Pubdate: Thu, 26 Feb 2015
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2015 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Debra J. Saunders

THE WAR ON DRUGS, SAN FRANCISCO STYLE

I can't tell you how many times I've had out-of-towners tell me they 
think San Francisco is a breathtakingly beautiful city - so why is it 
that City Hall hasn't done more about baseball pitchers chewing 
tobacco at city ballparks? No wait, I can tell you. I've never heard 
that. I have heard countless complaints from tourists and locals 
about homeless people sprawled on sidewalks, the stink of the city 
and the creepiness of walking downtown while navigating around urine 
puddles, feces and used hypodermic needles.

Given those very real assaults on the city's quality of life, 
Supervisor Mark Farrell's plan to introduce an ordinance banning the 
use of chewing tobacco at every ballpark in town comes across as a 
veritable trivial pursuit.

Farrell admits that his proposed ban is groundbreaking, as tobacco 
chewers pose no health risk to others. Smoking foes have cited the 
health threat of secondhand smoke to justify smoking bans - but 
secondhand saliva?

A Farrell policy paper reports 3.3 percent of San Francisco high 
schoolers said they used smokeless tobacco in 2013. The Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention say tobacco-chewing athletes make 
smokeless tobacco look attractive to kids. Farrell knows it. He 
chewed tobacco while playing baseball in college.

There's a national campaign, "Knock Tobacco Out of the Park," with 
some baseball industry support. The minor leagues already ban 
smokeless tobacco, and since 2011, the major leagues have prohibited 
players from using said products during TV interviews and club appearances.

San Francisco has laws to ban behavior that is hazardous to public 
health and (unlike smokeless tobacco) degrades quality of life for 
others. If city constabularies cannot keep up with the demand of 
enforcing laws against public urination, camping in public spaces and 
shooting up illegal drugs, surely the supes should spare them from 
having to clamp down on chaw-chomping players.

Farrell's ordinance qualifies as a nanny state law because: (a) like 
other City Hall busybody schemes, it targets a small group of people 
who do something politically unpopular, as in chew tobacco or drink 
too much soda, and (b) unlike drug injectors and public defecaters, 
practitioners tend to be law-abiding. In other words, Farrell and 
Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, D-Richmond, who has a state bill to ban 
smokeless tobacco at ballparks, are picking on easy, law-abiding 
targets who cannot count on the powerful homeless lobby to safeguard 
their interests.

Governments should not use their heavy hand to outlaw behavior simply 
because elected officials can get away with it. Farrell says 
ballplayers who chew tobacco set a bad example. Does City Hall really 
want to sic law enforcement on citizens for setting a bad example? 
Where does that end?

San Francisco pioneered smoking bans, yet marijuana smoke seems to 
get a pass - even when it stokes secondhand smoke. I smell it often 
as I walk near the city's many medical marijuana dispensaries, which 
prompted me to call a onetime marijuana advocate to get his thoughts. 
He has no love for tobacco: He blamed smoking for his mother's death. 
But there are times when it seems the Bay Area is replacing 
Washington's heavy-handed War on Drugs with a local but likewise 
over-the-top War on Tobacco.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom