# Another one bites the dust...



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

...anybody who's been to this store in SF knows what a loss it will be when they close...

...that's California for you...

...it's sad really...

health nuts need not post...go start a thread about granola somewhere...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> 
> ...anybody who's been to this store in SF knows what a loss it will be when they close...
> 
> ...


Cigars....whats next, good scotch and microbrewed beers?

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

The owner has the exact same opinion of Rob Reiner as I do.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> The owner has the exact same opinion of Rob Reiner as I do.


I agree, but I have to put the quote here:


> quote:In particular, he excoriates Hollywood crusader Rob Reiner, whom he derides as a "motherless ****-monkey."


That's one of the best quotes I've ever heard. Ranks up there with some of the things Churchill said. I've never been to SF, but I mourn the loss of good small businesses, especially when it's due to government interference. Unfortunately, the dingbats who run SF seem to enjoy this sort of thing. Shame, really.

CT


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

I too share the sentiments about The Meathead....you know...one thing I just can't understand...SF recently enacted some kind of ordenance (sorry I dont know all the details) but basically, now, in SF, cigarette (tobacco) smoke is considered a toxic pollutant...toxic pollutant??? Here's a town that prides it's self on the fact that it has legal pot clubs...but tobacco smoke is a toxic pollutant??? I really try to spend as little time in that city as possible due to some of their ridiculous polotics...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## Tyto (Sep 22, 2004)

I'm not a smoker, but I've been to Sherlock's Haven and loved the place--never had I been so tempted to pick up a pipe and assorted tobaccos to try....

And, Trend: yes, those *are* next. It's only a question of time.

__________

Fair and softly goes far.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Totally agree here.

I would like to say that I have known Marty for going on fifteen years. He is a true gentleman who treated me well when I would go into his store a a youg guy, and continues to treat me well every time I see him. He is a funny, kind man and I am sorry to see him lose his livelihood.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I'm guessing nobody here has ever lost a close family member to lung cancer?

When you do, come back and tell us about health nuts and granola.

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


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I'm guessing nobody here has ever lost a close family member to lung cancer?
> 
> ...


Actually I have.

Does personal responsibility mean nothing to you? If you don't want to encounter smoke, don't go to smoky places. That seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I'm guessing nobody here has ever lost a close family member to lung cancer?
> 
> ...


I had a family member hit and killed by an automobile.

Please stop driving your car.

Thanks.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

That's a shame. A local humidor went out of business a couple years ago, I think due to the proliferation of discount smoker outlets and Churchill's. I don't smoke, but went there once looking for some nice luggage. Seemed like a really nice place, and the smell reminded me of my grandpa who passed away ten years ago. When I think of my grandpa, in fact, I'm reminded of grey-plaid flannel coats that smell of pipe tobacco. Now I'm considering buying a can of three nuns and leaving it open in my coat closet...


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You blame your dead relative for their own agonizing demise becasue they happened to frequent places where others were spewing toxic gases into the air? Nice family.

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


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Relayer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I drive my car according the regulations in place. Smokers should do the same.

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


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't so much blame them as I do understand that there is a risk associated with any behavior.

The risk of cancer from second hand smoke is small to none according to almost every study done to date. Perhaps we would all be better off wearing gas masks everywhere.

I do not know about the government in Canada, but here it is not the job of the government to protect people from their own actions. If it was we might also illegalize unprotected sex, walking off of curbs and driving. These things are all quite hazardous.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Sex, unprotected or not, should be severely regulated as it is incredibly dangerous, not only for your health but the possible future impact on wallet, state of mind and status as a single man. I can't tell you the trouble a little slap and tickle has landed me in over the years.


WOW! And the far left becomes the fascist right. Should we need a government issued permit each time we decide to copulate?



> quote:No, it is not the job of the government to protect one from one's own actions - but it is to protect you from the actions of others. Smoking is not illegal is it? Polluting public places probably should be.


Exactly. It is the decision of the individual to enter an establishment. If you do not want to be in a smoky place, don't go in. The same goes for tanning salons, or would you like to regulate those as well?



> quote:Remind me, what is the war on drugs in the USA all about?


