tell them that without RAISING TAXES those precious programs, that have for years, helped "the children" will have to be cut. (knowing all along they have never cut anything short of fingernails) Then they will raise other taxes to make up the "shortage". Well thought out plan if you ask me.
35
posted on
01/25/2005 7:10:32 PM PST
by
hophead
("Enjoy Every Sandwich")
To: Bushbacker1
Cigarettes are not illegal, damn it!
Not yet...This is the same method they used to go after drugs. At the rate we're going, nicotine will be declared a dangerous drug in the very near future, and you will be a criminal.
...
36
posted on
01/25/2005 7:10:33 PM PST
by
mugs99
(Restore the Constitution)
To: zert_28; Bushbacker1
I hope you're right.
I'm really and truly over this crapola.
We moved to Virginia not long after the total ban went into effect in Delaware, but were there long enough to see the hurt it put on the small businesses. Heck, we were part of the hurt, we just drove an extra 5 miles across the state line to Maryland on Friday afternoons.
37
posted on
01/25/2005 7:11:38 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
To: Raycpa
Grow up Ray.............outside is far different from inside.
38
posted on
01/25/2005 7:14:44 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
To: hophead
Montgomery County is a bit strange.
I'll never forget the Mayor of Friendship Heights seeking to ban smoking in the entire town because it was a bad influence on children...............He was later arrested for molesting a 14 year old boy in the men's room of the Washington Cathedral.
Talk about a proper influence.
39
posted on
01/25/2005 7:19:28 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
To: Raycpa
You are getting to be truly annoying on these types of threads.
40
posted on
01/25/2005 7:20:57 PM PST
by
Gabz
(Anti-smoker gnatzies...small minds buzzing in your business..............SWAT'EM)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-155 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson