BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 06:47 PM

JotSC

There seems to be a misunderstanding.

I wasn't trying to invalidate any of your comments. I was simply observing that there must have been some public support for the measure. I thought that the conversation was going to much in the direction of "stupid government vs smart people." I thought about that for a while and realized that that was probably not the case.

I guess your are right about dictators. But I would suspect that Mousilini had more public support in keeping the trains on time than Stalin did killing 20 million of his countrymen. But obviously many of the evil deeds of the dictators are not done in public, they are veiled in secrecy. By definition actions done in secret do not have public support.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 06:19 PM

So what's the difference in principle between having a ban on alcohol sales in such places and a ban on tobacco sales?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:17 PM

JotSC, you anticipated the same reponse I would have given to the absurd argument that anything perpetrated by an elected official must be seen as fulfillment of genuine public will. I was certainly NOT "arguing that all laws are made in a complete vacuum..." ~ I was saying that some laws are enacted that a majority would not necessarily agree with. I would even allow that sometimes this can be a good thing ~ resisting the "tyranny of the majority" ~ but that's a whole 'nother discussion...

Kevin: "And am I correct in understanding they in any case these drugstores don't sell the other main legal drug in current use, alcohol?"

In the US, this varies from state to state, and in some cases from county to county, and even from one municipality to another, in the same state. As I noted in my post of 30 Jul 08 - 12:51 PM, above, drugstores (and supermarkets, and gas-station convenience stores, etc.) DO sell alcoholic beverages in Louisiana, 24/7, but such is not the case in most other states.

(There are even drive-through daiquiri outlets in Louisiana, despite laws against alcohol in open containers in motor vehicles. Go figure...)

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 08:36 PM

Yes, Jack, it is self-evident that elected officials the support of some of the populace. It is also self evident that dictators have support of some of the populace, else they wouldn't maintain power. So what's your point?

I don't believe that invalidates my earlier comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 07:13 PM

By the way, on its own my last post may seem over broad. But perhaps as a response to the assertion that nothing done by an elected official "has the support of the populace" it is not.

I think it is self evident that elected officials have some support.

I brought up that topic in reference to the ban because I could not imagine city officials doing such a thing without support. Having read that Newsome was the prime mover, I now imagine that it is a part of his drive to liberalize the city. I imagine he was supported in much the same way as for his health program and his support for same sex marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 06:56 PM

It will be interesting because I just read that Gavin Newsome was the main proponent of the Ban.

I'm betting that in the next election, If he hasn't gone on to bigger things, He'll win handily.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 06:51 PM

Your last post is overbroad, Jack. While it is true that the majority (or at least a plurality if more than one candidate) support the office holder, that doesn't mean the majority support every bill s/he introduces or votes for. Most people (not all) vote strictly by party; some, a particular issue of pressing importance to them.

Among the most nonsensical thing governing bodies have done, I've never hear of a councilman running on the 'ban cigarettes in pharmacies' platform, or a school board candidate vowing to eliminate stoop tag and dodge ball at recess if elected. And I've never heard of a governor promising to cut all state employees salaries to minimum wage to get the office. Yet all of these things--and more--have occurred.

The only recourse is the courts and/or the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 06:46 PM

It does seem a bit daft having establishments called "drugstores" where people can't buy legal drugs - but then "drugstores" in the States have always been very different animals from chemists or pharmacies (or apothecaries) in the Old World - at any rate the ones they have in teen movies don't bear any resemblance at all.

And am I correct in understanding they in any case these drugstores don't sell the other main legal drug in current use, alcohol?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 06:09 PM

>>but I think it is not only disingenuous, but downright wrong, to argue that anything and everything done by an elected official "has the support," ipso facto,of the populace.

That's horse shit. It can be argued that all legally elected officials have the support of some of the populace. In most cases they at least have the support of the majority that voted. It can also be argued that most politicians try to please the voters when they make laws. Are you arguing that all laws are made in a complete vacuum because every person does not get to vote on every law? Talk about disingenuous.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: PoppaGator
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 03:57 PM

"If you believe that pharmacies should have the same freedom to choose their merchandise that other stores do, then what do you think of my statement above that pharmacists are required to dispense all prescribable drugs?"

To expand on Marion's point: Not long ago there was controversy over some scrupulously fundamentalist Christian pharmacists refusing to dispense the "morning-after" birth control pill, because they considered it a form of abortion, which they refuse to abet.

Some of their customers protested (and, I believe, brought suit) on the basis that a licensed pharmacist is required by law to fill any prescription written by a licensed physician. I believe, in some cases at least, that pharmacists adhering to this policy also got in trouble with their employers, as well, for not fulfilling their job requirements and satisfying their customers.

(I would also point out that most pharmacists ~ all those who are not owners-operators of small non-chain outets ~ have employers, i.e., owners of drug stores or larger stores with pharmacy departments, and that the owners of businesses where prescriptions are dispensed are not necessarily medical personnel subject to extra-legal oaths, covenents, etc.)

On another topic: "pure" democracy is much too cumbersome to function except in the context of very small communities. (The ancient city-state of Athens may have been the largest such demoracy ever.) The nations most of us live in are republics, or representative democracies. The mass of citizens elect representatives, and the representatives make decisions that are supposed to reflect the wishes of their consitituents. Sometimes the representatives incorrectly interpret the wishes of the people, sometimes the will of the people is so divided that a consensus is impossible to determine, and sometimes the representratives go off half-cocked to persue a personal agenda in defiance of majority opinion (or, to put a different face on it, to persue a higher good despite public opinion).

Nothing any of us can do about it ~ but I think it is not only disingenuous, but downright wrong, to argue that anything and everything done by an elected official "has the support," ipso facto,of the populace.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 01:11 PM

Yes.

It is different. Bush did things he was not allowed to do. He had no mandate to lie. He had no mandate to break the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

You said FULL support. Which he did not have.

And you forgot the the lies and illegalities. You and Mr. Bush may believe that getting elected was a license to to do as he pleased. I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 12:58 PM

Bush was democratically elected and made his with a democratic mandate. THAT is the point- You are saying you thought SF is somehow different than Bush, with no justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 12:54 PM

Bruce,

There is subtle and then there is seeing connections in your head that do not exist on the page.

You said FULL support. Though , your guy said that his 50.5 % win gave him a "mandate" they certainly did not give him FULL support. You were not subtle. You were wrong. You said something which was not true.

I did not say that the government of San Franciso had the FULL support. I said that they were democratically elected and implied that the were making this ban with a democratic mandate.

What Bush did publicly and legally was done with a partial mandate. But what he did publicly and legally was a very very small fraction of what bothers me about what he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 10:57 AM

Perhaps a little not clear, perhaps a little tiredness on my part...you were the last thing on my mind last night/this morning, as I went directly to bed after writing you.

Pharmacists aren't free to choose which drugs they handle. I can live with that. I read your comment opposite wise, asking if they could or should. So while I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to eschew the sale of prescribed drugs, I don't believe they should be proscribed from selling legal products to adults...tobacco is illegal for minors and therefore should not be sold to them, but that's a side issue.

With that, I guess we just disagree about the footprint of government regulation in this case. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion.

BTW, I read in the music section that you're giving a concert in Toronto next week. Knock 'em dead!

JotSC

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 10:56 AM

OH, Bruce, okay. Yes, you were being subtle, something to which I have not grown accustomed.

:D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 10:49 AM

Amos,

PLEASE read my posting in full or in context:

Jack stated:
""Maybe I don't understand democracy?

The Government of san Francisco is elected by the people. The government makes the laws. If the majority of the people there don't like the laws the government makes they can vote them out.

There certainly seems to be a "will of the people" thing going on here, or else that law would not exist.."
"On the other hand. If the government of San Franciso want to ban it and the people support it by keeping them in power, that's their choice. "

I THEN Posted my comment. As I said, perhaps I was being too subtle.

Let me 'splain: He seemed to imply that since the elected representatives had voted in the law, it had the apprtoval of the citizens. I then gave an example that would lead one to think, knowing the general opinion of Bush here, that HIS premise was false.

