Sonoma County bans smoking in apartments and condos

[The Straight Story]

Sonoma County bans smoking in apartments and condos

Ordinance to take effect next year


Sonoma County supervisors unanimously approved a resolution Tuesday that will ban smoking inside apartments and condominiums in the county’s jurisdiction.

The ordinance was part of a larger anti-smoking package that seeks to bring the county in line with cities like Sebastopol that have strict smoking prohibitions.

A vote on a proposal that would have banned smoking on county property and unenclosed areas such as restaurant and bar patios was delayed until October to give food and beverage businesses more time to brace for the change.

“This is a major step forward in protecting the health of all residents and visitors to Sonoma County,” Mark Netherda, the county interim public health officer, said after the vote.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110913/ARTICLES/110919827/1350?Title=Sonoma-County-bans-smoking-in-apartments-and-condos

[Broderick]

1. I am sure there is a lot of support for this here

But, I for one, don't like it.

[TheWraith]

2. Nor I.

I frankly despise smoking, and would be happier if everyone who smokes would quit or switch to something less poisonous. Like, say, cocaine. But the county has absolutely NO business whatsoever regulating what people are able to do in their homes, and I hope they get the ever loving shit sued out of them for this.

[Broderick]

8. Next thing they will want to do is make certain things that go

on in the bedroom illegal, for our health of course.

[WingDinger]

11. And if you have COPD, or heart failure, or ?, suffer fool. Get an oxygen concentrator, you traitor.

[Broderick]

13. LOL

I think you partook of transfats today! Shame!

[WingDinger]

35. I dont like my fats crossdressing.

[Broderick]

40. At least you won't be tempted by a happy meal

prize.

[WingDinger]

47. I prefer the GAY meal, not just happy.

[Odin2005]

133. DUzy!

:rofl:

[amborin]

115. even if it harms others? it equals a pack a day

http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment/2706/Second-Hand-Smoke-in-Apartments

[ElboRuum]

116. Er, I believe that you are in error...

I read it twice just to be sure, but the quote I believe you have in error:

"Other studies have found that being exposed to secondhand smoke from other apartments is equivalent to smoking one cigarette a day."

One cigarette. Not one pack.

[amborin]

149. you're right, i was wrong; duh, should not post when half asleep

[raccoon]

142. Except if you are in an apartment, smoke doesn't always stay just in the apartment of the smokers.

The aroma makes its way to neighboring apartments.

[taught_me_patience]

3. This is awesome

I've lived in a condo, where a neighbor smoking in their apartment polluted my air. I hope Long Beach eventually passes something like this. I'd also settle for a ban on smoking on apartment/condo balconies.


Hey smokers, when you smoke on a balcony, do you think your smoke doesn't travel into a neighboring window 5 feet away?

[snooper2]

5. shut your window...

Jesus ...

reminds me of babs speaking about Katrina victims, (her poor beautiful mind)

Now we got people, (my poor beautiful lungs)...


You are starting to sound just a little whiny

"Polluted my Air" :rofl:

You make it sound like somebody fired up a coal plant in the bathroom

[Missy Vixen]

12. The next-door, pack-a-day smoker had nothing to do with a window

Our townhouse had a "modified firewall", which didn't show up in the initial inspection. There was a 6" gap at the top, just enough for the neighbor's cigarette smoke to leach into our home, 24x7.

We sold as quickly as possible, and we had to divulge the neighbor's nasty little habit as part of the sale.

Did you know that non-smokers can contract lung cancer?

>You make it sound like somebody fired up a coal plant in the bathroom<

Such wit.
I wonder what the reaction would be if we piped skunk spray odor into their home, 24x7.

[mrmpa]

36. This will be challenged in court and...If the condo is owned..

by you and you live in it, I don't think your smoking in it can be legislated.

[Missy Vixen]

44. Did you not read my previous comments?

We SOLD the condo as quickly as possible when we discovered the next-door-neighbor's habit, due to the fact it made our house uninhabitable for us. Luckily, someone else wanted the place badly enough to put up with the constant cigarette smoke.

We do not smoke. We've never smoked.

I really don't care what others do in the privacy of their own home, but if it interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of mine, there will be consequences.

[mrmpa]

73. yeagh, I did...................but you say nothing about .....

court challenges. This was in addition to what was said. Did you not read my post?

[Missy Vixen]

81. Frankly, I don't understand what you're driving at

I don't think you do, either.

