99 replies to this topic

[Robert Gary]

I'm just typing on a tiny keyboard so I'm not able to make things "sound" one way or another. .

It is an objective fact that the purpose of this ordinance as proposed is to allow the force of government to compel businesses to adopt this policy by threat of incarceration or seizing of property (real or money etc). That is what differentiates a policy that a business chooses to institute vs an ordinance. That's not an opinion or a "sound just the raw fact.

-Robert

[Rich_T]

I understand that smelling small amounts of cigarette smoke is annoying, I don't like it, However banning people from smoking in their own houses is going too far. Just because someone is renting an apartment doesn't mean it's not their home and they should be barred from engaging in a legal activity.

 

There's a big difference between a detached house and an apartment, where smoke easily passes out of one's own unit and into other units.  The right to smoke is infringing on the right to be free of smoke.  If a policy is made clear BEFORE someone rents, then there is no problem with setting rules one way or the other.  The real problem has to do with people who are plagued by the smoke of others today:  right now, it's on them to move out, and that's not fair.

[Rich_T]

I'm just typing on a tiny keyboard so I'm not able to make things "sound" one way or another. .

It is an objective fact that the purpose of this ordinance as proposed is to allow the force of government to compel businesses to adopt this policy by threat of incarceration or seizing of property (real or money etc). That is what differentiates a policy that a business chooses to institute vs an ordinance. That's not an opinion or a "sound just the raw fact.

-Robert

 

I take poetic license with words like "hear" and "sound" in internet discussions, to not come off as too literal, and to make it more conversational.

 

If this becomes a law for restaurants/bars, then certainly there will be the threat of action for non-compliance.  I don't have a problem with that, because it's a complicated situation that also involves employee rights.  But I can also sympathize with a voluntary/market-oriented approach, without a law.  

 

Again:  for existing apartment dwellers, it's a different story.

[Rich_T]

 

 

I've lived in plenty of apartments and the only time i can recall smelling cigarette smoke has been when someone was smoking on a nearby patio while a window was open, Smoke from cigarettes or burnt popcorn for that matter should not easily go from one sealed apt. unit to another, If it does happen it's a maintenance issue for the apt. owners to address. It's not reasonable to ban someone from smoking in their own home or force them to move.

 

Depends on the specific situation, so it's hard to generalize.
 

I don't have a great solution for situations where smokers and non-smokers share an apartment building, when the smoke does travel.  Up to now it's been up to non-smokers to put up with the smoke or move out.  It's all very one-sided.  My recommendation would be for a phased-in approach, whereby any apartment building could be made "non-smoking" for any new renters, and non-smoking for all renters after X number of years.  But it would be at the discretion of the apartment owner.

 

If certain standards cannot be met for keeping smoke from traveling from one unit to another, via the ventilation system, then there should be a legal remedy whereby the apartment owner is compelled to fix the problem to the satisfaction of a monitoring agency.

 

After all, it's also not reasonable for renters to smell the smoke of their neighbors in their own units, and it's also not fair.  You might not ever have had this problem, but apparently others do.

[The Average Joe]

But where does it end? The wind is blowing your chimney smoke in my direction. Ban fireplaces, or ban wind!  I hate the smell of curry, and I can smell it at my neighbors house, ban curry, or better yet, all cooking!  Lord knows I hate it when I smell steak from a neighbors grill as I'm a vegetarian, ban steaks! And grills!  I don't like the color of my neighbors roses, ban yellow roses! My neighbor feeds the birds, and I hate their chirping and squawking, and pooping on my car, ban birdfeeders, and birds! I don't like stepping in gum, ban it!  I don't like that tv show, it's disgusting. Ban it!  I find Huckleberry Finn offensive. Ban it!

 

Lighten....up... people.

 

And all of the above is purely meant as an example of how full of ourselves some of us have gotten, they do not represent my views.

[Rich_T]

But where does it end? The wind is blowing your chimney smoke in my direction. Ban fireplaces, or ban wind!  I hate the smell of curry, and I can smell it at my neighbors house, ban curry, or better yet, all cooking!  Lord knows I hate it when I smell steak from a neighbors grill as I'm a vegetarian, ban steaks! And grills!  I don't like the color of my neighbors roses, ban yellow roses! My neighbor feeds the birds, and I hate their chirping and squawking, and pooping on my car, ban birdfeeders, and birds! I don't like stepping in gum, ban it!  I don't like that tv show, it's disgusting. Ban it!  I find Huckleberry Finn offensive. Ban it!

 

Lighten....up... people.

 

And all of the above is purely meant as an example of how full of ourselves some of us have gotten, they do not represent my views.

 

Where does it end?  I think it ends where common sense and health concerns end.  So it's OK to have smoking regulations, whereas the things you mentioned don't need regulations.  I trust the public enough to know the difference.  Objecting to invasive cigarette smoke is not being full of oneself.

