Not unaware of anything cited. If the league in unity did this it would have meant something. It won't happen and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't last in SF. I would have thought the Padres before any team would have been the Pioneer in leading the charge. It's a positive movement. Common sense would say that chewing tobacco would be worse for kids at a young age than smoking. Long term no and its not close. A lot more kids get hooked on smoking than chewing. Mostly your comparisons are just twisted if not completely unrelated. Smoking on a baseball field vs. Chew? Alrighty then.
Talk about illogical nonsequiturs and twisting my statements.
Almost everything you say is wrong.
First of all, the minor leagues ALREADY BAN CHEWING TOBACCO. So where are all the "libertarians" whining about that?
You say just because no other MLB team is doing it SF should not do it? Well, maybe contrary to the arguments from the "libertarians" here that SF cares less about their kids than other places, maybe they care more.
As a matter of fact, SD and other CA cities are expected to soon also ban it. So much for the SF "nanny state".
You say more kids smoke than chew. Well, that is not true among younger kids WHO PLAY BASEBALL, who are the target of this regulation.
As far as comparison, it is not completely clear which is more dangerous, since more a lot people smoke than chew and chewing often leads to smoking.
Both smoking and chewing are addictive.
Yes, from the perspective of setting an example for kids, my point was it makes as much sense to let players chew as it makes to let them smoke.
All your silly stupid transparent sophistry to the contrary, you should ask Tony Gwynn's kids if it is a good idea or not.
