99 replies to this topic

[ducky]

 

 

 

 

 

If a neighbor actually says that, then try to work out a solution.  But that's an outlier, and is a distraction from the topic at hand, which is cigarette smoke.

 

Gee, Rich T, thanks for the reprimand, but I believe it is within the main body of the conversation as it pertains to smoke emanating from my private residence.  It's an example of how nanny laws come about.  

 

cw68 & 4thgen, I like your posts.  

I have never smoked, the smell of the smoke bothers me, but I don't think we should be telling private property owners what they can allow tenants to do as long as it is a legal habit. Private business owners should be allowed to decide for themselves.  If enough people complain to a business owner about smoke on an outdoor patio, it's up to the business owner to decide whether they would have more business if they made it nonsmoking.

[Rich_T]

 

Its part of living in a free society. Your money motivates the apartment owner to decide what policy best suits the needs of their customers. Perhaps there is a market for a smoker's only complex.

 

-Robert

Germany is a free society, too, and I hated the smoke in my office.  So I was free to leave, which I did.  But I was never free to breathe clean air.  Now I hear that Germany no longer allows smoking in offices.  So things can change.  What we are discussing is just one more iteration of the process.

 

I, too, prefer to let the market to decide.  But there are so many situations that must be "grandfathered in", that it makes things tricky.

I don't smoke cigarettes, but if I wanted to in my own backyard, or wanted to allow my guests to, I would be very irritated if my neighbor complained that they didn't like the smell. Ridiculous.

The health hazard presented in the great outdoors in neighboring yards would not be the reason, it would just be that they didn't like it. It's also not like an employee who would be forced to sit there and smell it, they could go inside until the cigarette was out or we went inside.

One can't just ban everything they don't like.

 

It wouldn't be ridiculous if it was a regular thing and if the smoke actually traveled through their windows into their dining room, baby's room, etc.  Especially if you could be smoking indoors instead.  Believe it or not (I assume it's not), the smell of smoke really does make some people want to literally puke.

[Rich_T]

if someone smokes in my house, the smoke is confined and sticks to things.  it lingers for days.  if someone smokes outside, it dissipates immediately and is gone in the next breeze.

 

Yes, but at least that way it remains your problem, if you are the source, and you are not externalizing the problem to others.  It's kind of like when a person in the car in front of me holds a cigarette out the window the whole time, with the wind blowing the smoke towards me.  No one wants the smoke, but the smoker decides I can deal with it.

 

Smoke just is a nuisance, period.  Again I say, I'm glad I live in California where it's mercifully not usually a problem.  I understand that people in different locations smoke relatively more than in other locations (e.g. more in the foothills than in suburbs), which is a cultural thing.  The level of nuisance is manageable in Folsom.

 

Gee, Rich T, thanks for the reprimand, but I believe it is within the main body of the conversation as it pertains to smoke emanating from my private residence.  It's an example of how nanny laws come about. 

 

Hardly a reprimand, I just don't think that smelling BBQ smoke is on par with smelling cigarette smoke.

[TruthSeeker]

Uh, forever?

 

It's not poisoning people, is it?

 

You might be wrong about forever.  

 

San Francisco is considering banning BBQing

http://downtrend.com...ackyard-bbqing/

Farting in a public place is legal, unless some NIMBY's start a push to make that illegal as well. Although one's flatulence is offensive, it is (here it comes) SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. Meaning, everyone farts. You couldn't possibly try to make it illegal... unless, at some point in the future, farting was no longer socially acceptable.
 

 

Farting is socially acceptable? I wanna hang out with you after I've had a burrito or two.

[TruthSeeker]

Back in the 80's smoking was allowed at work and we all set at desks next to each other and this woman next to me smoked constantly all day long - I had to breath that stench all day too. Finally bought several fan and put them on my desk blowing in her direction, it worked! All her smoke blew back in her face and not at me.

 

Thank GOD smoking in the work place was finally banned. I was going to start burning cow patties or something to get revenge....

[Robert Gary]

Years ago I had a neighbor that parked in front of my house where I liked to park. But instead of asking the council to pass a law I just talked to him. Took less time.

