Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Print Edition
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Life Events
Cannabis
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
Close
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
April 17, 2024
April 10, 2024
April 2, 2024
March 27, 2024
March 20, 2024
March 13, 2024
March 6, 2024
February 28, 2024
February 21, 2024
February 14, 2024
February 7, 2024
January 31, 2024
Close
Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
San Diego's antismoking law – cause of fires and second-hand smoke
Nicotine addicts who are unwilling and/or unable to stop using their recreational drug have the option of using alternate delivery methods. As soon as they light up, their neighbours are forced to choose between their health and safety versus having a roof over their heads. So on the one hand, we have to consider the right of the vast majority to protect their health and property. On the other, we have to consider the desire of a few to have convenient access to a preferred delivery method for a noxious and obnoxious non-essential drug. Hmmm ... tough choice! Which to chose? "If you don't like it, move" is a bad idea for two reasons: 1. if you refuse to provide an adequate supply of smoke-free housing, there is no "someplace else"; and 2. if it's good enough for us, then it is good enough for smokers, the people creating the problem. People are ALREADY being forced to move; unfortunately it's not the ones creating the problem. Establish laws that allow people to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking. And if smokers don't like it, then THEY can move "someplace else," same as is currently expected of all their neighbours.— January 22, 2011 9:38 a.m.