Where You Buy a Smoke

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:12 am

Well the all knowing social do-gooders in San Francisco are at it again, enacting laws in the naive belief they will change people’s behavior and have no unintended consequences. The city council or equivalent has voted to ban selling of cigarettes in pharmacies (and almost supermarkets). The ban will, in the view of supporters, help reduce smoking-related illness and premature death.

I’m no fan of smoking and have never tried it myself, but have these people ever heard of Prohibition or perhaps illegal drugs? Does any thinking person truly believe that banning the sale of something in one place (or apparently in the case of some things in any place) will stop or even reduce its use? Give me a break. What it will do is drive the sale of cigarettes underground thus creating more problems. In the short run of course it simply means that anyone wanting a smoke will go to another store. :rolleyes:

There is one other minor issue, what right does a city have to ban any store from selling something that is perfectly legal? There is probably a porno store right next to the local CVS.

Ratchet up the education, make it unattractive to smoke, keep up the pressure socially, but no matter what, there will be a core group of people who will never get it. You know like, lying out in the sun for hours, or riding a motor cycle without a helmet, or not wearing a seat belt or scores of other dumb thing people do or don’t do.

But give me a break, is there any person walking this planet (or at least in San Francisco) who does not know that smoking is not good for them? :-5

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:33 am

What's next, cheesecake?

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:53 am

We have similar legislation here in Ontario.

The idea is to reduce the opportunities to buy a pack of cigarettes randomly on the spur of the moment.

If a smoker wants cigarettes, they can still get them as easily as they did before, but the visual cue has been removed.

It seems reasonable to me.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:55 am

Richard Bell;935661 wrote: We have similar legislation here in Ontario.

The idea is to reduce the opportunities to buy a pack of cigarettes randomly on the spur of the moment.

If a smoker wants cigarettes, they can still get them as easily as they did before, but the visual cue has been removed.

It seems reasonable to me.
So, would you agree with removing sweets in gas stations and quick shops to battle obesity also?

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:50 am

YZGI;935668 wrote: So, would you agree with removing sweets in gas stations and quick shops to battle obesity also?

On the other hand if they removed condoms from supermarkets people would be getting even less exercise.

My local gas stations sells bundles of firewood in the winter, I think the added polution is unacceptable.

I guess if governments can mandate that restrauants cannot use transfats in cooking as they have in New York, they can mandate just about anything. Although it is encouraging to see that Chicago has withdrawn its ban on froe gras. Apparently the goose lobby was not strong enough or they were Republicans.

The real point is that these kinds of things miss the point and either don't solve the problem or simply create new ones.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:55 am

OK i do understand some of the laws. Mostly those that effect childern. But now they want laws for our laws. Yes, i smoke. i know it is not good for my health. But we all have our vices, sex,drinking,gambling and so on. Then there is the drug laws HAH HAH. But that is another can of worms. I know People who live in TX come to La. to buy cigs. cheaper. there is SOOO many laws for SOOO many states.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:07 pm

The answer is obvious. We MUST keep politicians at all levels from breeding.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:31 pm

hoppy;935889 wrote: The answer is obvious. We MUST keep politicians at all levels from breeding.

Then we better leave the condoms in the supermarkets.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:31 pm

The very idea of a pharmacy selling cigarettes is insanitary, it's like lining a restaurant wall with urinals. Eww.

Nobody in the UK can sell cigarettes without a government licence to do so. That's been the case since before I was born. No pharmacy in England has been allowed a licence to sell cigarettes for at least thirty years. I shudder at the very idea.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 12:33 pm

spot;935909 wrote: The very idea of a pharmacy selling cigarettes is insanitary, it's like lining a restaurant wall with urinals. Eww.

Nobody in the UK can sell cigarettes without a government licence to do so. That's been the case since before I was born. No pharmacy in England has been allowed a licence to sell cigarettes for at least thirty years. I shudder at the very idea.

Well then you will be happy to know that in some states they sell handguns in the pharmacy. At least they don't sell them in banks.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:03 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;935534 wrote: Well the all knowing social do-gooders in San Francisco are at it again, enacting laws in the naive belief they will change people’s behavior and have no unintended consequences. The city council or equivalent has voted to ban selling of cigarettes in pharmacies (and almost supermarkets). The ban will, in the view of supporters, help reduce smoking-related illness and premature death.