[mrmpa]

99. Read & comprehend....

It was a very simple, easy post. The law will be challenged. End of story.

[Missy Vixen]

136. Considering the fact you didn't comprehend my opening comments,

you're the last person that should be lecturing anyone on reading or comprehension.

Challenge the law all you like. The fact remains (as noted by LeftyMom further down in the thread,) those that smoke heavily indoors in shared living situations such as apartment houses or condos should prepare to have their right to do so challenged.

The rest of us have just as much right to have our dwellings smoke-free.

[Bake]

52. Did you know that some cases of lung cancer are NOT caused by smoking?

It doesn't cause everything, you know.

Bake

[Missy Vixen]

86. And your point?

The lung cancer cases NOT caused by smoking or breathing others' smoke are a fraction of those diagnosed who end up dying from it, aren't they?

I'll tell you what.

Smoke all you want. Smoke till your lips turn blue and fall off. Whatever. Keep it out of my home, my car, and away from the workplace. If you all want to suffer the effects of 20, 30, 40+ years of puffing it up, feel free.

[ElboRuum]

117. Actually, that's a very good question you ask.

I don't know the answer to that. I don't know of any study which attempted to get to the root cause of lung cancer on a case-by-case basis. I mean, we know smoking is A cause, but so is radon, asbestos exposure, vehicular exhaust, other carcinogenic inhalants. The problem is that it is difficult to determine what fraction of lung cancers are caused specifically by smoking, and what may be caused by other factors not related. Radon is rather common in the NE and you don't know if your home is affected unless you get it tested. So it is difficult to honestly say what fraction applies to smoking as it is difficult to establish that fine a control since multiple environmental exposures are likely for any given individual.

[Bandit]

15. I suppose you wouldn't object if I pissed in your drinking water then?

Humans need three things to sustain life. Food, water, and air. I doubt you would feel fine if someone polluted your food or water but you think it is just fine if you pollute someone elses air... What gall...

[snooper2]

18. You could give it a shot...

I don't know where you are going to tap into the line...

And don't let the city catch ya. They might think it's a terroristic act :P

[taught_me_patience]

21. Thanks for admitting smoking on a balcony creates a nuisance

to neighbors.

If someone starts smoking on a balcony and I smell it... it's already in my house. Closing my window serves to trap that cancer causing shit inside. I guess that's fact escaped you.

[snooper2]

28. Well, depends on what is being burned whether it's a nuisance

certain cigars, yep..

Crack? That's kind of stinky shit. Now if it's the chronic I'd get some fans to blow it my way :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

39. Oh for G-d sakes. You are fucking ridiculous.. NO ONE who has been exposed to 3 seconds worth of

smoke has ever gotten cancer. You whiners are so damn ridiculous. I'm a non-smoker...so save your excuses I really don't care. You are NOT going to get cancer from smelling your neighbors smoke. :rofl:

[taught_me_patience]

48. Your argument is bullshit on every level

#1) Second hand smoke causes cancer. period.
#2) Second hand smoke is a nuisance. It stinks and it causes my throat to burn.
#3) Smoke smell is inescapable
#4) Smokers don't smoke for 3 seconds. It takes about 5 minutes to smoke a cigarette... you're only off by 100x. The smell can linger for over an hour.

[in_cog_ni_to]

56. Smoke wafting into your airspace from your neighbors is NOT going to give you cancer.

You're being fucking ridiculous..and paranoid.

[Arugula Latte]

60. You are waaay overconfident.

Second hand smoke is very harmful and can and does cause cancer. Duh.

[in_cog_ni_to]

63. Maybe if you're sitting in the damn room day after day, year after year, but

occasional smoke wafting through the OUTSIDE AIR a few times a day/week/month.....is NOT going to give you cancer. That's just fucking ridiculous and paranoid. Duh.

[amborin]

113. Indiana Univ Says 2nd hand smoke in apt = smoking a pack a day

http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment/2706/Second-Hand-Smoke-in-Apartments

[ElboRuum]

118. Misquoted. Refer to #116.

[Douglas Carpenter]

122. that none sourced article claims one cigarette a day - not one pack

This claims does not refer to any study by Indiana University - it only references "other studies" but does not say who, what, when or where:

Other studies have found that being exposed to secondhand smoke from other apartments is equivalent to smoking one cigarette a day.



http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment/2706/Second-Hand-Smoke-in-Apartments


\.