Not sure I can help you there. Not my program. I don't agree with it.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No - maybe some kind of certificate confirming that you do in fact have some kind of sense of humour.

I see a long dry spell in your future.



> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So its open house - pollute all you want, blow smoke in people's faces - hey! they could have turned away if they don't like it!



> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm sorry. I thought when you said this:
"I do not know about the government in Canada, but here it is not the job of the government to protect people from their own actions."

that you were actually being serious. maybe you do have a sense of humour after all........

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


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

gmac:

Is being a tiresome, offensive boor your schtick?...like Don Rickles...or are you as offensive in person as you are in your posts?


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Murrah_
> 
> gmac:
> 
> Is being a tiresome, offensive boor your schtick?...like Don Rickles...or are you as offensive in person as you are in your posts?


No, but I could probably make an exception for you.

What is it that you find so offensive? Just out of curiosity. The fact that I disagree with you?

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


----------



## BYoung (Jun 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Woah, hold on a second here... Did anyone read the article?
*
"The owners of Embarcadero Center West, where he has operated Sherlock's Haven for the past decade, refuse to renew his lease unless he bars customers from lighting up."*

This has *nothing* to do with GOVERNMENT actions, and Rob Reiner had no involement here. It is good old American capitalisim at work. People in the building were complaining about the stink that came up through the elevator shaft. Setting aside the second hand smoke issue, it was a *business* decision. I suspect the owners cared more about the money the clients brought in upstairs, than the rent the tobaconist brought in. The property owners should loose *their* livelyhood, so a group of people can sit and smoke together?

Perhaps the operator should apply for some special status so the govenment can step in and stop the land owners from evicting?

He does sound like quite a gentleman by the way, calling someone he never met an explitive in print... Classy...

Cheers
Brian


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by BYoung_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no confusion about what the article says. I was simply arguing the need and appropriateness of such laws.

As for being a gentleman, Marty is a hard working, very nice guy. Nobody said gentleman. Reiner, in my experience with him, is neither a nice guy nor a gentleman.


----------



## BYoung (Jun 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As for the factual issues:
There is confusion about the article when ChubbyTiger mentions "due to government interference" and The Gabba Goul mentions "politicos" in reference to this closing.

As for Marty, *you* said "He is a true gentleman" in your post at 03/24/2006 : 09:47:41. Realize that was a couple of hours ago, but...

As for issues of opinion:
I've never met Mr. Reiner, but know people who do, and they also say he is rather unpleasant to deal with, even though they agree with his positions. Then again, Mr. Cheney has cursed at others on the US Senate floor. Doesn't change the merit of their arguments. It just personal attack, which isn't very helpful in civic affairs, in my opinion.

As for the value of laws that protect people from themselves... I think we in this country have a tendency to think all about "ME" first, and less about community. "Why can't I!?!" often sounds like a spoiled child to me. But most of the laws mentioned do have impact on other peoples lives as gmac pointed out somewhat bluntly.

Some people simply don't think or care about the impact their actions have on self and others. Why have a drinking age? They don't in many parts of Europe. Why make marijuana illegal? It is legal elsewhere. Why make it law to wear safety belts? Wasn't always this way. Why is assisted suicide illegal? It is in Oregon, much to the Federal Governments dismay. How about child labor laws? They didn't always exist, what right does the government have to step in and tell a parent how to raise their children? Abortion laws? Same argument. Why should a have to rent to someone who is a race I don't like? It's my property... I'm guessing you might agree with some of these, and not others, but they are all personal choices and have social impact, honestly what choices don't? So it's not just about the individual after all.

What is appropriate and needed? I would suggest the majority of people *do* feel governments position is to protect them. As our democracy is by, for and of the people, we can come together and decide we like or dislike certain things. We as a people have decided our government should protect the citizens from all kinds of things every day... bad food, bad medicine, bad pollution, bad buildings, bad drivers, bad cars, bad guns, bad business, bad weather, bad foreign nations, etc. Somebody would always prefer the government wouldn't "get involved", and usually it is at the expense of someone's business. But the reasons are there, and people have asked for it. Sometimes it goes to far, such as prohibition, but it tends to self correct.