[Rich_T]

 

I think you'r right about this being more of a respect your neighbor issue then the city trying to ban people from smoking in their apartments, One of the downsides of this ban is it would encourage smokers who comply with it to smoke on their patios and in common areas ,Which would mean more smoke exposure for those of us non-smokers , Perhaps the city should have a respect your neighbor campaign and offer up coupons for smokeless ash trays. 

 

The only problem is if apartments really do have the bad ventilation systems that transport the smoke to other units.  In which case respecting one's neighbor still doesn't help.  Also, I've noticed that smokers often will go to the patio to smoke, in order to respect the others who live with them.  But then the smoke ends up bothering others more than the smokers would like to admit.

[sunnyCA]

 

Where does it end?  I think it ends where common sense and health concerns end.  So it's OK to have smoking regulations, whereas the things you mentioned don't need regulations.  I trust the public enough to know the difference.  Objecting to invasive cigarette smoke is not being full of oneself.

Indeed.  Yellow roses and curry pose no health risks.  Secondhand cigarette smoke does.  Not wanting to be exposed to someone else's secondhand smoke does not make me full of myself.  Regulating things that pose a public health risk is not outrageous.

[Robert Gary]

Has the city tried a helping hand approach before resorting to the heavy fist of law enforcement?

[4thgenFolsomite]

who complained to start this change in the first place?  is this actually a real problem somewhere or is someone just trying to extend nanny laws?

[The Average Joe]

By all your logic that this is a health issue (which I disagree with to some degree) why not ban ALL smoking. I mean, we know it costs billions of dollars to treat smokers. There is no legitimate benefit to smoking other than personal choice and freedom of expression.  So why not? Extend your argument. Is that the world you want to live in? You can only eat government sanctioned food and drive government sanctioned cars, because the government is going to "encourage" you to do what is "best" for yourself at the end of a (figurative and/or literal) gun... Myself, I would prefer the inconveniences of liberty for all.

 

If I want to drive a 500 horsepower sports car, I should be able to. If I want to drink too much, eat to much, or even smoke too much that should be my prerogative. I don't need the government to decide what is right for me. That is what is so sad about those that rely on the government teat. You can't be independent if you are dependent. And once you are dependent, your life is not your own.

 

Of course I should try to respect my neighbors... No burn-outs, no puking in their yellow roses, and being aware of which way the wind blows. That is called courtesy. That doesn't require a law. Regulating behavior is a losing proposition, and only serves to diminish respect for the law when every action you take is considered a petty crime.

 

A little smoke, curry, bird poop, gum shoe, harsh language, and (insert neighborly pet peeve here) is a small price to pay for liberty,

 

While I really hate cigarette smoke, I will defend what little liberty those that choose to smoke have. For once the leprous smokers have been dealt with, who will the self-righteous, know what's best for me pols and mobs come after next?

[Rich_T]

By all your logic that this is a health issue (which I disagree with to some degree) why not ban ALL smoking. ...

 

That's pretty easy to answer:  just ban smoking wherever it presents a public nuisance.  Few people (if any) would argue that smokers don't have the right to poor health, as long as they don't force it on others.

[TruthSeeker]

What's the point of this? Nobody will be pursued by police, that'd be a spectacularly stupid waste of limited PD funds and time.

Remember prop 47 passed, we can't even keep the two thieves who broke into our mail boxes in jail because of that. According to the staff at the Post Office, the thieves were released the same day they were arrested. 

[tony]

But where does it end? The wind is blowing your chimney smoke in my direction. Ban fireplaces, or ban wind!  I hate the smell of curry, and I can smell it at my neighbors house, ban curry, or better yet, all cooking!  Lord knows I hate it when I smell steak from a neighbors grill as I'm a vegetarian, ban steaks! And grills!  I don't like the color of my neighbors roses, ban yellow roses! My neighbor feeds the birds, and I hate their chirping and squawking, and pooping on my car, ban birdfeeders, and birds! I don't like stepping in gum, ban it!  I don't like that tv show, it's disgusting. Ban it!  I find Huckleberry Finn offensive. Ban it!

 

Lighten....up... people.

 

And all of the above is purely meant as an example of how full of ourselves some of us have gotten, they do not represent my views.

You keep ignoring the big difference between restricting where people can smoke and all your other examples, including banning smoking altogether. And that is that when common courtesy fails to protect the rights of one group from being infringed upon by another, that's where the law is a remedy. And there is no more basic right than the right to breathe (relatively) clean air. Or, as the American Lung Association likes to put it, "If you can't breathe, nothing else matters". So, to the extent that the creation of second hand smoke is a health hazard, it is s a perfectly reasonable behavior to regulate. So, I support the ban, with the possible exception of bar patios where there is no table service (so the servers are not forced to be exposed). 