[amborin]

148. you're right; my bad;

[Lucian]

70. Um, there's loads and loads of scientific proof that cigarette smoking DOES pollute the air.

I like that little :rofl: you put there. Cute.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

Smokers should learn to respect other people's right to clean air and smoke elsewhere. Or better yet, quit smoking all together.

[former9thward]

22. I assume you also want to ban cars anywhere near your home.

The exhaust they put out is far worse -- and deadly -- than cigarettes. Of course you probably own or travel in something than emits exhaust so you are ok with that.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

96. If I woke up in the muddle of the night with exhaust fumes wafting in my condo I would evacuate.

Fuck, mechanics know to directly vent auto fumes with specialized equipment. But some pig smoker cries bloody murder when someone gets in the way of their stupid addiction.

[former9thward]

101. The carbon monoxide and particulate matter is odorless.

You are breathing it and don't know it. Evacuate. Now you will have to go out in the woods someplace to live -- but don't use any motorized form of transportation to get there. I knew you would defend cars because you own/use them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

128. Bullshit. Unless you live above a garage.

[former9thward]

130. You know zero about the mechanics of air pollution.

Typical science denier.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

137. LOL. Says the second-hand-smoke danger denier.

[joeybee12]

23. It is, but you're getting a lot of pushback from the addicts commenting here..nt

[Throd]

27. I don't smoke, yet I think this is a load of crap.

[Throd]

30. Are we talking about the same Long Beach bounded by the port, the 405, the 710, and the 605?

The Long Beach where anything left outside for 24 hours has a layer of soot on it?

[KansDem]

4. Let me play Devil's Advocate here...

I can understand to a certain degree the ban on apartments. One could argue that apartments are constantly turning over tenets (I once rented an apartment for one month. There were certain factors I wasn't aware of at the time I moved in that prompted me to move out), so if I smoked in that apartment during that month, then what is the possibility of the landlord finding another tenet who could tolerate the stale smoke odor left behind after I moved out? The apartment would have to be cleaned and repainted. Such a ban would be similar to "no smoking" bans in rental cars.

But I fail to see the ban on condos. Aren't condos owned and not rented, so how do they differ from houses?

(And I smoke pipes and cigars occasionally)

[RZM]

9. That's a choice the consumer should be making

If the landlord can't manage to clean up the odor, then I will rent from somebody else who can.

You could apply the same logic to pets. It's like saying it's ok to ban all pets from apartments because it can be tough to get the odor of stale cat urine out of there.

[KansDem]

14. I know of incidents where a "pet deposit" was required.

...it can be tough to get the odor of stale cat urine out of there.

My daughter went apartment-hunting recently and was quoted as much as $300 for her cat. So perhaps a "smoker's deposit" to help clean the apartment after the smoker moves out?

[RZM]

20. I don't know if I would support that or not

But I'd certainly support it over this. I've encountered pet deposits too, though I've always assumed it was more for dogs who chew up everything or cats who scratch the carpet to ribbons.

[in_cog_ni_to]

38. A $200 OZONE machine would kill any and all remnants of cigarette smoke. It would disintegrate it.

People OWN condos. You can't tell homeowners what to do in their own home. That's just fucked up.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

42. No it won't. We used to use those on a car lot where I worked.

It knocks it down a bit but the smell comes back.

You have to paint, toss the window treatments and toss the carpet.

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. Bullshit. You just didn't have a powerful enough Ozone machine then.

It penetrates everything. Drapes and carpet are fiber. Ozone penetrates fiber. You then use a carpet cleaner with a neutralizer to clean the ozone dust (which is the disintegrated odors/mold/mildew)...send the drapes to the dry cleaner or wash them with vinegar and there is ZERO odor. Anti-smoking Nazis just have to have excuses to dictate what other people do. Heavy duty Ozone machines WORK. I own one.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

95. LOL. How "powerful" does it have to be?

We couldn't get the smell out of a little car. There's now way you are getting it out of a large apartment.

We had people wanting to return or trade cars in when the smell came back and they realized they bought a smoker's car. The first hot/humid day and the cars stunk.

Also, the machines don't take the stains off the walls.

It's a stupid filthy habit.

Walking around in doors with a burning piece of paper and dried leaves is a stupid idea.