Unnerstand?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 10:27 AM

OK, so you have finally realized thet the Bush administration has only acted as the citizens of this country wanted it to, and all that it has done was with the full approval of the nation.

Bruce:

That must be the biggest crock ever jammed into a 'Cat. Holy moly. Full APPROVAL? First of all many of its most obstreperous actions have been totally buried in secrecy. Second of all, the entire media channel has been distorted by Administration interference, and third of all, protest has been overridden and stomped on. Fourth of all, there have been plenty of loud protests. This administration has the lowest approval rating of any President anytime in this country--a sure sign that the nation has been being carefully NOT listened to. What kind of distorted spin is this?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: Marion
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 10:16 AM

Hi again John. It seems that the topic I raised about generic drugs wasn't clear. I'm not talking about whether or not pharmacists are free to substitute another drug that isn't on the prescription. I'm saying that pharmacists aren't free to pick and choose which drugs they're going to handle.

You said, "I guess if they're really greedy they can decide not to handle generics...." but I don't think that's the case. My understanding is that they have to be willing to handle every drug that can be legally prescribed as a condition of being licenced as a pharmacy. (They may not keep every possible drug on hand, but they should be able to get it for you if you have the prescription).

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that retailers can make more money selling Birkenstocks than Crocs, and pharmacies can make more money selling blood pressure meds than antibiotics meds. The shoe store owner can decide to stock Birkenstocks but not Crocs, but the pharmacy owner cannot decide to stock the BP meds but not the antibiotics. Pharmacies might not be magic, but they do have a greater responsibility to the public than the average store, and they are subject to more regulations than the average store.

I do have a problem with the concept of free trade if it's taken as an absolute and not balanced with the common good. After all, the law saying you can't sell cigarettes to minors is a limit on free trade, but I think most people agree that that law is reasonable.

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 09:27 AM

Well, RonDavies, google tobacco and San Francisco and pharmacies. Maybe I'm Chicken Little. Or maybe you just want to be sarcastic and lazy.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 08:22 AM

I'd have to say I need to see something just slightly more informative than Sunset John's report on the tobacco situation in SF. Not that we can't trust him to be totally objective. Perish the thought.

It's just that I can't help feeling it might be like the outrage directed at the fast food ban in LA.   If anybody actually bothered to read Mick's Reuters article, it would be clear that` 1) it's no ban on fast food, just on new fast food restaurants, in an area which already has, as I recall, 400 of them and 2) there are few grocery stores, and they would be encouraged.

Why is outrage so often the first resort of posters on the BS thread? Whereas thinking--or even reading--is way down the list.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 01:09 AM

Marion, I apologize if I did not address your comments directly, or at all. But I'm sorry to tell you that I disagree with your comments.

First, there is nothing magical or mystical about a pharmacy. One doesn't need to be a pharmacist, I believe, to own one...just need to hire one to handle and dispense drugs. In big chain drugstores, the overall store manager is generally not a pharmacist. If an individual pharmacy or drugstore wishes to eschew tobacco sales, I say fine. But if they decide to, that's fine too, and the public can decide whether to patronize a pharmaceutical merchant who sells those products.

The premise of your other comment is faulty. Often pharmacies have no choice of whether to sell generic drugs or the exact one prescribed. Insurance plans, private and governmental often decide the prescription formulary, or whatever its called. For instance, for 5 or 6 years I was taking a particular medication; this year my HMO decided to change to other choices it deemed equally as efficacious; if I and the pharmacy want to do business with that HMO, I'm not getting the previous medication.

A druggist may not change a doctor's prescription on his/her own hook. Doctors, and the patient, decide if a generic is allowed to be substituted, not the pharmacy, absent an intervening provider. I suppose a pharmacy can choose not to do business with insurance companies--I know two doctors who so choose--and I guess if they're really greedy they can decide not to handle generics. I'm not sure they'll be in business for long, competition being what it is. Is this a concept, the free market, that bothers you?

