Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
San Francisco fires up two-pronged attack on smoking
San Francisco fires up two-pronged attack on smoking
http :// sfgate,com /cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/MNH311PMRE.DTL
(07-15) 20:23 PDT -- 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."
Surprisingly, San Francisco is far behind some Bay Area cities in the fight
against tobacco. The American Lung Association assigned letter grades this
year to 108 Bay Area cities depending on whether they were successfully
curbing secondhand smoke exposure in housing, recreation areas, outdoor
dining, entryways and outdoor service areas.
Only Belmont, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, unincorporated parts of Contra
Costa County and Ross earned A grades. San Francisco scored a D.
S.F. 'way out of date'
Karen Licavoli, vice president of programs for the anti-tobacco nonprofit
Breathe California and member of San Francisco's Tobacco Free Coalition,
said Daly's proposals would place San Francisco among the top few cities in
the state when it comes to limiting secondhand smoke.
"San Francisco's way out of date," she said. "That's why it's critical we
get this law passed without amendments that water it down."
The proposed ban on pharmacies selling tobacco was approved by the Health
Commission on Tuesday, and it would take effect Oct. 1 if it's approved by
the supervisors. Violators would face fines of $100 to $1,000. It would
apply only to pharmacies and not to grocery stores or big-box stores like
Costco that also sell tobacco products and have pharmacies inside them.
Katz said the entire population patronizes grocery stores and big-box
stores, but the sick are more likely to use pharmacies and are likely to be
suffering from diseases exacerbated by tobacco products.
Calls Tuesday to the headquarters of Walgreens and Rite Aid were not
returned.
Michael Sharpe, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local No.
648, represents workers at stores such as Walgreens and said it's not fair
to have some rules for their businesses and other rules for grocery stores
and big-box stores.
"I'm a nonsmoker. I hate smoking," he said. "But if you're really looking
to change behavior, you're not going to be able to do it by changing the
venue people buy (cigarettes) in."
Daly refused to talk to The Chronicle about his measure. His legislative
aide, Lena Gomes, said business owners would have to post signs about the
law and make sure their customers follow it.
Firm's owner would call cops
Gomes said the owner wouldn't have to physically remove the smoker if he or
she doesn't comply, but would be responsible for calling the police. The
fine would be against the smoker, not the business, and could be $500, she
said.
"We don't want to put anyone out of business," she said. "We're just saying
there's enough scientific evidence that there is no safe place for
secondhand smoke."
Carol Piasente, spokeswoman for the Chamber of Commerce, said it's not fair
to make business owners police patrons. She added that many city blocks
have stores so tightly packed together, a smoker would not be able to find
anywhere that's more than 20 feet away from a business entrance.
"It seems to be a solution that hasn't been thought out in terms of its
consequences and how it would actually work," she said.
Smokers gathered outside the city's Main Library on Tuesday weren't happy
with the idea, either.
"They've banned enough places for people to smoke," said Joey Juchemich,
33. "Pretty soon it's going to be illegal to smoke anywhere but your own
home."
To get involved
Both pieces of anti-tobacco legislation will be heard by the Board of
Supervisors' city operations and neighborhood services committee at 1 p.m.
Thursday at City Hall, Room 263.
The plan in San Francisco
Proposed restrictions would ban smoking in public places, even tobacco
shops such as Grant's Pipe Shop on Market Street, where Shola Adeyemo
(above) of San Francisco is seen puffing on one of his favorite cigars.
Other city smoking rules in state
Several California cities have local smoking restrictions. Here are some of
the most stringent:
Belmont
Bans smoking in all units of multistory apartment buildings, including
balconies and patios. Goes into effect next year.
Oakland
Only city in the state to require sellers of condos and landlords to
disclose to new buyers and renters the smoking designations of units and
how complaints about wafting smoke are handled. Bans smoking in all common
areas.
Berkeley
Strong limits including bans in all work sites with more than two
employees, sidewalks in commercial zones, recreation areas, areas within 25
feet of doorways and windows of public buildings, and all public
transportation and taxis.
Temecula (Riverside County)
Requires landlords to designate 25 percent of apartments as nonsmoking in
buildings with 10 or more units. Nonsmoking units must be separate from
smoking ones.
Calabasas (L.A. County)
Bans all smoking in public places, making it one of the strictest cities in
the country.
Los Angeles
Bans smoking in public parks - except, naturally, when the filming of a
movie requires it.
Source: Chronicle research, American Lung Association
E-mail Heather Knight at hknight@sfchronicle,com .
http :// sfgate,com /cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/MNH311PMRE.DTL
(07-15) 20:23 PDT -- 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."
