SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- A San Francisco Superior Court judge threw out a Walgreens lawsuit Friday that attempted to stop the city's ordinance banning tobacco sales by pharmacies.

The ordinance, which went into effect Oct. 1, is the first ban of its kind in the country.

Judge Peter Busch, who in late September also refused to allow a preliminary injunction on the ban sought by attorneys for Walgreen Co., dismissed the company's lawsuit Friday that challenged the ban altogether, according to Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the city attorney's office.

Attorneys for the Deerfield, Ill.-based pharmacy chain had argued San Francisco's ordinance violated equal protection laws because the ban exempts supermarkets like Safeway and "big box" retail stores like Costco, which also contain pharmacies and sell cigarettes.

Pharmacies such as Walgreens, which operates more than 50 stores in San Francisco, and Rite Aid, are included in the ban, as well as smaller independently owned pharmacies.

San Francisco Health Department policymakers have defended the exemption, arguing pharmacies, as health-promoting businesses, should not implicitly endorse cigarette smoking, considered the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The larger stores do not explicitly market themselves in the same way, they said.

But they have also stated that broadening the ban on tobacco sales could be considered in the future in San Francisco.

"As consumers, we rely on stores like Walgreens to serve our health needs, not to enable our deadliest habits," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera in a written statement applauding Busch's decision.

Dorsey said the decision Friday also renders Walgreens' appeal of Busch's preliminary injunction decision, currently before a state appeals court, moot. The company would now have to file a new appeal in order to continue to challenge the ordinance, he said.

"We still have appeal options that we can explore," Walgreen Co. spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce agreed.

"We firmly believe, as we believe most people would, that the ordinance lacks basic fairness," she said.

Bruce added that her company believed the ban would not impact the amount of cigarettes sold in the city "because people will go elsewhere" to buy them, she said.

A separate lawsuit challenging San Francisco's ordinance on free speech grounds, filed in federal court by Richmond, Va.-based Philip Morris USA Inc., was rejected earlier this month by a judge who ruled the law regulates conduct -- tobacco sales -- and not speech or advertising.

Philip Morris has appealed the ruling.

In the meantime, San Francisco's effort appears to have attracted attention on the opposite coast.

On Dec. 1, the Boston Public Health Commission approved a similar law, banning tobacco sales in pharmacies and drug stores, as well as hospitals and colleges. The law is set to take effect in February.