S.F. ban on tobacco in drugstores survives

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco can enforce its ban on tobacco sales in drugstores, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday, rejecting a free-speech argument by tobacco giant Philip Morris.

The ordinance, the first of its kind in the nation, took effect in October 2008. It prohibits sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products at San Francisco's nearly 60 drugstores.

Philip Morris said the ban effectively forced the company to pull its advertising out of the stores, interfering with its constitutional right to communicate with customers. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the city hasn't restricted freedom of expression.

The city "limits where cigarettes may be sold; it doesn't prevent (Philip Morris) from advertising," the court said in a 3-0 ruling upholding a judge's denial of an injunction against the ordinance.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/09/MNKN19KRP5.DTL&tsp=1

[coyotespaw]

1. This sucks; if it were birth control pills that were banned

in Idaho drug stores, would anyone here be giving this thread a rec? Personally, I would hope not, as I've always considered DU as a place that respected freedom. I hope I'm not wrong.

[joshcryer]

2. Oh wow. Can of fucking worms.

Not even touching it. (I agree with you, btw, but I'd take a very different tack here.)

[coyotespaw]

5. Ah, but your tack

would require tact; which, after the past 24 hours, I am entirely out of for the foreseeable future. Right now I like to envision myself as the backhand of common sense, going upside the head of the dumb.

[Rebubula]

6. Simply AWESOME

"Right now I like to envision myself as the backhand of common sense, going upside the head of the dumb."

I may adopt that phrase...that is wordsmithing Gold. I am in awe of you.

[the other one]

12. Birth control v. Tobacco

Apples and oranges

[comtec]

3. Good ruling! It's BULLSHIT that a corporation can claim human rights

and as they said NOTHING prevents P.M. from posting ads for their poison!
If SF can live with out the tax revenue from cigs (and that is a LOT of scratch) then good on SF!
Since SF's smoking laws are very tight, there's really no place to smoke aside from a dark hole in your own home anymore anyway.

That said, I have also always felt that some anti-smoking laws go way too far.

If someone wants to smoke that is their right... jsut not around kids / in-public imho.
There should be a different way of delivering tobacco for addicts... perhaps aerosolized? like an inhaler?

[ixion]

4. anti-smoking nazis on the march again

great. :eyes:

[MidwestRick]

7. When is the ban on...

beer and wine in those stores going to be voted in?

[ima_sinnic]

8. a fucking tobacco co's "constitutional right to communicate w customers"

this is where that idiocy known as corporations = "persons" comes into play.
fuck their fucking "constitutional right" to pollute the landscape with advertising of any kind.

[hayu_lol]

9. Good tax news for all the surrounding cities/towns and so forth...

Agree with a poster above: The Nicotine Nazis are on the march again.

Now, time to get serious about banning YOUR substance of choice: wine, beer, spirits, pot, and all the rest of the nasty items that many object to. Oh yeah, don't forget sugar, salt, food that tastes good and so on.

Enjoy your oatmeal NN's.

[the other one]

11. They didn't ban anything

They merely RESTRICTED tobacco sales from a certain class of vendor.

I am sure it will remain plenty easy to get cigarettes in San Francisco.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WriteDown]

13. If cigarettes are a "drug" as so many claim....

How on Earth can you ban them from a drugstore?