[LeftyMom]

68. No, it won't.

Look, I used to manage an apartment building and I've had to try to clean up the smell of a previous heavy smoker so I can turn over a unit. First of all, you have to cycle an ozone machine for several days, during which time you can't open the unit to do any other work. This means losing a significant amount of money because it delays occupancy. Second, one multi-day ozone treatment will not remove the odor from a heavy smoker. In the worst case here's what we had to do to rent a unit previously used by one heavy smoker, who went outside to smoke at least some of the time: remove and dispose of the drapes, carpet and pad, wash and seal the walls and concrete pad, run several (I want to say three? This was several years ago.) ozone cycles, replace the window coverings and carpeting. There was STILL a lingering smoke odor, and a few potential tenants passed because of it. It was strongest in the kitchen and bathroom, I think maybe the smell had seeped into the wood of the cabinetry. :shrug:

Even if you clear out the smell entirely- and that's nearly impossible- you have to seal the walls or nicotine stains will ooze through the new paint. Cleaning up after a smoking tenant is an enormous pain in the ass and costs thousands of dollars in additional cleaning and repairs, plus lost rent in the time it takes to do it all. Eventually we just stopped renting to new smoking tenants in all but one building, because the associated costs were out of hand.

[RZM]

6. What a bunch of shit

I'm ok with most public smoking bans. But inside the home? Fuck that.

[LeftinOH]

7. Shouldn't something like that be at the discretion of landlords/apt. building owners?

-In the nature of "no pets" vs "pets allowed"? Really.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recovered Repug]

25. If you do that, they may make the wrong choice. nt

[NeedleCast]

10. Yikes

and this is what happens when the anti-smoking gestapo starts to really reap the whirlwind.

[Broderick]

16. Hopefully they exempt Pot!

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. I tend to suspect that if this law singled out pot - many people applauding it would be against it

I believe the issue actually came up in the Netherlands in regards to hash bars. Dutch pot smokers used to always mix a little bit of tobacco with their hashish or marijuana - Apparently current regulations allow the marijuana and hashish but no longer allow them to mix it with tobacco when smoking in a hash bar.

[sfpcjock]

19. I have bronchitis from second hand smoke now...

and I think it is great. Put a picture of smoker dead bodies and rotting lungs and hearts on the cigarette packages while you're at it.

[Rageneau]

24. One day we'll live in a society where, by law, no one is allowed to upset anyone else.

[AmericaIsGreat]

26. A condo association should be able to ban smoking in condos

A county should not.

Banning in restaurants and even apartments makes sense.

This does not.

[taught_me_patience]

29. Condo associations are in charge of common areas

and have little jurisdiction over individual units.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. If they can ban pets, they can ban smoking.

Both can be a nuisance.

[taught_me_patience]

51. In california, they cannot ban pets.

They can restrict the number of pets because pets have to cross common areas to get in and out of the building.

[former9thward]

140. So can busybodies who want to interfere with other's rights.

If I had an apartment you would not be renting it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

145. Don't worry. I wouldn't want to be around your cigarette stench.

Here's a clue: If you smoke, you smell like a dirty ash-tray.

[raouldukelives]

31. Cool! WIth all the medical marijuana patients here

the streets of Santa Rosa will fill with pot smoke. Well, more than they already are that is.

[sarcasmo]

32. When will it stop, no eating chocolate if you are 5 lbs over weight?

[Broderick]

33. No, just take the fat kids away from the parents

;)

[taught_me_patience]

34. Smoking in a condo/apartment creates a nuisance

eating chocolate does not. Thanks for playing really bad analogies.

[sarcasmo]

37. I have lived in apartments and others smoking never affected me.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. I live in a 100 year old vintage condo building.

If my downstairs neighbor decides to chain-smoke in her unit you can bet we will have a big problem.

Luckily, for both of us, she is not a pig and likes to keep her place nice so she smokes out on the deck. Also, she is a "drunk smoker" and only smokes when she drinks. Once in a great while I can tell when she is smoking inside. Usually late cold nights home from going out boozing. I'll be laying in bed and can smell it in my bedroom. And that's just a residual amount because she usually sits by her window and blows it outside.

If she ever decides to chain-smoke inside you can bet your ass I would put a stop to it. Starting with the association and on to court if necessary.

I spent too many years working in an environment where, out of 15 people, probably 3 or 4 didn't smoke. The smokers were fucking pigs who didn't care how they smelled or who they stunk up. After our town passed a no-smoking law, our boss STILL smoked inside - until he was fined. At least a handful of them have since died from heart attacks last time I checked.

