San Francisco Fights Tobacco Companies

Herrara looks silly on this (0.00 / 0)

Since when did "drug store" stop being a store where you buy drugs?

Is there really a greater expectation that drugs stores are there to sell health needs than sell drugs? And if so, when did that happen because that sure as hell isn't consistent with the history of drug stores.

And if a "drug store" is a store that sells drugs (like tobacco) then Herrara's argument doesn't make any sense.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 00:07:34 AM UTC

City Attorney= Attorney for the City (0.00 / 0)

First of all, the City Attorney is the Attorney, not the legislator. It was passed by the Supes and the Mayor, not Herrera.

That being said, ya, i have no problem with it. There are plenty of places to buy your ciggys, I have no problem with removing them from the shelves of Walgreens.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:06:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't really have a problem with it either (0.00 / 0)

My problem isn't the law or the fact Herrara is expected to support it, my problem is that his logic is tortured and he looks silly because of it.

Instead of saying there is some expectation that you can't get drugs at the drug stores, he could have said that this is nothing but expensive legal tricks by the tobacco companies getting rich at the expense of San Franciscans' health. That would have played better and he wouldn't have looked so silly with such tortured logic.


Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 03:40:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, the logic comes from the Board (0.00 / 0)

They had findings associated with the legislation, and that's where this comes from.

At any rate, the logic that looks tortured is that of the Tobacco Companies arguing that they have a Free Speech right to sell their poisons wherever they want.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 14:56:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rational Basis (0.00 / 0)

The reason the City has articulated this basis for their law is to beat back an equal protection argument.  

The tobacco law applies only to pharmacies, not to, say liquor stores.  Consequently, a pharmacy could (and did) sue the city claiming that the city is discriminating against pharmacies in favor of liquor stores.  In that case, the Court applies a very lenient standard, known as the rational basis test.  After all, pharmacies are not a "protected class," and are not deserving of a heightened standard for applying equal protection (like, say, people who are discriminated against on account of race, gender, etc.)  If the City can articulate any "rational basis" for treating liquor stores and pharmacies differently, then the law withstands an equal protection challenge.

This is precisely the issue in the other court case related to the tobacco law.  Walgreens sued the City, and claimed that the law was unconstitutionally discriminatory because it treated pharmacies and other stores differently.  Not surprisingly, for the reasons I outlined above, the Court threw out Walgreens' case.  Walgreens appealed, and the case is now before the state Court of Appeal.

I predict that the City will win the Walgreens case.  And the reason they'll win it is because of the distinction the Board of Supervisors articulated for treating pharmacies different than other stores.

---

by: Be_Devine @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 19:42:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

once again... (0.00 / 0)

once again, SF passes laws that have little effect. So what if Walgreen's can't sell cigarettes? Every little store that's not a "chain" can sell them, and this is one of those laws we pass that make us feel like we're doing something, when in fact SF doesn't have the courage to do an outright ban that would apply equally (imagine the effect if no pharmacy or corner store could sell cigs!)

It's just like that phony 'ban' on plastic bags. We did NOT BAN PLASTIC BAGS, people, only in the "chain" stores. So while I get a huge paper bag for two items at Safeway, every single corner store, ethinc market, and "non chain" still uses plastic bags. Since I don't do all my shopping at Whole Paycheck or some other equally annoying big store all the time, I now have a lovely collection of plastic bags.

If Newsom and the liberals had any courage, they woulda gone for the full ban and fought off Big Petroleum to keep the ban. Instead, a half assed thing that makes us liberals feel great, but does nada.

--
www.gregdewar.com

---

by: gregdewar.com @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 00:08:22 AM UTC

but look at the headline (0.00 / 0)

"San Francisco Fights Tobacco Companies"

How brave.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 00:12:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did you bother to read the article?? (0.00 / 0)

"To summarize, the City banned the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies."

This does not say 'chain' stores, or big stores, or Walgreen's.  It doesn't say grocery stores or corner stores.

It says pharmacies.  Pharmacies are licenced to sell particular products and it doesn't seem unreasonable to restrict the sales of cigarettes there.  There are plenty of places to buy them (gas stations come to mind), so I don't understand your problem.

Also, about plastic bags, the point is to get people to limit their use.  Most people end up with 4-5 bags with grocery shopping weekly.  By eliminating those, we eliminate a great deal of the plastic (that is floating around the Pacific), which doesn't biodegrade.  If you were actually concerned, you would bring your own damn bag to Safeway (and stop smoking).  

---

by: DK Green @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:08:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem... (0.00 / 0)

The problem is that pharmacies are licensed by the state, not by the city.  By what authority does the city ban the sale of certain legal products in certain stores?  What if the City of San Jose required all pharmacies to sell tobacco products in all California stores?  (The penalty would be to lose their business license in San Jose.)

The City of San Francisco is certainly free to regulate for the common weal when it is something unique to their own jurisdiction.  The problem is that we end up with all these little "kingdoms" around the state as each municipality decides that it will make a statement about some issue.

The City of San Francisco also gave plenty of ammunition to conservatives who will (correctly in this case) complain about the "nanny" aspects of government.

After all, if the City wanted to ban tobacco sales, why not ban them everywhere in the city?  Why only in pharmacies?

Have you seen pharmacies lately?  The big ones sell liquor, too.  They sell pre-packed, high cholesterol foods.  One could go on and on.  This ordinance is just silly.

---

by: Doll @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 03:52:56 AM UTC

I think you misunderstand (0.00 / 0)

The SF ordinance applies only to stores in SF, not to stores across the state.  So when you say "What if the City of San Jose required all pharmacies to sell tobacco products in all California stores?" the answer is simple: that law is not legal, the San Jose has no business telling stores in other jurisdictions what to do.  But SF's tobacco law does not presume to tell stores in other cities what to do, so your hypothetical is completely irrelevant.

The fact that pharmacies are regulated by the state is of no matter.  You're trying to make a preemption argument that's just not there.  In other words, you're assuming that just because the state regulates pharmacies, cities are not allowed to pass laws that affect pharmacies.  That's just not the law.  Now, to be sure, the city can't pass a law that's directly at odds with an existing state (or federal) regulation.  But last I checked, there is no state law that says that pharmacies must sell cigs, or that they have an inalienable right to do so.

Finally, you certainly are entitled to think that the law is silly.  All kinds of people think all kinds of laws are silly.  Take, for example, speed limits, seatbelt and helmet requirements, minimum drinking and smoking ages, etc.  But all of these laws are legal, notwithstanding the fact that some people think they're silly.  So is the tobacco law.    

---

by: Be_Devine @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 19:53:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]