Look at the reaction when the government bungled the Katrina management. Personal risk living in New Orleans, have to live with the result, right? Wrong, according to most people... Grant you, the scale is different, but the issue seems the same _to me_.

But if you don't like the way the country is run, move... (sorry couldn't resist[)])

Cheers,
Brian


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Me? Blunt?

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


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by BYoung_
> 
> As for the factual issues:
> There is confusion about the article when ChubbyTiger mentions "due to government interference" and The Gabba Goul mentions "politicos" in reference to this closing.
> ...


I should have read my own writing better.

I have dealt with Marty and I have dealt with Reiner. I would rather have dinner with Marty. Period. You are right that this has nothing to do with politics and issues, but it is a statement of my personal experience. Reiner has his own issues here in CA that he is having to deal with. I hope they bring him down.

I think that you are probably rght about what *most people* feel regarding the role of government. I am different. I believe that this country was founded on the ideals of individualism, and I think that they are good ideals. There is a risk in everything we do, and I believe that if we are not held accountable for the risks that we take, we will keep on making the same mistakes over and over. A great example is the stock market run of the 90s. The central bankers stepped in time and again to bail out big investors that had made big mistakes. The Peso, the Far East, the Russian problem and LTCM. Each time we had another contraction in the risk premium. If you show people tha there is no risk to what they are doing, they will act accordingly.

Unlike those on the left, I have not whined and moaned and threatened to move to Canada or France if I lost. I would rather live in our totally imperfect country than in any other. If we all left the "I'll move to France if Bush wins" and "if you hate this country so much you should leave" rhetoric behind and argue about real issues. We have enough differences there.

FWIW, your arguments are well reasoned and I enjoy reading them. It is nice to read rebuttals that are not repugnant trolling.[]


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

"What is it that you find so offensive? Just out of curiosity. The fact that I disagree with you?"

I don't mind when people disagree with me, but in my opinion, you are unable to accept that anyone else's differing point of view has any validity. You're boorish.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was stationed in the Bay Area when S.F. banned firearm sales. The result was laughable. Several fine stores went out of business. Gunsales went to Oakland. The purchasers were faced with the daunting task of running guns past the tollgates. This Bizerkely grad is saddened by the brokedness of it all.I want my old S.F. back. City Lights bookstore was a compass rose to libs. Castro and Polk was a fine old irish nieghborhood and the tenderloin was, well, the tenderloin. Times change, attitudes change. But those who do the changing should not be dismayed when their turn to be pushed aside, disenfranchised and shunned by marketers and the eternal 20 something next generation comes along and says NO.


----------



## shoefetish (Jan 15, 2006)

Having my morning pipe at an open air cafe when a group came in. Heard one of the women distinctively mention my smoking (meant for my ears I think).

The group then proceeded to as far from me as possible. Beauty of it was it was next to the main road with buses and cars spewing a lot more smoke than me.

How can logic be so illogical?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> I was stationed in the Bay Area when S.F. banned firearm sales. The result was laughable. Several fine stores went out of business. Gunsales went to Oakland. The purchasers were faced with the daunting task of running guns past the tollgates. This Bizerkely grad is saddened by the brokedness of it all.I want my old S.F. back. City Lights bookstore was a compass rose to libs. *Castro and Polk was a fine old irish nieghborhood* and the tenderloin was, well, the tenderloin. Times change, attitudes change. But those who do the changing should not be dismayed when their turn to be pushed aside, disenfranchised and shunned by marketers and the eternal 20 something next generation comes along and says NO.