[amborin]

114. equals a pack a day:

http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment/2706/Second-Hand-Smoke-in-Apartments

[Douglas Carpenter]

120. actually your non sourced article claims one cigarette a day - not one pack

Other studies have found that being exposed to secondhand smoke from other apartments is equivalent to smoking one cigarette a day.

http://soundmedicine.iu.edu/segment/2706/Second-Hand-Smoke-in-Apartments


The article does not provide any source to maintain this other than the phrase "other studies".

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. The anti-smoking Nazis have now crossed the line. When you dictate what people do in their

own home, you have a major fucking problem with control issues. When will you stop. You're no different than the religious Right Wing wackos in this country. You must dictate what other people do in their own private life. Shame-on-all who are applauding this.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. [phone]

[krabigirl]

74. Yep.

[ibegurpard]

82. agreed

[NutmegYankee]

46. This is fascism. A condo is owned in Fee Simple.

There are stipulations on the deed, such as a condo fee and some rules governing the common areas controlled by the association, but the "apartment" is your sole property. The government cannot forbid a legal activity within your own home.

[taught_me_patience]

50. You do not have a legal right to cause a nuisance to your neighbors

period.

In many apartment buildings, smoking, even within your own home causes a nuisance to your neighbors.

Try this, at 2am start banging on a drum set and see if your neighbors don't call the cops on you. When the cops come to tell you to keep it down... tell them "I'm just doing something legal in my own home".

[in_cog_ni_to]

55. Your neighbor hates the smell of the food you cook. Your neighbor smells your farts next door.

Your neighbor can smell your stinky morning breath next door. Your neighbor can smell your deodorant next door. Your neighbor can smell your cologne next door.

WHERE THE FUCK DOES THIS STOP? You has better think twice before you decide it's a good idea to take rights away from your neighbors, bud.

[NutmegYankee]

57. Smoking in ones home doesn't create a nuisance.

First off, if smoke can get to another apartment from the inside, you have a building code violation. Otherwise, you can smoke in your own home and it won't intrude into the homes of your neighbors. What business does the government have now banning a legal activity?

As for blaring music or banging on a drum set, I can already do that without repercussions. I own a house in a rural area. I chose to buy a single family house because I didn't want to hear my neighbors, but I knew about that from the very beginning. I spent years living in apartments. You cannot invoke this law on people who bought a condo and happen to smoke well after they bought it. It was never a condition of owning a condo. If you feel so strongly about another condo owner's smoking, offer a fair price for their condo and buy it from them.

I sometimes can smell the smoke of a barbeque, fireplace, or backyard fire, but those are not considered nuisances, and I'm always free to shut the windows if the wind is blowing it my way.

[taught_me_patience]

62. So if I don't like cigarette smoke... buy the condo?

If you don't like neighbors banging on drums, buy a ten acre plot of land?

No problem.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[NutmegYankee]

92. You misrepresent the point...

And then laugh... Since you are so into regulating what people can do in their own homes, when do you plan to campaign to overturn Lawrence v Texas?

[WolverineDG]

49. That's going too far

and I'm a non-smoker who ordinarily supports smoking bans. WTF business is it of the government what people do in their own homes?

dg

[Arugula Latte]

59. Good. Maybe the majority of non-smokers won't have that poisonous air seeping in now.

[in_cog_ni_to]

64. No, but you'll still be breathing the car pollution every damn day you wander out in public.

:scared: Let's ban cars too!

[taterguy]

66. Maybe that poster lives in an area where people don't use cars

Did you think of that?

[in_cog_ni_to]

71. Riiiiiiiiight.

:eyes:

[Llewlladdwr]

139. And where exactly might such a place be in Sonoma County? NT

[YellowRubberDuckie]

61. I'm an admitted Anti Smoking Nazi.

And it pisses me off that the "progressives" here who smoke don't get how hypocritical they are when they bitch at everyone for shopping at Walmart or Target.
Tobacco companies give BILLIONS to republicans....but yet they have no problem buying cigarettes. Makes no fucking sense.

