Anchor ads are not supported on this page.
Archives
Classifieds
Stories
Events
Contests
Music
Movies
Theater
Food
Legal Guide
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
Close
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 2024
February 12, 2025
February 5, 2025
January 29, 2025
January 22, 2025
January 15, 2025
January 8, 2025
January 1, 2025
December 25, 2024
December 18, 2024
December 11, 2024
December 4, 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.