I’m no fan of smoking and have never tried it myself, but have these people ever heard of Prohibition or perhaps illegal drugs? Does any thinking person truly believe that banning the sale of something in one place (or apparently in the case of some things in any place) will stop or even reduce its use? Give me a break. What it will do is drive the sale of cigarettes underground thus creating more problems. In the short run of course it simply means that anyone wanting a smoke will go to another store. :rolleyes:

There is one other minor issue, what right does a city have to ban any store from selling something that is perfectly legal? There is probably a porno store right next to the local CVS.

Ratchet up the education, make it unattractive to smoke, keep up the pressure socially, but no matter what, there will be a core group of people who will never get it. You know like, lying out in the sun for hours, or riding a motor cycle without a helmet, or not wearing a seat belt or scores of other dumb thing people do or don’t do.

But give me a break, is there any person walking this planet (or at least in San Francisco) who does not know that smoking is not good for them? :-5

I take it that you're in favour of legalising drugs then?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:04 pm

Although it is encouraging to see that Chicago has withdrawn its ban on froe gras. Apparently the goose lobby was not strong enough or they were Republicans.

Actually Quinn, it's not at all encouraging.

That ban was in place to stop the forcefeeding torture of geese and ducks. It was to stop cruelty. It wasn't because foie gras was unhealthy to self and others as are cigarettes. It was because it is barbaric and unnecessary. I couldn't let that error go by.

Getting back to cigarettes, I understand and respect the foundation of it, as cigarettes in a pharmacy is about the same as your doctor smoking on his lunch break. And as much as I support no-smoking laws and that a person's right to fresh air trumps the rights of smokers fouling it up, I also support the right of smokers to buy their filthy product wherever it's sold.

So in the end, I would not be in favor of this ban.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:18 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;935911 wrote: Well then you will be happy to know that in some states they sell handguns in the pharmacy. At least they don't sell them in banks. I REALLY GOT A GOOD CHUCKLE OUT OF THAT:wah::wah:

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:52 am

Bryn Mawr;935929 wrote: I take it that you're in favour of legalising drugs then?

That's a good question and I would need more serious thought, but I have to say that seeing what is going on in Mexico (3,000 people killed in the last year by drug gangs) and around the US what we are doing now sure isn't working. There must be a better way.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:59 am

RedGlitter;935931 wrote: Actually Quinn, it's not at all encouraging.

That ban was in place to stop the forcefeeding torture of geese and ducks. It was to stop cruelty. It wasn't because foie gras was unhealthy to self and others as are cigarettes. It was because it is barbaric and unnecessary. I couldn't let that error go by.

Getting back to cigarettes, I understand and respect the foundation of it, as cigarettes in a pharmacy is about the same as your doctor smoking on his lunch break. And as much as I support no-smoking laws and that a person's right to fresh air trumps the rights of smokers fouling it up, I also support the right of smokers to buy their filthy product wherever it's sold.

So in the end, I would not be in favor of this ban.

I know why the ban in Chicago was in place, but that is not the point. It is not the job of Government to restrict what we eat, edeucate perhaps, but not restrict. If people so concerned about the geese stopped eating the stuff, they would stop stuffing the geese (or treating calves like they do for veal).

If cigarettes in the pharmacy are the same as a doctor smoking, what about them selling soda and fatty snacks? And my doctor is obese as are many, what do we do about that?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:46 am

California is on fire about half of each year and they are worried about tobacco smoke? Maybe the other lower 47 states should sue California for polluting their air.:wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:01 am

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;936401 wrote: I know why the ban in Chicago was in place, but that is not the point. It is not the job of Government to restrict what we eat, edeucate perhaps, but not restrict. If people so concerned about the geese stopped eating the stuff, they would stop stuffing the geese (or treating calves like they do for veal).

Yes it is the point. It is the job of everyone including government to prevent the torture and cruelty toward animals. Sure, if selfish people would stop eating anemic baby calves and fowl with overblown gall bladders, we wouldn't need government to step in and say "This is unacceptable."

If cigarettes in the pharmacy are the same as a doctor smoking, what about them selling soda and fatty snacks? And my doctor is obese as are many, what do we do about that?

Sodas and fatty snacks do not poison others with second hand obesity. That should be an obvious one. Same with your doctor's weight problem. It's not going to affect you one bit if your doctor's fat. Smoke is an entirely different animal.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:47 am

RedGlitter;936491 wrote: Sodas and fatty snacks do not poison others with second hand obesity. That should be an obvious one. Same with your doctor's weight problem. It's not going to affect you one bit if your doctor's fat. Smoke is an entirely different animal.