[in_cog_ni_to]

65. What's that got to do with other people dictating what people do in their own homes?

NOTHING.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

75. Your rights end where someone else's begin.

Communal living, such as town homes and apartments, require you be considerate of others. You wouldn't want your neighbor rocking out to Kanye West any time of the day. I don't want to smell your smoke in my apartment. And I don't want to smell your smoke while I sit on my balcony. And I should be able to have my windows open and enjoy the fresh air without your smoke ruining it.
If you have a house that doesn't share ventilation with others, THEN you can do what ever the fuck you want.
Until then, suck it up and stop ruining the air for others.

[ibegurpard]

83. oh BS

you'll find some way to worm your way into their homes even if they live miles away from anyone else

[YellowRubberDuckie]

147. Not me....

Maybe someone else...but not I.

[Odin2005]

135. That Kanye comment perfectly describes the asshole in the apartment below me.

He constantly was playing his shitty, violent gangsta rap really loud until management and the police told him to cut it out our be evicted. The asshole threatened to sue me and several other tenants for harassment because he is a narcissist that thinks everyone is a racist who is out to get him.

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. I think the government should tell everybody what to do all the time

Clearly there are lots and lots of annoying people doing lots and lots of annoying things. Many of these things are unwise, unhealthy or at least irritating. Whether or not they are actually causing a nuisance is not the issue. Just the fact that they are doing these things is offensive and they must be controlled. The government should come out with a strict code of private conduct closely controlling everything people do inside their homes as well as equally controlling what they do when they leave their houses or apartments. Then and only then can we all truly be free.

[Lucian]

69. Good.

I want to see more ordinances like this.

[socialshockwave]

72. So you want to see people not have any freedom in their own homes?

What's next? "THERE IS TO BE NO BELCHING IN 100 YARDS OF SAN FRANCISCO HOMES"?

[Lucian]

79. No...

I want to be able to sit in my apartment and not worry about toxic air polluting it. I want to be able to walk in my building and not gag every time I smell cigarette smoke. I don't want to breathe in second-hand smoke. That's what you, and smokers, don't understand.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. oh nonsense, you are not gagging every time someone in another apartment is smoking nor is smoke fro...

another apartment adversely affecting your health or anyone else's health in any way shape or form. This is pure simple authoritarian busy bodying. Claiming that this is bothering anyone or harming their health in anyway whatsoever is disingenuous to the extreme.

[Lucian]

84. Um, yeah, just ignore the mountains of evidence that secondhand smoke is bad for you.

:eyes:

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. there is not a single shred of evidence that minute amounts of smokes coming from a distance away in

from someone else's apartment posses any health risk. This nonsense is simply a modern world version of morality police imposing their rules on everyone else. This is not a health issue. That is is preposterous. This is a struggle between the puritans and the libertines - the forces of freedom and the forces of tyranny.

[Lucian]

89. Oh yeah. I'm "tyrannical" now because I want clean air.

:eyes:

Clean air is a liberal issue, FYI.

Just give it up. You've already lost your argument. And it won't kill smokers to quit smoking. 1. They'll get healthier and live longer (who doesn't want that?) and 2. They'll save a lot of money by not smoking. It's a win-win for everyone.

I'm done wasting my time on this. You aren't going to change my mind on this matter.

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. you are right. I'm not going to change your mind and you are not going to push other people around

and tell them what they can do in the privacy of their own homes.

[ElboRuum]

103. But is authoritarianism the de facto liberal manner of achieving change?

No. It is not. And if it ever DOES become the de facto manner of achieving change, well, I'll just have to make up a word to self-describe, because "liberal" will no longer be accurate.

You claim the argument is lost, however, you go on to lose it in the sentences that follow.

It may not kill smokers to quit smoking. However, it's never been about saving the lives of smokers. It's about the choices we make and the willingness of our society to strike a balance between what is best for society and the very real freedoms we enjoy, even if those choices are unpopular or potentially hazardous. The whole "need" vs. "want" fallacy is often used by many factions to justify banning or severely curtailing behaviors they don't believe our nation should condone or support in the name of whatever supposed benefit they seek to effect. However, the reason for its fallacy isn't that we're questioning that there is a difference between need and want, clearly there is. The actual relevancy is that need is subservient philosophically to want in a free society. For example, the country may NEED more good doctors, but I WANT to be an astronaut. Freedom means that choice belongs to me, not to you, or to the SOCIETY AT LARGE. If society manages to pass a law that says that all people capable of being good doctors must do so because no particular admonition in the Constitution fails to limit it, then the society disrespects choice, and by extension the freedom and sovereignty of the individual. Perhaps this is suitable for Soviet Russia, but a bit hypocritical for a society that claims itself special because it does have this respect.