JohnotSC

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Joy Bringer
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:13 PM

I never remember a chemist in the UK selling tobacco other than "Honey Rose Special" a herbal cigarette.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: Marion
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 11:02 PM

Hi again John. I don't think you addressed my main point, i.e., that a pharmacy is not just another store (or more precisely, a pharmacist is not just another entrepreneur).

Yes, smoking and selling cigarettes are legal. However, members of regulated health professions are subject to laws and codes of conduct that go "above and beyond" the law. For example, as a registered nurse, I'm required to report it if I suspect child abuse, and I'm not allowed to go on strike or to refuse certain work situations that could be considered unsafe. These are obligations/restrictions that do not apply to everybody; however, these limitations on my freedom are justifiable in that nurses and other health professionals have a special responsibility to act in the interests of public health.

If you believe that pharmacies should have the same freedom to choose their merchandise that other stores do, then what do you think of my statement above that pharmacists are required to dispense all prescribable drugs? Do you think that they should be able to decide not to carry generics or other drugs with lower profit margins?

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: bankley
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 05:04 PM

bring back spitoons.... you think 2nd hand smoke is bad,, ever try 2nd hand spit from a plug of Club chaw ? That'll blind a rattler..

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:48 PM

Don't governments hire lawyers to tell them which laws will hold up to lawsuits and which will be struck down?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:33 PM

That comment by Big Mick which caused DV so much distress that he or she has evidently left us seemed very moderate and good natured to me. Can't be helped, I suppose.
............................

Following up on that electronic cigarette I came across, here's a rather bizarre video of some bloke testing out a range of similar products, including a cigar version. Seriously, I can see this catching on.

No pipe so far, it appears, or I might be tempted. Particularly since they evidently have a nicotine free option. Just steam up the room a little and freak people out... (I can imagine what they'll do with these in Amsterdam. Or San Francisco for that matter...)

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: PoppaGator
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 04:27 PM

Gotcha, Mick.

How in hell does one accurately compute a dollar figure for "the health savings" of such a proposal, anyway? You subtract actual but hazily defined costs from a completely hypothetical figure that will never exist in the real world. Even in cases where some supposed "experts" come up with estimates "based on research," it's all speculation and cannot help but reflect the sponsor's preconceptions, consiously or not.

I do agree strongly with DV's point that enacting laws that are sure to be challenged by the rich and powerful, and which are likely to be struck down in the end, are not only a waste of public money, but also waste a lot of "human capital" ~ not only does a lot of energy and effort go for naught, but the inevitable crushing of overly-optimistic hopes and dreams discourages continued faith in any effort to bring about similar improvements ~ even efforts that might be more likely to succeed if they could only muster enough support to get off the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:37 PM

No, PoppaGator, that isn't the nit I picked with DV. I will post what DV said:



Stupid laws cost taxpayers a lot more than the health savings in cases like this. I'm sure the megacorps with an army of lawyers will take this baby to the US Supreme Court to get the law overturned, and they are on salary.





It is the first sentence that I asked for a citation on. Reactionary comments like this, that one has no idea if it is true or not, are the type of "politics by cliche" that I believe hurt his country more than almost anything. Folks flip this stuff out with no idea if it is true, and other folks nod their head, and there we go again. It is the same type of thing that leads to the misleading ads run in political campaigns such as the Obama ads. So when folks make gratuitous statements such as this, I believe it is important to challenge them to demonstrate they are true. I don't do this to "single out" anyone as DV suggests. I do this to take a stab at folks backing their arguments with fact instead of gratuitous comments and false perceptions.

And folks that label challenges to their assertions as bullying need to just get in an amen group and not post their stuff on a discussion forum. I do not say this to be mean spirited, but I believe it to be true.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:26 PM

Yes, Big Mick, yes.

Jack, I rarely underestimate the stupidity of politicians, or the venality, no matter what he party.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: PoppaGator
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:15 PM

If all the hoo-hah over DV's assertions has to do with his observation that large corporations have all their lawyers "on salary," I agree that, technically, DV may have been incorrect.

The typical corporation has a small number of full-time legal employees on salary, plus an additional army of sharks on retainer.

This does not invalidate DV's observation, with which I agree, that taxpayers are shelling out too many dollars in legal fees for the unsuccessful defense of ill-advised laws. The opponents against whom these publicly-finded advocates must litigate are better-paid (and therefore, arguably, better) and more numerous, with plenty of paralegal and clerical support, and the cost of putting them to work is already in the corporations' bloated budgets as part of the cost of doing business.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:11 PM

I'm not sure that smokes from drugstores is fettering anyone's access. There are still plenty of places that sell them.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:07 PM

>>True, but unfortunately, one doesn't always know s/he has chosen idiots until something idiotic is done.

And no doubt, discussions like this will help them decide. On the other hand, I think that it is unlikely that these particular idiots instituted this ban without some public support. It would take a truly colossal Bush league idiot to implement such a ban out of the blue.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 03:07 PM

John, I agree that folks should have unfettered access to the legal product. But they should not have the unfettered ability to expose me to them. I think that is the prime distinction. And as I said earlier, if you don't have the stones to ban them outright, then don't bother going halfway. Bans on legal products just seem silly. But controls on where you can use them would be much more effective. And at no time should you ever have the right to expose me to anything that can damage my health without my consent.

As to electing idiots, it is the price we pay sometimes for living in a relatively free and democratic society. But we still can change leadership at stated intervals without bloodshed, and for that we should be grateful.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:58 PM

Yes, I do know that long term use of cigarettes can have serious health consequences for the smoker...that's why I gave them up over 30 years ago. I'm less sure that the accuracy of the assertion about second hand smoke, especially outdoors, is quite that certain.

In either case, as long as cigarettes are legal products, adults should have unfettered access to them.

                        -----------------

"Perhaps the people of San Franciso have chosen idiots. But that is OK. It is their choice to make."
True, but unfortunately, one doesn't always know s/he has chosen idiots until something idiotic is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:49 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:42 PM

>>As far as razor blades go, I think an appropriate line would be sale of a product with the good faith assumption that it will be used as intended. Obviously it would be wrong to ban the sale of gasoline because someone might douse themselves with it and light a smoke.

BINGO!<<

You do realize that cigarettes, when used as intended are dangerous both to the user and to bystanders in the vicinity?



Bruce,

You weren't subtle at all. Apparently you just don't understand what I said.

Bush was a horrible President and has done tremendous damage to this country. We have the people like you, who supported him, to thank for that. But that is the system and we are stuck with it. Electing idiots is a price we sometimes pay for democracy. In 2004 the country chose an idiot and we have all had to live with that, until Jan 20 2009.

Perhaps the people of San Franciso have chosen idiots. But that is OK. It is their choice to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 02:27 PM

Guest,DV - if you want to play in this pond, you better have a thick skin. We often disagree, sometimes agreeably, sometimes disagreeably, but we all come back for more. Just make your points as best you can, and respond as best you can. Whiners not appreciated.

PS    Why not become a member? It has its rewards.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:58 PM

Maybe this is the way to go - the electronic cigarette

"It looks like a cigarette, however there is no tar. It does smoke BUT there is no smoking pollution material. You do not need any matches or lighter for smoking it BUT it lets you enjoy and satisfy those tactile sensations without any risk and dependence on tobacco. It gives you the same feeling of a tobacco cigar or cigarette without suffering any smoking damage. Smoke healthily without any environmental pollution!"

"I can't see any reason why the Electronic Cigarette couldn't be used in Pubs. The ban only covers smoking, not the use of nicotine" - A UK Department of Health spokesperson.

Anyone tried this yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:53 PM

I've read and re-read your post, and see no evidence of irony or "tongue in cheek" as you put it.

I am powerless to do anything about you coming at me, so prefer to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:50 PM

DV, as best as I can tell, my question was a straight forward response to what you posted. The "reactionary" thing was tongue in cheek, and a response to an earlier attempt by you to accuse me of personal attack on you, when nothing of the sort happened or was intended. If you go back to the post before the one that bothered you and read it FOR COMPREHENSION, you will see where my comment came from. Actually I enjoy most of your posts, such as the ones in the Irish online archive thread, but for whatever reason you have decided to take umbrage where none is intended.