Smoking clearly affects others more than obesity, but we all pay for the cost of obesity through higher helath care costs, so everyhting is connected in some way. Cruelty to animals is one thing that no reasonable person would accept, but that is a bit different in my mind than creating food for humans. I imagine there mere fact of eating any animal would be cruelty in the eyes of many people.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:54 am

fuzzy butt;936427 wrote: That's kinda true. One bank gave away a firearm if you opened up an account with them.

Mass hysteria . The very thought of stopping people from smoking simply to stop cancer rates is totally stupid . I believe the cancer rates around the world have little to do with smoking .............We all talk about the polution around the world and in the big cities but we all blame smoking for cancer .Have a look at the air we all breathe the food we all eat . It's got to the point now that if you are diagnosed with cancer or any milignant condition and you admit to just being in the same room as a smoker once in your life they put your cancer down to smoking . It's total propaganda. and it takes the heat off all those multimillion dollar companies paying the government off because if the truth was told we'd find out the story is very very different..

urgh this topic makes me so mad. NSW is about to introduce new laws for the anti smoking geeks. If it's soooo bad why isn't it outlawed?

You are "dead" wrong on that one. Besides, smoking contributes to poor health in more ways than just cancer. I watched my father die slowly of emphasema after smoking two packs a day for forty years. I for one welcome a smoke free environment.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:56 am

hoppy;936437 wrote: California is on fire about half of each year and they are worried about tobacco smoke? Maybe the other lower 47 states should sue California for polluting their air.:wah:

Not to mention what West coast polution has done to the Grand Canyon.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:15 pm

fuzzy butt;936427 wrote: That's kinda true. One bank gave away a firearm if you opened up an account with them.

Mass hysteria . The very thought of stopping people from smoking simply to stop cancer rates is totally stupid . I believe the cancer rates around the world have little to do with smoking .............We all talk about the polution around the world and in the big cities but we all blame smoking for cancer .Have a look at the air we all breathe the food we all eat . It's got to the point now that if you are diagnosed with cancer or any milignant condition and you admit to just being in the same room as a smoker once in your life they put your cancer down to smoking . It's total propaganda. and it takes the heat off all those multimillion dollar companies paying the government off because if the truth was told we'd find out the story is very very different..

urgh this topic makes me so mad. NSW is about to introduce new laws for the anti smoking geeks. If it's soooo bad why isn't it outlawed?

Because the government get a fair percentage of their income from the tax on them.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:38 pm

spot;935909 wrote: The very idea of a pharmacy selling cigarettes is insanitary, it's like lining a restaurant wall with urinals. Eww.

Nobody in the UK can sell cigarettes without a government licence to do so. That's been the case since before I was born. No pharmacy in England has been allowed a licence to sell cigarettes for at least thirty years. I shudder at the very idea.

Tanx spot...........

You explained the whole difference of our 2 countries in one paragraph.........

As for me I'll take a FREE enterprise system where one can at least have a choice over a Gov. Run (mandated) country any day..........

EWW

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:43 pm

hoppy;936437 wrote: California is on fire about half of each year and they are worried about tobacco smoke? Maybe the other lower 47 states should sue California for polluting their air.:wah:

Good point hoppy........... Butt it should be the enviros who are sued for their frivolous law suits etc..........

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:52 pm

RedGlitter;936491 wrote: Sodas and fatty snacks do not poison others with second hand obesity. That should be an obvious one. Same with your doctor's weight problem. It's not going to affect you one bit if your doctor's fat. Smoke is an entirely different animal.

Just wondering if you have any scientific facts on second hand smoke you could share?

I'll give you a few talking points to start with if you like:

No study on SHS can "prove" that it "causes" anything. The most it can do is find a possible link. The links found to date on various bodily harms due to SHS exposure have been exceedingly weak. Did you know that exposure to bird dander resulted in a much higher link to lung cancer than SHS? But even that was considered weak by the health field. Apparently so since there is no campaign to keep birds out of kids' lives. The latter is a case of honesty while the former is a case of a crusade.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:04 pm

BTS;937512 wrote: Tanx spot...........

You explained the whole difference of our 2 countries in one paragraph.........

As for me I'll take a FREE enterprise system where one can at least have a choice over a Gov. Run (mandated) country any day..........

EWW

:yh_flag

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:22 am

BTS;937512 wrote: Tanx spot...........

You explained the whole difference of our 2 countries in one paragraph.........

As for me I'll take a FREE enterprise system where one can at least have a choice over a Gov. Run (mandated) country any day..........

EWW

Except that in the US you need a license (at least in most states and in some states they are government stores) to sell liquor, seems like it is little more than a revenue raiser for the government in either case.