[Rich_T]

Years ago I had a neighbor that parked in front of my house where I liked to park. But instead of asking the council to pass a law I just talked to him. Took less time.

 

If only that worked with smoking on apartment balconies or on restaurant patios, we'd be all set.

[Robert Gary]

 

If only that worked with smoking on apartment balconies or on restaurant patios, we'd be all set.

 

You've tried? The apartment manager has an incentive to keep good renters happy. All part of the free market. Better than having gov't enforcers coming around enforcing single-focused laws.

 

If the restaurant owner wants me to eat there he'll keep the smoke away from me. Otherwise I don't go there. No skin off my back, the choice is his. Free country and all.

 

-Robert

[Rich_T]

 

You've tried? The apartment manager has an incentive to keep good renters happy. All part of the free market. Better than having gov't enforcers coming around enforcing single-focused laws.

 

If the restaurant owner wants me to eat there he'll keep the smoke away from me. Otherwise I don't go there. No skin off my back, the choice is his. Free country and all.

 

-Robert

 

Hey, I can't even get people to stop smoking pot next to me at concerts.

 

I basically want to agree with you, but I just don't believe that smokers ultimately will put the interests of non-smokers ahead of their own needs, so when it comes to public spaces, laws might help, though maybe not.  I don't think there will be any "government enforcers", outside of the police who already enforce some laws and don't enforce others.

 

I'd like to see the market take care of the issue, but once more I will say that it's complicated for existing living arrangements. 

 

Like I wrote before, Germany is also a free country, but it still sucked back then to be subjected to other people's smoke everywhere, and they have made some changes in the past 20 years.

 

I guess I'm done here.  I don't vehemently disagree with anything anyone's written, but the status quo is not really working for people who are affected by cigarette smoke.  They are still the ones who have to leave the area, though it's not their fault.

[Robert Gary]

But its not the offenders I'm expecting will stop smoking around me. Its the business owner's who want my money. I have faith that business owner's will make the decision that is best for their business. If that means making the patio non-smoking than I'll go there. If it means putting up a big sign that reads "Smoker Friendly", I'll wish them luck and not eat there. Its best for them to decide which is more profitable.

 

-Robert

[Rich_T]

But its not the offenders I'm expecting will stop smoking around me. Its the business owner's who want my money. I have faith that business owner's will make the decision that is best for their business. If that means making the patio non-smoking than I'll go there. If it means putting up a big sign that reads "Smoker Friendly", I'll wish them luck and not eat there. Its best for them to decide which is more profitable.

 

-Robert

 

I agree with you on that.

 

Of course, in theory they can still only ultimately enforce their policy with government backup (police).  But in reality, the stated policy will suffice to control the behavior of patrons.

[ducky]

 

I agree with you on that.

 

Of course, in theory they can still only ultimately enforce their policy with government backup (police).  But in reality, the stated policy will suffice to control the behavior of patrons.

 

Why would enforcing a ban on smoking on a patio, if a restaurant or pub owner so chooses, be any harder to enforce than "No shoes, no shirt, no service," or "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter who your are or who you think you are"?  Government backup isn't necessary unless the patron refuses to leave.

[Rich_T]

 

Why would enforcing a ban on smoking on a patio, if a restaurant or pub owner so chooses, be any harder to enforce than "No shoes, no shirt, no service," or "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter who your are or who you think you are"?  Government backup isn't necessary unless the patron refuses to leave.

 

And if the patron refuses to stop smoking?  My point was that, just like laws, establishment policies can only be enforced by force, unless the individuals willingly comply.  So I don't see the big difference between enforcing laws and enforcing policies.  But like I also said, that's just "in theory".  In reality, people comply with restaurant policies, probably more than they comply with laws.

[supermom]

I thought there was an infraction fee if cited for both the person who committed it and the business establishment for smoking near food serving areas - ?

[caligirlz]

Anyone remember the El Dorado Hills couple that were going to sue their neighbors over the the cigarette/cigar smoke coming into their yard? http://www.examiner....-brings-lawsuit