As to you calling me a jerk, that truly is a personal attack and should be deleted. Because it is directed at me, I will not delete it. Besides, leaving your posts in this thread makes it crystal clear who is acting inappropriately.

I say again. You are taking offense where none was intended or implied. Several posters have noted that same conclusion. Take a breath, enjoy the debate, and put this behind you.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:46 PM

And I only ask, Big Mick, because I understand you are a moderator of this forum. It seems a pretty wierd thing to do, singling out a poster who is doing nothing but participating in a conversation, and calling them names, and lampooning them, while admonishing and lecturing others to stop with the personal attacks.

Seriously, why have you singled me out like this and attacked me?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:43 PM

Big Mick, I would like to know why you are acting like a jerk?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:37 PM

Maybe I was too subtle: I was commenting on your thinking SF politics was a different species than national. Just because someone is elected does not mean that ( even a majority of )their constituents agree with what they do on any specific topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:34 PM

DV said:

Stupid laws cost taxpayers a lot more than the health savings in cases like this. I'm sure the megacorps with an army of lawyers will take this baby to the US Supreme Court to get the law overturned, and they are on salary.


Citation, please. I would like to know where that piece of data came from? Or is it just a "reactionary" statement? ***chuckle***

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:31 PM

As far as razor blades go, I think an appropriate line would be sale of a product with the good faith assumption that it will be used as intended. Obviously it would be wrong to ban the sale of gasoline because someone might douse themselves with it and light a smoke.

BINGO!

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:30 PM

Bruce,

Leave it to you to compare apples to bicycle wheels.

Obviously with the approval of 50% plus one, as decided by the electoral college.

On the other hand there are all the laws they broke, the lies they told and things they did in secret.

Are you implying that San Franciso is doing something Illegal? That they are telling lies? That they have secret laws pertaining to smokes from a drugstore?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,DV
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:28 PM

I agree with Poppagator. It is about the best way to get things done, which is rarely the government way of getting things done.

The product is a legal product which requires purchasers to show proof of age. So long as pharmacies comply with the law, how can the city government interfere with the commerce?

Stupid laws cost taxpayers a lot more than the health savings in cases like this. I'm sure the megacorps with an army of lawyers will take this baby to the US Supreme Court to get the law overturned, and they are on salary.

The city government, ie the taxpayers, have to pay every dime to defend against the legal challenges. The LA City Council will also be challenged by the fast food megacorps, and the taxpayers will pay to defend that law against the legal challenges to it.

Wouldn't it be more productive to work with people and corps, rather than pass laws to litigate and keep the lawyers rolling in the dough?

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:23 PM

"Maybe I don't understand democracy?

The Government of san Francisco is elected by the people. The government makes the laws. If the majority of the people there don't like the laws the government makes they can vote them out.

There certainly seems to be a "will of the people" thing going on here, or else that law would not exist.."
"On the other hand. If the government of San Franciso want to ban it and the people support it by keeping them in power, that's their choice. "



OK, so you have finally realized thet the Bush administration has only acted as the citizens of this country wanted it to, and all that it has done was with the full approval of the nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Tobacco Sales Banned in San Francisco
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 08 - 01:18 PM

Maybe I don't understand democracy?

The Government of san Francisco is elected by the people. The government makes the laws. If the majority of the people there don't like the laws the government makes they can vote them out.

There certainly seems to be a "will of the people" thing going on here, or else that law would not exist..

>>"Candy, cookies and chewing gum are not harmful in moderation or harmful to others."--They are if you're diabetic.

No. They are OK in moderation for all but the most severe cases and eating candy does not harm others as does second hand smoke.

The watermelon thing is a non sequitur. the ban is about health, not about stereotypes.

As far as razor blades go, I think an appropriate line would be sale of a product with the good faith assumption that it will be used as intended. Obviously it would be wrong to ban the sale of gasoline because someone might douse themselves with it and light a smoke.

On the other hand. If the government of San Franciso want to ban it and the people support it by keeping them in power, that's their choice.