Have you ever actually been to San Francisco?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lets see; I was 5 years old when my dad's brand new Dodge came to a loud stop on Geary when the entire engine tore free and fell out. I was 9 when my alcoholic second cousin drove her '62 Lincoln with the suicide doors down Lombardy street totally bombed. I returned for a 3 year tour with the USCG. I was on the lifeboats out of T.I. picking up suicides from the bridge.One day I defied the odds and recovered a young chinese couple who leapt hand in hand ( different Tongs who refused permission to Marry)a mentally Ill priest and a young girl who was miraculously still alive. She died in my arms asking if I was God as the blood poured from her mouth. I went to a fund raising party for NORAID when the Knights of the RedBranch discussed strategy to free Liam Quinn being held for extradition. I bought my first serious clothes at Cable Car Clothiers, talked to the Buddha in The Tea Garden, ate at Hermann's Deli across from the French Hospital, kissed a stunning multi racial girl in front of tourists from Indiana on the Balclutha tied up at Fisherman's Warf and visited Wyatt Earp's Grave down the coast. I was a shore Patrolman assigned ( in retribution) to Polk and Castro during the Hooker's Ball after sutffing a pimp headfirst into a City Of Oakland wire trashcan on West MacArthur Blvd for beating up a girl and pulling a gun on the catholic Monks who interceded on her behalf.My gay friends at Oilcan Harry's went to the effort of making Hot Buttered rhums and slipping me one free. I shoot better with a jigger in me.I saw Ferlinghetti recite at City Lights and said hello to my dad's old Berkekey friend Allan Ginzberg. Yea, I've been there- Have You?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Lets see; I was 5 years old when my dad's brand new Dodge came to a loud stop on Geary when the entire engine tore free and fell out. I was 9 when my alcoholic second cousin drove her '62 Lincoln with the suicide doors down Lombardy street totaly bombed. I returned for a 3 year tour with the USCG. I was on the lifeboats picking up suicides from the bridge.One day I defied the odds and recovered a young chinese couple who leapt hand in hand ( different Tongs who refused permission to Marry)a mentally Ill priest and a young girl who was miraculously still alive. She died in my arms asking if I was God as the blood poured from her mouth. I went to a fund raising party for NORAID when the Knights of the RedBranch discussed strategy to free Liam Quinn being held for extradition. I bought my first serious clothes at Cable Car Clothiers, talked to the Buddha in The Tea Garden, ate at Hermann's Deli across from the French Hospital, kissed a girl on the Balclutha tied up at Fisherman's Warf and visited Wyatt Earp's Grave down the coast. I was a shore Patrolman assigned ( in retribution) to Polk and Castro during the Hooker's Ball after sutffing a pimp headfirst into a City Of Oakland wire trashcan on West MacArthur Blvd for beating up a girl and pulling a gfun on the catholic Monks who interceded on her behalf. Yea, I've been there- Have You?


Yes. Born and raised and live a block from the street that you call Lombardy.

You do know that Polk and Castro are not one neighborhood (as you stated above) and that they never even come close to intersecting, don't you?

Maybe this map will help refresh your memory https://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sanfranciscoattractions0fu.gif


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Eating to many Dan White twinkies this morning? Most cities are large enough in both geography and demographics to embrace many views of it's reallity. San Francisco has always been know for courtesy and hospitallity- ask Khruschevs visiting party. Apparently you have an issue with me Herb Caen never addressed.Please part the fog and spit it out.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not quite sure I follow...who are these wicked smoke stack villians who are running around blowing "toxic" smoke into the faces of infants and old ladies??? I think for the most part smokers are just as considerate as everybody else (I mean of course there are a few A-holes...but that could be said about any group)...if anything it's the smokers who are being picked on...myself and other smokers have to huddle in a dark corner when we smoke at work due to the abolition of designated smoking areas, when a smoker goes out to dinner or a bar or wherever, they have to stand around in some alley like a hooker or go out to the street to smoke, all the while having to put up with the stares and snyde little nose covering and all the other BS that the non smokers do as they walk by and get into their behemouth (sp?) of an SUV which spews more toxic pollutants into the air than a whole pack of cigarettes would...no I'm sorry, I dont understand where this picture that the smoker has been painted as some kind of meniacal killer out to inflict the mass populace with lung cancer or whatever came from...it just doesnt hold water, I'm not out to harm "the children" or "the environment" or whatever...and I'll accept the consequences that this has on my health without somebody trying to cram their dubious epa reports and moronic "truth" campaigns down my throat...if you want to pick on an industry for ruining people's health, take on fast food, it's alot less socially acceptable to smoke indoors than it is to eat a big stinky disgusting greasy hamburger which contains a weeks worth of calories...and that'll kill you alot faster than nicotene ever would...

...but whatever...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I think we should ban everything and live in mud huts and eat bark and dance in the fields with the little animals so there.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I'm guessing nobody here has ever lost a close family member to lung cancer?
> 
> ...