 

That said, I completely agree with your commentary on "Free Range Kids", just not the parallel between that and second hand smoke.

 

Yes, the apartment smoking ban would be hard to enforce, but like many "unenforceable laws", their value is twofold: 1) most people will obey them simply because they are law-abiding citizens, and 2) for those who do not, it is a tool to protect others (in this case, by providing grounds for eviction by the landlord).

[checkmate3001]

It is NOT and has NEVER BEEN the responsibility of the Government to decide what is best for ALL people.

I recently traded cigarettes for vaping as of October 2014. I HATE cigarette smoke. I know it sounds strange, but it stinks terribly. I know it does and any smoker that says it doesn't simply can't smell it the same as someone who doesn't smoke. They really can't. It coats their mouths, throat and nasal passages. So now you are aware of where I am coming from.

The bottom line is that most establishments ALREADY ban smoking in outdoor eating areas. I will work on collecting more data, but being a smoker, I know where I can and can't smoke. Smokers are told every day where they can and can't smoke. No smoking on school campuses, no smoking in certain parks, no smoking at youth events, no smoking within 20 feet of all buildings, no smoking inside (obviously)... it is actually easier to list the places smokers CAN smoke: riding in cars (unless children are in the vehicle), parking lots, outside of bars, outside of buildings without windows or doors nearby (like behind or next to stores). Continuing to ban smoking because you find the smoke offensive is just driving smokers to fewer and fewer places. You still will experience the smoke. You will not get rid of it. You will just continue to ban smoking from more and more places. That's more and more places smokers won't be... but they have to go somewhere... where next would you like to ban them from?

What if someone wants to open a store that welcomes smokers? They aren't allowed to because non-smokers don't want that to exist? That doesn't make sense to me. That's like saying, well I don't like baseball, so let's ban baseball stadiums and baseball from TVs in bars.

Instead, if you are offended by cigarette smoke at a restaurant, you should attempt to get someone's attention to inform them that you don't appreciate the smoke where you are eating. Perhaps there is a sign and someone didn't notice. Perhaps the business owner never received a complaint about cigarette smoke and therefore hasn't even thought of banning smoking in an open dinning area.

As far as banning smoking at apartments, personally, I don't know a smoker who smokes inside (and I know a ton of smokers). They all smoke outside because they know it smells and they don't want their apartment to smell like cigarettes or their belongings to be covered in nicotine and stink. Instead, the apartment complexes should attempt to keep certain areas mostly smoke free for those sensitive and encourage people to not smoke indoors. However, it should NOT become law. What will smokers who live at apartments do when they want to have a cigarette? Will they walk across the street and stand in front of a stranger's house? How will a smoker remove the smell from their clothes so as not to offend other residents who share ventilation systems? Will they change between cigarettes and keep their stinky clothes outside?

If you live in an apartment complex, you should feel comfortable to be able to go to the management and request to live in an area where smoking is not allowed (not legally banned). They should be willing to move you to a different building in order to keep you there, as their customer. Likewise, the apartment complex should be able to accommodate their customers who do smoke and provide them with an apartment where smoking is allowed.

Smoking is not a crime and should not be enforced. I can't imagine how the bans would even be enforced. Is there going to be a special force of the police going around fining people for smoking? Is the city going to spend money designing and having special signs made to inform people that by law they are NOT allowed to smoke there? Is the city going to spend the money to educate people so they are aware that there is actually a law on the books that forbids them from smoking in certain public places? How is a smoker going to know if a non-smoking sign is a rule placed by the establishment or an actual legal sign that can get them in trouble with the law if they are caught smoking?

Banning smoking is not going to solve a problem that doesn't exist or only exists in our minds. It is extremely easy to find ways that smoking is bad and negatively affects people. It is extremely difficult to prove that people are actually negatively impacted by smokers being around them.

 

I'm sure many non-smokers feel like smokers simply have no respect for other people and just smoke wherever they want without a single care about who they may be affecting around them. I can assure you that is not true. The problem is, as a smoker, you have no control as to where your smoke goes. Sometimes you can't even tell when it has traveled toward a group of people who are a good distance from you. You try to smoke far from doors and open windows, but you can't always tell where all doors or windows are around buildings. You try to avoid smoking around children, but children are everywhere. You try to avoid smoking in short time-periods before entering buildings because you know that stink will stay with you long after you are done with the cigarette. You try to avoid smoking in traffic because you can see the person behind you has their window down and it is going right back into their car. We do try, but you can't avoid all situations, it just isn't possible.

Let's put an end to making up laws in an effort to make a perfectly utopian society. Let's instead learn to live with those around us and realize that just because someone does something you find offensive, does not make them bad people or a lesser person.

I'm sure I everyone could find a few things everyone does that offends them. Thinking I have a right to draft a law to ban people from smoking in public areas is definitely on MY list.