San Francisco has found something new to ban

Posted on June 27, 2011

Tell me again, which political side is it that wants to “control your life?”

While conservatives typically get the rap for opposing abortion and the redefining of marriage, liberals aren’t exactly embracing the “live and let live” attitude either.  After all, liberals are the ones who’ve wanted to ban transfatssugar-sweetened sports drinks, soda, junk food and junk food adssalt, smoking outside, and Happy Meals all in the name of keeping you and your kids healthy. 

Additionally, the left’s banning fever isn’t limited to just health concerns. Liberals also pushed the legislation in California to ban sales and rentals of violent video games to minors (overturned today by the Supreme Court) and leftists in San Francisco are even proposing a ban on circumcision after already banning plastic grocery bags years ago.  As an aside: Why is okay to kill a baby in the womb, but not circumcise it once it’s been born? 

Now mind you, I’m not advocating that kids should eat Happy Meals and play violent video games all day long while smoking a pack of cigarettes, but why is it that WE the people (and we the parents) are no longer seen as qualified to make these everyday decisions for ourselves and our kids?   Why can’t we be trusted to run our own lives? 

And today, just when I thought we might be getting to the point where there could be no more “vices” to prohibit, San Francisco has found another threat that we must be protected from: purchasing pets.

The first vision was simple and straightforward: To curtail puppy mills and kitten factories, the sale of cats and dogs should be banned in San Francisco, where the loving guardians of animal companions come to regular blows — politically — with the loving parents of children.

The ban was put on hold last year after animal advocates broadened it to include anything with fur or feathers. Now it’s back, with a new name and a new strategy: More is more. The Humane Pet Acquisition Proposal is on its way to the Board of Supervisors, and it hopes to protect everything from Great Danes to goldfish.

Yes, goldfish. And guppies, gobies, gouramies, glowlight tetras, German blue rams. No fish, no fowl, no reptiles, no amphibians, no cats, no dogs, no gerbils, no rats. If it flies, crawls, runs, swims or slithers, you would not be able to buy it in the city named for the patron saint of animals.

 Ironically, you still will be able to purchase certain live animals if this ban passes, but only if you plan on EATING them eventually. Turtle soup, it’s what’s for dinner! 

As a parting thought, just how is the city going to go about tracking the sales of these live animals sold for food and enforcing some type of penalty against the consumer if the animal hadn’t been eaten?

Posted in: California, Politics