I have lost a close relative to lung cancer. He was a smoker and an alcoholic.

Dana Reeve never smoked and died of lung cancer. Maybe it was the nuts and granola?

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> I think we should ban everything and live in mud huts and eat bark and dance in the fields with the little animals so there.


Do you think Press sells madras loincloths?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Coolidge24_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm counting on it.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Attending school in southern California I've come to realize that my friends from California have a different way of looking at the laws of the land than most. In their opinion, their "right" to comfort in private establishments trumps the rights of business owners to set rules regarding which legal activities may or may not transpire on their property. They will readily admit that it is not the health hazard of second hand smoke (questionable in a restaurant setting) that makes them support bans on smoking in bars and restaurants, but the unpleasant smell of smoke. In an area that is so proud of its tolerance, these people are incredibly quick to legislate against social behavior that they find unpleasant.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Cigarette bans have their origins in the desire to eliminate workplace health hazards, not the desire to provide comfort for patrons. Just as employers can't expose their workers to certain industrial chemicals, asbestos, and other known toxic substances without proper safety precautions, if at all, employees shouldn't be exposed for long periods of time to cigarette smoke.

If your workplace showed higher than normal levels of carbon monoxide, formaldahyde, volatile organic compounds, ammonia, benzene, and particulate matter in the air, you'd be pissed at your employer (or the building owner) and you would want the situation corrected ASAP. It just so happens that cigarette smoke is a source of all of these things and that cigarette smoke is one of the leading causes of indoor air pollution. So why should people be allowed to introduce these substances into the work place?

It happens that on this issue the anti-smoking people are very vocal, primarily because they don't like smoking at all. But the fact that you hate the anti-smoking folks so much shouldn't cover up the fact that workplace smoking bans (and a restaurant is a workplace) are in place to protect employees and it isn't the cigarette smoke _per se_ that is the issue, it is any harmful substance which degrades air quality. If you want to argue that all workplace safety regulations should be removed, that's fine, but trying to make this a personal rights issue with smokers being the victims just doesn't wash. Smoking bans started with individual communities exercising their right to determine public health policy, often through referendum, which is the way democracy is supposed to work. Last time I checked the Constitution didn't guarantee a right to smoke wherever and whenever someone wants.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

What everyone seems to be forgetting here is that this is a tobacco shop whose only reason for being is to provide a place for gentlemen to smoke the products that the shop sells. How can you make a case for protecting the employees? If employees wish to work in a smoke free workplace, they should apply at a place where smoking is not the raison detre. 

I would make the same argument for bars and restaurants. If employees do not want to work in smoke filled atmospheres, there are plenty of Wal-marts hiring not to mention all the restaurants that did not allow smoking even before it was banned. 

No, the constitution does not provide a right to smoke anywhere you want to. It also does not provide the right for employees to dictate their employers policies or to work whereever they damn well please. Every person is free to not work in a place that allows smoking. It is a simple matter of asking the establishment if they allow smoking before applying for the job and making the decision to work there or not depending on the answer. 

Hell, I've turned down jobs because the office was downtown and I hated the parking. Surely someone who thinks that second hand smoke is dangerous could make a similar decision.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> If you want to argue that all workplace safety regulations should be removed, that's fine, but trying to make this a personal rights issue with smokers being the victims just doesn't wash.


I don't care about the smokers, the non-smokers, or the employees. This issue, to me, is about the rights of business owners to dictate what *legal* activities may transpire at their places of business.

edit: And it has been my experience that proponents of smoking bans don't care about the employees either (the only half-way legitimate argument for a smoking ban), but about their levels of comfort in private establishments.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn't really matter what your experience has been. You can attempt to discredit the public health implications for employees by trying to say that smoking ban proponents don't _really_ care about employees, but the fact of the matter is that if the pollution were being caused by another source you wouldn't bat any eye. In essence, what you're saying is that there shouldn't be any workplace safety regulations.

