So it's banning it from such events as street fairs, festivals and other outdoor events, with large congregations of people? The way you worded it, it sounded like they were forcibly banning it from smoking anywhere outside...
Also medical marijuana does not cause cancer, i say this because the way this was typed up made it 'sound' as if it was ironic that it could be smoked at "walk for cancer" events.
Do I agree with it being banned at street festivals/fairs and outdoor events? Somewhat, I understand it more than I agree with it anyway.
SF Considers Strict Outdoor Smoking Ban -- Except For Medical Pot: Ridiculous?
Fef
2012/07/23 16:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
412 votes
|
|
77% | |||
|
121 votes
|
|
23% | |||
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors wants to ban the smoking of everything -- except medically prescribed marijuana -- at public events on city property. The law would allow smoking marijuana at a child book fair or walk for cancer, but would ban smoking cigars and cigarettes at such public events.
Supervisor Eric Mar said, "It’s widely known that secondhand smoke is responsible for as many as 73,000 deaths among non-smokers each year in the United States, and there is no safe level of exposure." Mar also said he does not see the city having the resources to actively enforce the ban, and will require event sponsors to post signs and make announcement saying, "No Smoking." Do you think the idea is reasonable or ridiculous?
SANFRANCISCO.CBSLOCAL.COM reports:
Supervisor Eric Mar said, "It’s widely known that secondhand smoke is responsible for as many as 73,000 deaths among non-smokers each year in the United States, and there is no safe level of exposure." Mar also said he does not see the city having the resources to actively enforce the ban, and will require event sponsors to post signs and make announcement saying, "No Smoking." Do you think the idea is reasonable or ridiculous?
SANFRANCISCO.CBSLOCAL.COM reports:
Smoking anything other than medically-prescribed marijuana at San Francisco street fairs, festivals and other outdoor events held on city property would be banned under new legislation before the Board of Supervisors.
Read More: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/07/19/sf-con...
![[VIDEO] Flying Drone With Handgun: Protected by Second Amendment?](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003754845/Drone-Gun-Video-111595454537_large.png "[VIDEO] Flying Drone With Handgun: Protected by Second Amendment?")
Is this really a thing?
In fact I think it's a bit much to lump all outdoor activities under a single blanket law. The size of the crowd, whether seated, standing or in motion and crown density are all factors in how much anyone is exposed to secondhand smoke from whatever source.
It remains a fact that marijuana is the only smokeable herb now available through a doctor's prescription that's known to heal more that hurt. So I mean if you're waiting for medical science to ever do the same thing for cigarettes, don't hold your breath. *cough*
and, while we r distracted with that,
They 'CHANGE OUR WAY OF LIFE'!
I myself do not believe in laws that are designed to save us from ourselves. Also in the instance of outrageous over the top laws that do not prove to protect others, I find that outrageous. The world is a big place and I doubt those smoking outdoors pose a real threat to others who do not smoke. If I am near a smoker outdoors there is plenty of space for me to walk away from the smoker. If not I could ask that the smoker tries to direct their smoke away from me and/or my child. If the event I am in decides to punish anyone for not directing their smoke away from me that is great. If not I can politely leave the event. There is no way anyone throwing an event for the community should be told how to run their event. If the event is a government run event than that is the governments choice. Otherwise it is absurd to use the paranoia that exist regarding second hand smoke to be used as a false tool to control the masses.
I understand laws exist...
I myself do not believe in laws that are designed to save us from ourselves. Also in the instance of outrageous over the top laws that do not prove to protect others, I find that outrageous. The world is a big place and I doubt those smoking outdoors pose a real threat to others who do not smoke. If I am near a smoker outdoors there is plenty of space for me to walk away from the smoker. If not I could ask that the smoker tries to direct their smoke away from me and/or my child. If the event I am in decides to punish anyone for not directing their smoke away from me that is great. If not I can politely leave the event. There is no way anyone throwing an event for the community should be told how to run their event. If the event is a government run event than that is the governments choice. Otherwise it is absurd to use the paranoia that exist regarding second hand smoke to be used as a false tool to control the masses.
I understand laws exist to protect people from harm but in the instance where that harm is not eminent and a sure threat to all involved it is wrong. Second hand smoke does cause harm to some but should laws exist to protect us from possible long term damage?
Alcohol is easily available in many public places and those who are intoxicated many times are an instant danger to our safety. Still we see that in many public places alcohol is allowed. Why should laws exist to possibly protect us from something that may or may not harm us? If second hand smoke does cause harm it is not an immediate threat to us. For that reason it is wrong to outlaw it in public. People can take reasonable precautions from it. Violence and poor judgment from those who consume lots of booze are a way bigger threat to the public. Deal with that threat before trying to worry about possible long term risk from second hand smoke.
Of coarse it will get to the point where everything that is not deemed good for us or others around us will be outlawed. This despite people being able to make choices to protect themselves from danger.
Who said, "that government is best that governs least"? Liberal or conservative, it's what a free country is supposed to be about. The founding fathers certainly understood this basic principle.
any justification to a blanket ban on all outdoor tobbacco smoking. Designating and
setting up smoking quads and shelters at least 10 meters (aprox. 33 feet) away from
building entrances and ventilation air intakes, transit stops and platforms, and especially
away from areas frequented by children and teens, should be more than sufficient. In
some cases, it maybe neccessary to locate such smoking zones on top of building rooftops. Unfortunately, San Francisco is another one of these major metropolises that has become known for it's nanny government.
In the end there are far worse immediate threats to your health when you step outside than second hand smoke from smokers. In fact second hand smoke is probably the least of your worries. People on earth living and being in public is a serious threat to our safety so should the government control and orchestrate our every movement and/or choices in hopes we do not hurt one another?
I say if a state wants to "ban" smoking.. They should not receive any of the "tax" money associated with smoking.
Are they related to Bloomberg?
They are TOO funny.
i would love my father in law to smoke some weed then. Alzheimer's is a nasty disease.