DRUGS AND STREET DEFECATION WILL REMAIN LEGAL

San Francisco considers banning the sale of all pets

(Thanks to Mark Schlesinger)

Comments

[Jeff Meyerson]

Saw that on the news last night. I think Bloomberg should be Mayor of San Francisco. They'd be perfect together.

[LeDud]

When the apes take over, I suspect SF will be where it starts.

[nursecindy]

Do some of the people in San Francisco just sit back all day and try to figure out nutty things to do next? Notice I said 'some' of the people. Our Blog's brother, Sam, lives there.

[Martini Shark]

That town, I swear . . .

I saw a story where locals were protesting against a large chain store wanting to open a store in a shopping district. They were against a corporation moving in and demanded only family-owned businesses. This was staged in front of a string of boarded up shops, which I guess they preferred over - you know - jobs and local revenue.

[funny man]

Banning pets would be a wiseass business move.

It would immediately open up a new underground market in pets, thereby enriching organized crime as well as
smugglers and those that handle contraband.

"When pets are illegal, only illegals will have pets" doesn't really follow good logic either.

[twitter.com/JugglerOfGeese]

First Happy Meals, now pets, and I heard last night that they are going to try to ban ALL fast food sales to children. Good Effing Grief

[nursecindy]

I wonder if Mexico would be willing to take California?

[Annie Where-but-here]

Take it, nursecindy? They want to give it back.

[oneblankspace]

Missouri recently passed a referendum, overturned by the legislature, that made it a crime to feed your dogs twice a day.

Say what you want about Nancy Pelosi, but she does seem to represent the people of San Francisco well.

[Beckster]

Your headline says it all.....

[Steve]

When they ban pets, the smugglers will get involved.
Where will they hide the gerbils and what Gere will the coyotes be wearing?

[Will]

The problem is that they say they are trying to stop puppy mills, but say nothing about rescues and pet adoption organizations that would be put out of business too. Their only reason for existing is to get the strays and unwanted pets off the streets and into homes where they will be cared for.

People breed their pets, either on purpose or by accident. If they are prevented from selling them, then they will give them away or just abandon them, and getting rid of the rescues means that there is no one to help clean up the mess any more.

Are they TRYING to make things worse? This makes about as much sense as Denver banning pit bulls... which isn't even a specific breed.

[Martini Shark]

I read about that Happy Meal ban. The politician who concocted that dream bill did so because his own kid made a stink every time they drove by The Arches. In other words, he could not parent properly, so he sought to ban the source of his stress.

[Ralph]

Simple solution: relabel all the pet shops as bait shops. You can sell shiners and hellgrammites for fish bait, so why not goldfish and tarantulas -- or kittens to catch sharks?

[Toto]

The government will NEVER convince the public to give up keeping pets.

*scratches San Francisco of list of potential places to live someday*

[Afkat]

Now if San Fransico could just legislate against guys wearing assless leather chaps on Castro Street, I'd be on board with the proposal.

[Annie Where-but-here]

Afkat - you noticed?