And as to what _legal_ activities may take place in a business, I suppose I should be able to have sex in a booth in a restaurant right next to your table if the business owner deems it acceptable. Incidentally, this idea that business owners have some sort of right to exist without regulation is asinine. Business are licensed by localities which have the right to determine the parameters under which that business operates.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> No, the constitution does not provide a right to smoke anywhere you want to. It also does not provide the right for employees to dictate their employers policies or to work whereever they damn well please. Every person is free to not work in a place that allows smoking. It is a simple matter of asking the establishment if they allow smoking before applying for the job and making the decision to work there or not depending on the answer.


Employees aren't dictating the policies; local governments are. Business owners are free to move their business to another locality that proves more to their liking if they can't abide by local laws and regulations.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> Eating to many Dan White twinkies this morning? Most cities are large enough in both geography and demographics to embrace many views of it's reallity. San Francisco has always been know for courtesy and hospitallity- ask Khruschevs visiting party. Apparently you have an issue with me Herb Caen never addressed.Please part the fog and spit it out.


You are more than welcome to a reality that does not exist. Your frequent tales seem to be perect examples of your own reality. I assure you that many in San Francisco join you in this distaste for the real. However, most of them do not go as far as redrawing the maps of a very small city.

It is no surprise that Khruschev would be warmly welcomed in SF. It is also no surprise that Reagan would not be. SF is not an open and inviting city if you are not a fellow traveller.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Polk and Castro are often refered to as a 'district' bound as much by a specific culture ( in this case the gay community) as they are not by your cartographer's definition. In any case, I figure my past service to the community and long family association ( research who built that famous row of Victorian homes)gives me a small claim to S.F. as much as anybody. If you don't like it, cross to the other side of the street. Anybody can collect 'tales' It's real easy. You open your eyes, put one foot in front of the other and be part of the world. It's fun out there. Try it sometime instead of looking for paper tigers to knock over with the minutae of Rand McNalley.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As far as this case goes, I am in full support of the building's owner's right to control what kind of businesses he chooses to have in his building but we have long since left this individual issue and moved on to broader ones.

Re: Community Smoking Bans

I do not believe that in a free society everything should be up to a vote. If curry were found to be carcinogenic, I certainly do not think that it would be within the community's rights to shut down all the Indian food shops just because some people thought they smelled bad and others felt that they were somehow dangerous. Every person could make the decision not to eat Indian food and not to go in the shops that they felt contained unpleasant odors.

Being a historian, you can certainly think of many times when democratic decisions have led to unfair and immoral reduction of citizen's rights. One of the reasons we have state and federal constitutions is to restrict the ability of the duly elected officials so that they can not use democracy as a means by which to destroy the individual's rights to use his own property as he wishes. To allow democracy to go unchecked is to guarantee a homogenous and oppressive society. Property rights must be protected and no person running a legal business should be forced to comply with regulations that make his business untenable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> Being a historian, you can certainly think of many times when democratic decisions have led to unfair and immoral reduction of citizen's rights. One of the reasons we have state and federal constitutions is to restrict the ability of the duly elected officials so that they can not use democracy as a means by which to destroy the individual's rights to use his own property as he wishes. To allow democracy to go unchecked is to guarantee a homogenous and oppressive society. Property rights must be protected and no person running a legal business should be forced to comply with regulations that make his business untenable.


As much as I'd like to think of the "many times when democratic decisions have led to unfair and immoral reduction of citizen's rights" I'd rather stick to the subject at hand: the ability of state and local governments to regulate businesses.

As a historian, I can tell you that since the beginning of America there have been restrictions placed on businesses and the manner in which they operate. The idea that there was a time in American history when an indvidual had a unfettered right to operate a business in whatever manner he or she saw fit is largely ahistorical. Remember this: businesses (especially corporations, but other businesses as well) exist at the sufferance of a local or state government. The local or state government has every right to regulate these businesses and yes, these regulations can change over time. We can argue up and down whether it is right to change the understanding of that relationship after a business has been established--e.g. the institution of smoking bans--but the idea that businesses have a right to operate unfettered flies in the face of American history.

For example, mills used to dump waste directly into waterways. Should they have been allowed to continue that practice forever or should they have to comply with new regulations after it is shown that the practice has killed all the fish in the river? Essentially what you are saying is that a business should not have to comply with any local or state requests to modify their business practices because they may cause economic harm to the business, regardless of the harm to the greater community.