Surprisingly, San Francisco is far behind some Bay Area cities in the fight
against tobacco. The American Lung Association assigned letter grades this
year to 108 Bay Area cities depending on whether they were successfully
curbing secondhand smoke exposure in housing, recreation areas, outdoor
dining, entryways and outdoor service areas.
Only Belmont, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, unincorporated parts of Contra
Costa County and Ross earned A grades. San Francisco scored a D.
S.F. 'way out of date'
Karen Licavoli, vice president of programs for the anti-tobacco nonprofit
Breathe California and member of San Francisco's Tobacco Free Coalition,
said Daly's proposals would place San Francisco among the top few cities in
the state when it comes to limiting secondhand smoke.
"San Francisco's way out of date," she said. "That's why it's critical we
get this law passed without amendments that water it down."
The proposed ban on pharmacies selling tobacco was approved by the Health
Commission on Tuesday, and it would take effect Oct. 1 if it's approved by
the supervisors. Violators would face fines of $100 to $1,000. It would
apply only to pharmacies and not to grocery stores or big-box stores like
Costco that also sell tobacco products and have pharmacies inside them.
Katz said the entire population patronizes grocery stores and big-box
stores, but the sick are more likely to use pharmacies and are likely to be
suffering from diseases exacerbated by tobacco products.
Calls Tuesday to the headquarters of Walgreens and Rite Aid were not
returned.
Michael Sharpe, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local No.
648, represents workers at stores such as Walgreens and said it's not fair
to have some rules for their businesses and other rules for grocery stores
and big-box stores.
"I'm a nonsmoker. I hate smoking," he said. "But if you're really looking
to change behavior, you're not going to be able to do it by changing the
venue people buy (cigarettes) in."
Daly refused to talk to The Chronicle about his measure. His legislative
aide, Lena Gomes, said business owners would have to post signs about the
law and make sure their customers follow it.
Firm's owner would call cops
Gomes said the owner wouldn't have to physically remove the smoker if he or
she doesn't comply, but would be responsible for calling the police. The
fine would be against the smoker, not the business, and could be $500, she
said.
"We don't want to put anyone out of business," she said. "We're just saying
there's enough scientific evidence that there is no safe place for
secondhand smoke."
Carol Piasente, spokeswoman for the Chamber of Commerce, said it's not fair
to make business owners police patrons. She added that many city blocks
have stores so tightly packed together, a smoker would not be able to find
anywhere that's more than 20 feet away from a business entrance.
"It seems to be a solution that hasn't been thought out in terms of its
consequences and how it would actually work," she said.
Smokers gathered outside the city's Main Library on Tuesday weren't happy
with the idea, either.
"They've banned enough places for people to smoke," said Joey Juchemich,
33. "Pretty soon it's going to be illegal to smoke anywhere but your own
home."
To get involved
Both pieces of anti-tobacco legislation will be heard by the Board of
Supervisors' city operations and neighborhood services committee at 1 p.m.
Thursday at City Hall, Room 263.
The plan in San Francisco
Proposed restrictions would ban smoking in public places, even tobacco
shops such as Grant's Pipe Shop on Market Street, where Shola Adeyemo
(above) of San Francisco is seen puffing on one of his favorite cigars.
Other city smoking rules in state
Several California cities have local smoking restrictions. Here are some of
the most stringent:
Belmont
Bans smoking in all units of multistory apartment buildings, including
balconies and patios. Goes into effect next year.
Oakland
Only city in the state to require sellers of condos and landlords to
disclose to new buyers and renters the smoking designations of units and
how complaints about wafting smoke are handled. Bans smoking in all common
areas.
Berkeley
Strong limits including bans in all work sites with more than two
employees, sidewalks in commercial zones, recreation areas, areas within 25
feet of doorways and windows of public buildings, and all public
transportation and taxis.
Temecula (Riverside County)
Requires landlords to designate 25 percent of apartments as nonsmoking in
buildings with 10 or more units. Nonsmoking units must be separate from
smoking ones.
Calabasas (L.A. County)
Bans all smoking in public places, making it one of the strictest cities in
the country.
Los Angeles
Bans smoking in public parks - except, naturally, when the filming of a
movie requires it.
Source: Chronicle research, American Lung Association
E-mail Heather Knight at hknight@sfchronicle,com .
Re: San Francisco fires up two-pronged attack on smoking
In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw1lb@216.168.3.44>,
Your Name Here <your@email,com > wrote:
>
>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
>areas where people can smoke.
Coming soon to a place near you.
In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw1lb@216.168.3.44>,
Your Name Here <your@email,com > wrote:
>
>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
>areas where people can smoke.
