2005.07.03
When the Heck Did This Happen?
Apparently San Francisco, in it’s ultimate ability to protect people from themselves, has banned smoking in public parks. Why don’t they just skip the formalities and ban it city wide?
I understand smoking is a health hazard, and that there have been studies that link second hand smoke to lung cancer, but come on! When will it end? Where is the funding to help people stop smoking? I know it’s out there, but it’s not obvious. If they’re going to ban smoking they should open up store fronts that do nothing but help people get over the habit/addiction.
I don’t see them cracking down on pot smoking… maybe City Council has some sort of disconnect with reality. Then again, maybe I’m just one of those people living in a city I don’t understand.
7 Comments Categorized: grrr life san francisco
You can follow responses with a RSS 2.0 feed or via email using the checkbox below. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
7 Responses to “When the Heck Did This Happen?”
- NHK says (July 3rd, 2005 at 09:04:43 )
Outdoor second-hand smoke harms nobody except the smoker. This is just more pious father-knows-best bullshit. Did someone tell you to put your smoke out? I hope you told them to go piss up a rope; I certainly would have.
If I can’t smoke outside my own house and I have to pay for private health insurance than I refuse to pay taxes (other than the base sales tax) on cigarettes. And screw funding to help people quit smoking. Enough already. Let people make their own beds and lie in them for fuck sake.
- Uncle Roger says (July 4th, 2005 at 12:09:33 )
Smokers’ own fault
First off, let me say that I think smoking is stupid. I think that anyone who smokes is, frankly, not terribly bright. I’m pretty certain that with all the bad PR smoking gets in our house, our kids will never have any interest in smoking. That said, I strongly support people’s right to do any silly thing they want, so long as it in no way hurts anyone else. Heck, I’m all in favor of people heading off to feed the trees whenever they want.
Now, the obvious (to me, anyway) reason for this is that parks are used by children and in this case, it could be argued, the safety and well being of the children outweighs the rights of the adults. That is, the adults can go somewhere where there are no kids to smoke.
Even without the fact that SF has one of the lowest ratios of children to adults in the country, I’m not sure I would go along with this on this basis — it’s a little flimsy for taking away liberties.
There is another reason, however, that does work for me. Smokers are notorious for dumping cigarette butts everywhere they go. It’s bad enough that the streets of downtown are covered with them, but I’d like to keep the parks a little cleaner.
Basically, since the smokers can’t clean up after themselves, they lose the right to smoke in parks. Sorry, but they did it to themselves. And yes, as far as I’m concerned, if they don’t clean up their act, then yes, we might just ban smoking in public everywhere.
Keep in mind that the nicotene (or maybe other crap — I forget and I’m not a toxicologist anyway) in a used cigarette butt is toxic enough to make a small child seriously sick, if it doesn’t kill them. I’m tired of having to chase my kids around the park making sure they don’t get ahold of a cigarette butt and having to wash their hands every time they do.
I once camped at the walk-in campground in Yosemite valley. It’s used primarly by the serious climbers; I generally stay out the valley if I can (I had to go to court). Anyway, I was appalled by the number of cigarette butts on the ground — there were more butts than pine needles.
So, while I don’t think I would have lobbied for this, I can’t same I’m opposed to it.
- Uncle Roger says (July 4th, 2005 at 12:12:37 )
Glasses still broken
Sorry for the typos — I’m still waiting for my new glasses.- NHK says (July 4th, 2005 at 22:49:32 )
As one of those “not terribly bright” smokers you speak of, I’d like to let you know that I am in total agreement with you about butts in the park. I *hate* to see smokers filthy up nature; I may be as guilty as the next guy of flicking my smokes into the gutter downtown, but I don’t make beaches and parks my personal ashtrays. Still, the logical remedy would seem to be enforcement of existing laws against littering (and perhaps a national PSA campaign to encourage good manners and social graces in general) rather than yet another fascistic smoking ban.
- dugh says (July 6th, 2005 at 06:25:30 )
Wait wait wait
Am I to understand that even touching a cigarette butt is enough to transfer dangerous amounts of nicotine into the blood stream? Somehow this seems wrong…However, the argument that smokers throw their butts all over the place is quite valid, and I would agree with NHK that if this were the case the anti-litter laws should just be enforced. This law, however, is clearly marked against smokers for the simple reason of smoking. $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second, and $500 for every violation there after. Hello! I think it’s cheaper if you get busted for smoking pot.
I’ve voted for every cigarette tax increase they’ve ever put on the ballot, but if they had put this in front of me I wouldn’t have voted for it. It’s too extreme and too narrow, and probably wouldn’t hold up in court for the same reasons plus -possibly- legislative prejudice.
I am for strengthening the anti-litter laws, though. That would work and would cover a lot more than targetting one specific demographic.
- NHK says (July 6th, 2005 at 10:56:24 )
Huh?
“I’ve voted for every cigarette tax increase they’ve ever put on the ballot…”Why? What’s the point in paying a ‘sin’ tax (and you, like me, *do* personally pay those taxes) when the burden of the damage to our bodies is our own fiscal responsibility? I don’t mean to start up the whole public/private healthcare debate again, but if the government wants me to pay for my own bloody iron lung then they can find something else to tax into the ground besides my smokes. It’s like tacking extra tax on booze because a small and stupid subset of all drinkers drive drunk. Faulty logic and grossly unfair to boot. Smokers already die from smoking and drunk drivers already go to jail and/or pay huge fines for their indiscretions – I say, spread the taxes evenly, please. Okay, I’m done ranting now.
By the way, no, simply touching a found cigarette butt and then licking ones’ fingers won’t cause nicotine poisoning, but it is pretty nasty and unhygenic. And yes, actually eating a cigarette butt (or swallowing a piece of nicotine gum) can make even a full-sized adult ill.
- Mookee says (July 9th, 2005 at 02:32:47 )
While I would love to disagree with everyone all the time, I can’t.
I’m not a smoker, was, love the social aspect of it, but just don’t smoke anymore. If oyu want to smoke, smoke. I have problems with any laws that prevent people from smoking. I don’t have a problem with excise taxes to prevent people from smoking, but don’t see the point, as ultimately they only hurt the poor…$5.00 for a pack of cigarettes is ridiculous. Let people smoke for God sake.
I’l even go one step further and say if a restaurant or bar wants to allow people to smoke, that should be their prerogative. I don’t have a problem with a requirement on the wall that says, “We allow smoking inside,” or something along those lines. Let people choose. If a business wants to allow it, let them. If a person doesn’t want to eat or work in a smoking environment, that’s fine, they can CHOOSE to not work there.
I’m aware there are jackass smokers out there. I’m also aware that there are jackasses in general out there. Why don’t we just ban smoking completely, throw people in jail for dealing in contraband cigarettes, then, a few years later realize it’s a stupid idea and allow people to smoke again, it worked with alcohol.
As for tax payer dollars to help people quit, that’s as stupid as paying out welfare for drug addicts. People will quit when they want to quit, and shouldn’t be socially stigmatized for a habit that, while bad for one’s health, is a choice.
As I tell people all the time with respect to these sitations, it’s not the government’s job to keep me safe, it’s the government’s job to tell me the dangers and let me choose to accept those risks if I want.