You're also conflating two issues. The right to operate a business and the right to use one's property as one sees fit are two different issues, which is why smoking bans can't be extended into private homes, although I would assume that condominium associations could institute smoking bans if they so choose. You must also oppose all zoning regulations and building codes if you're worried about retricting people's rights to use their property in whatever manner you see fit.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> *Polk and Castro are often refered to as a 'district' bound as much by a specific culture ( in this case the gay community) as they are not by your cartographer's definition.*


Only the misinformed. If you polled Castro residents, they would likely tell you that they have nothing in common with the seddy denizens of Polk Street. The Castro is a thriving community that is only different from mainstreet USA in that it is gay. In all other ways, it is the prototypical family neighborhood. Polk Street (past California) is a seedy strip of transvestite hookers and dive bars. Equating the two areas is like saying that Saint Francis Wood and Russian Hill are the same since they are wealthy neighborhoods with mostly straight couples.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You seem to have missed my point entirely. I was pointing to history for examples of how democratic decisions do not always equate to being the ethically or morally just decision.

Furthermore, just because something has existed throughout the history of this country does not solve the ethical questions involved. Capital punishment has existed throughout the history of America but I'd say that the debate over whether it is morally or ethically right is still in question.

The rightful place of government in business is not, as you suggest, to grant the privilege of operating. It is to support the naturally occuring commerce not to weight it down with unnecessary regulation or to decide arbitrarily what businesses have the right to exist (especially when these businesses sell completely legal substances or services).

As for the "harm caused to the greater community," no one in the community would ever be exposed to the smoke in this establishment unless they willingly went in there and there is absolutely no reason for them to enter unless they smoke.

As for others that share a building with a smoking establishment, if there are seperate ventilation systems there should be no smoke encroaching on the other tenants. If there is a problem with the other tenants, the owner of the building is within his rights to decide who should stay or go (as is the case in this instance and as I said I have no problem with this landlord making this decision).

BTW, businesses are someone's property so those are not two seperate issues. Property rights are not limited to private homes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm a non-smoker and even allergic to tobacco smoke, but I am frequently appalled by the vehemence of the anti-smoking crowd.

I would probably avoid taking a job in a smoky office because of my allergies, and most employers don't allow smoking for this and many other reasons. However, self-righteous abuse of cigarette smokers is not necessary, and I think, counterproductive.

I, too, agree that the landlord has the right to choose which tenant to keep when there is a conflict such as this one.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Tragic. The Neo-Puritans are at it again. What is truly sad about this is the loss of comraderie, friendship, and community caused by closing the shop. American society is so fractured and individualistic as it is. There are few venues and fora today where adults can assemble and interact in a relaxed, civilized manner.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> ...cigarette (tobacco) smoke is considered a toxic pollutant...toxic pollutant??? Here's a town that prides it's self on the fact that it has legal pot clubs...but tobacco smoke is a toxic pollutant???


Yes. If government elites in SF are worried about public health hazards, perhaps they should crack down on what goes on in the, er, 'bath houses' there.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Old Brompton_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed...but oh no...I'm sure that's probably embraced by most as part of SF's "cultural charm"...aye yi yi...I really don't know sometimes...

*****
[image]https://radio.weblogs.com/0119318/Screenshots/rose.jpg[/image]"See...What I'm gonna do is wear a shirt only once, and then give it right away to the laundry...eh?
A new shirt every day!!!"​


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by The Gabba Goul_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is actually a huge issue in San Francisco. Many lefties want to enforce prostitution laws because they feel that women are being exploited, yet they are not able to bring themselves to because they do not want to crack down on gay prostitution, lest they tell gay people what they can and can't do. It is all very strange.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> This is actually a huge issue in San Francisco. Many lefties want to enforce prostitution laws because they feel that women are being exploited, yet they are not able to bring themselves to because they do not want to crack down on gay prostitution, lest they tell gay people what they can and can't do. It is all very strange.


Are you serious or is this a joke?


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


100% serious.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by iammatt_
> 100% serious.


Then it is a wonderful comment on the double standard held in a town known for its stance on equal abilities of the sexes.


----------

