Posted on 01/26/2005 8:48:26 PM PST by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO - From Union Square and the local zoo to Golden Gate Park and the grounds of the stadium where the hometown 49ers play, smokers in this tourism-driven city will soon find fewer places to indulge their habits.
An expansive smoking ban approved by San Francisco supervisors Tuesday prohibits lighting up in all city-owned parks, public plazas and sports facilities except golf courses. At least 11 other California cities and a handful of jurisdictions in other states have enacted curbs on outdoor tobacco use, but anti-smoking advocates say none is as far-reaching as San Francisco's.
"San Francisco has been a pioneer in tobacco control for decades and continues to be a pioneer with this law," said Bronson Frick, associate director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, a Berkeley, Calif.-based group that promotes laws to reduce smoking. "No other city has enacted a law even close to what San Francisco is in terms of covering outdoor places."
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the law, which would take effect July 1, said an aide to Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, the law's sponsor. It covers tobacco as well as "any other weed or plant" that is smoked.
According to the ordinance, the prohibition applies to "any unenclosed area" that is open to the public and under the city's jurisdiction. That includes any "park, square, garden, sport or playing field other than a golf course, recreational pier or other property used for recreational purposes."
Such sweeping language means that smoking will be forbidden at neighborhood parks, softball fields, tennis and basketball courts, the huge plaza across the street from City Hall, and the family camp the city operates near Yosemite National Park.
"Because we do have quite a few parks and quite a few public areas, this could be more far-reaching than people have thought about," said Karen Licavoli, director of tobacco control programs for the American Lung Association of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties.
City-owned golf courses were specifically exempted because Alioto-Pier said discarded cigarette butts were not as much of an environmental or health hazard on greens with dedicated groundskeepers. She said she was also concerned that a smoking ban would drive golfers and their fees away from public courses to private facilities.
Smokers and their allies were unsurprisingly fired up about the new law Wednesday.
Michael Sayrafi, whose father owns a San Francisco tobacco store called Smoke on Polk, called it "ridiculous."
"Are we still living in the land of the free? It's insane," Sayrafi said. "They have already taken bars away from smokers. Next they are going to say you can't smoke on the street."
People caught smoking in any of the places where the new law applies can be fined up to $100 on first offense, $200 for a second violation within the same year and $500 for each additional violation. "No Smoking" signs will be posted at affected sites and city officials said they hope smokers will police themselves.
Taking a nicotine break outside his office building, San Francisco resident James O'Daniels, 32, said he wasn't worried about getting a ticket for smoking at a park.
"If the cops don't enforce it, it won't have much impact," O'Daniels shrugged. "There is prostitution on my block and they don't enforce that. I'm sure that's still illegal."
Licavoli of the American Lung Association said that given San Francisco's role as a leader in tobacco reform laws, she hoped this week's action would lead to similar outdoor bans elsewhere. She noted that San Francisco was one of the first major U.S. cities to prohibit smoking in workplaces, restaurants and bars in 2004, a change that since has spread across the country.
"I know people thought it was absolutely impossible for restaurants to go smoke-free and there would be a huge backlash," she said. "But the smoke-free workplace law was the beginning of a transformation for changing community norms for what is acceptable when it comes to tobacco use. With parks it will also send that same message of what is acceptable."
Some oceanfront communities in Delaware and Florida have followed California's lead in making beaches smoke-free zones. But Frick, of the nonsmokers rights group, said the pace of change has been slow.
Only one-third of Americans live in communities where smoking is off-limits in restaurants, and only one-fourth in places with smoke-free bars.
"That indoor exposure to secondhand smoke still is a very pressing problem," Frick said.
The smoking nazis. When they are done there - what will they attack? Fast Food ? - oh that has already begun.
Good God, now I don't smoke and I don't like smoke filled rooms, but now they can't do it outside too? What a nice fascist reality we live in. This with the Statue of Lenin in the middle of Seatle, maybe it is time for the West Coast to form their own socialist paradise, seperate from the rest of us?
Actually..tobacco companies should play along with these fascist government agencies and say.."ok..you are right..smoking is wrong..no more tobacco products in your areas"..let's see how long these nanny governments last without cig taxes...
Which is a worse public health threat, AIDS or Smoking. Maybe they should outlaw public sodomy.
Now if they can only stop smog!
Isn't that the truth..... Where's the ACLU? They defend NAMBLA, but as far as the smokers..........
Not so fast. Public sodomy is a civil right in San Francisco.
At least smoking crack and shooting up in public is still ok.
Well, there does seem to be a lot of concern about butts...
Similar to the ban which will become law on May 1, (significant date) in Flagstaff, AZ. No smoking within 50 ft. of any eating establishment among other businesses and public places. This way the wino's won't be exposed to sidestream smoke while they panhandle and take their dumps. Ahhh. . . the shape (and smell) of liberal utopias. Those who approve of the Flagstaff smoking ban will no doubt not mind the 15% bed, board, and booze tax used to build bike paths and buy public art.
I like the idea of us separating with them better. We get the land, and they get sent to DPRK or China.
One less vacation destination on my schedule...
Oh, damn, it wasn't there anyway.
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.