Coming soon to a place near you.
Re: San Francisco fires up two-pronged attack on smoking
On 16 Jul 2008 22:34:54 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw1lb@216.168.3.44>,
>Your Name Here <your@email,com > wrote:
>>
>>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
>>areas where people can smoke.
>
>Coming soon to a place near you.
Only places that want to be Californicated, like Colorado and Washington.
Its neighbors -- Arizona, Nevada and Oregon -- hate Californians.
On 16 Jul 2008 22:34:54 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw1lb@216.168.3.44>,
>Your Name Here <your@email,com > wrote:
>>
>>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
>>areas where people can smoke.
>
>Coming soon to a place near you.
Only places that want to be Californicated, like Colorado and Washington.
Its neighbors -- Arizona, Nevada and Oregon -- hate Californians.
Re: San Francisco fires up two-pronged attack on smoking
In article <lu6t7416jekua69g9tkkdi10vi6653hqtn@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2008 22:34:54 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw1lb@216.168.3.44>,
> >Your Name Here <your@email,com > wrote:
> >>
> >>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
> >>areas where people can smoke.
> >
> >Coming soon to a place near you.
>
> Only places that want to be Californicated, like Colorado and Washington.
> Its neighbors -- Arizona, Nevada and Oregon -- hate Californians.
Perhaps, but they probably hate smokers' smoke even more.
In article <lu6t7416jekua69g9tkkdi10vi6653hqtn@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2008 22:34:54 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw1lb@216.168.3.44>,
> >Your Name Here <your@email,com > wrote:
> >>
> >>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
> >>areas where people can smoke.
> >
> >Coming soon to a place near you.
>
> Only places that want to be Californicated, like Colorado and Washington.
> Its neighbors -- Arizona, Nevada and Oregon -- hate Californians.
Perhaps, but they probably hate smokers' smoke even more.
Re: San Francisco fires up two-pronged attack on smoking
In article <lu6t7416jekua69g9tkkdi10vi6653hqtn@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 16 Jul 2008 22:34:54 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw1lb@216.168.3.44>,
>>Your Name Here <your@email,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
>>>areas where people can smoke.
>>
>>Coming soon to a place near you.
>
>Only places that want to be Californicated, like Colorado and Washington.
>Its neighbors -- Arizona, Nevada and Oregon -- hate Californians.
And Massachusetts. And New York. And Florida.
Give it time. It may catch on. It may sweep the nation like smoking
bans for restaurants and bars. Unless the pendulum swings back first.
But don't bet on it.
In article <lu6t7416jekua69g9tkkdi10vi6653hqtn@4ax,com >,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On 16 Jul 2008 22:34:54 GMT, anon3c67@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>>In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw1lb@216.168.3.44>,
>>Your Name Here <your@email,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
>>>areas where people can smoke.
>>
>>Coming soon to a place near you.
>
>Only places that want to be Californicated, like Colorado and Washington.
>Its neighbors -- Arizona, Nevada and Oregon -- hate Californians.
And Massachusetts. And New York. And Florida.
Give it time. It may catch on. It may sweep the nation like smoking
bans for restaurants and bars. Unless the pendulum swings back first.
But don't bet on it.
Re: San Francisco fires up two-pronged attack on smoking
On Jul 16, 6:15 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2008 22:34:54 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw...@216.168.3.44>,
> >Your Name Here <y...@email,com > wrote:
>
> >>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
> >>areas where people can smoke.
>
> >Coming soon to a place near you.
>
> Only places that want to be Californicated, like Colorado and Washington.
Massachussetts, New York, Ohio, Washington...
> Its neighbors -- Arizona, Nevada and Oregon -- hate Californians.
That didn't stop all three of these states from passing laws
restricting where smokers can smoke. Suck on it, asswipe.
On Jul 16, 6:15 pm, Robert <n...@e.mail> wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2008 22:34:54 GMT, anon3...@nyx.nyx,net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >In article <Xns9ADD9A2B69F49XOP2kw...@216.168.3.44>,
> >Your Name Here <y...@email,com > wrote:
>
> >>Supervisor Chris Daly has proposed legislation that would vastly limit
> >>areas where people can smoke.
>
> >Coming soon to a place near you.
>
> Only places that want to be Californicated, like Colorado and Washington.
Massachussetts, New York, Ohio, Washington...
> Its neighbors -- Arizona, Nevada and Oregon -- hate Californians.
That didn't stop all three of these states from passing laws
restricting where smokers can smoke. Suck on it, asswipe.
Next: Dutch cafes miss their smoke - use artificial means to bring back the smell
Previous: Smoking as something you choose to do?