You go on to further dig your hole because you state that "they'll get healthier and live longer (who doesn't want that?)". Indeed, good question, who doesn't want that? But bear in mind that when dealing with the quality of life, people shall naturally define quality differently. You seem to see quality as "health and longevity". Is it so difficult to see that some see it differently? For example, there are plenty of veggies on DU of varying degrees of fealty to the vegetarian ideals. They are under the impression that this is a health benefit, some see the veggie lifestyle as a moral imperative. Fine, their quality of life is raised. If I was somehow forced into the veggie lifestyle by legal means, regardless of the health/moral benefit, I would perceive the quality of life dropped significantly. Why? Because life isn't about how long you live, but rather how much you enjoyed it while you lived, at least by my definition of the phrase "quality of life". I enjoy a good steak. Medium rare. To think I could no longer do so because society had made a decision that I could not would be quite distressing to my quality of life in two ways: I could not enjoy masticating on delicious steak, and I lost my right to choose my level of digestive health/moral engagement because I did not make the choice to be as austere in my digestive choices as some believed I should have been, and so choice was taken away because I'm clearly not intelligent or moral enough to make the one that was deemed to be the correct one.

Then, you convey your concern over the wallet. Hey, good looking out there, but I'm pretty sure that because I paid for my cigarettes, then proceeded to enjoy them, that my money was spent as I chose and I was in no way experiencing buyer's remorse. Not only do I not believe you're looking out for anyone's financial well being, rather, I believe you are just being glib about it, using your junk rhetoric, I could justify eating McDonald's every day as a "good choice" because it's less expensive than buying fair-trade, organic produce and free range meats. Win-win indeed.

But I really don't care about changing your mind. In fact, on some basic level I agree that I should quit. But I also believe in the basic principle of choice and that the value of our nation is in balancing individual choice with public interest in curtailing that choice. I've not been excessively concerned about indoor smoking bans in public and semi-public establishments, largely because it preserves choice, although it could be argued that the choice of the owner of an establishment has been eliminated as to the type of bar/restaurant he/she wants to run and the clientele he/she chooses to serve, but I'll put that aside for now. I can choose not to frequent those locales, or simply retire to the outdoors to attend my habit. I am much less understanding of outdoor smoking bans, largely because without a choice indoor or outdoor, you have taken away the choice, de facto nullified my ability to seek remedy from the situation. They also seem ludicrous because these outdoor bans are enforced within feet of heavily traveled roadways, replete with noxious vehicle exhaust. But, hey, what would America be if it didn't install stealth technology in its elephants in the room, right?

But we go down a specifically different road when you talk about owned property. Homes, specifically. And condos do qualify. At that moment, your right to legislate another person's behavior ends where the doorstep begins. A legal activity performed in the privacy of one's own domicile should never be subject to the sorts of restrictions that we would otherwise accept, grudgingly or no, in the realm of community interest. But that's precisely where this ban takes us.

So the question then becomes, is it the assertion that liberalism has nothing at all to do with protecting individual liberty, that even the sanctity of the home is fodder for people who simply just know better the choices we should be making, and they know this with such certainty that they feel no remorse or trepidation whatsoever in taking those choices away from those they perceive as making the wrong ones?

I can't imagine that this is something that a person purporting to be liberal would believe, much less cop to if they did. So this must be something else.

I think I could just accept your arguments better if you just stopped trying to couch them in justifications and "win-win" scenarios.

My belief, and I may be wrong, is that here, there is a something you don't like. This something disgusts you, makes you sick, and you probably detest those who make this choice even more than the act itself. You want it gone. You don't want people to be able to choose this something. It's legal, and that probably pisses you off even more. Now there are probably other somethings like this something that you feel this way about. Maybe it's guns you think should be done away with. Maybe Garfield suction cup toys. Maybe it's decorating your front yard with rusty vehicles on cinder blocks. Maybe it's 'reboots' of classic movies and remakes of classic tunes. But you attack this something rather than the other somethings with vitriol, vehemence, and a definitive lack of respect for the very right for others to make choices you find baffling.

Why?

Because our numbers are small and it has become fashionable to paint our group as undesirable, thereby making us very easy targets of censure and bullying. I mean, seriously, who the hell except an evil, filthy, disgusting smoker would come forward to defend the rights of smokers from assault? Even those who spend their entire lives championing the cause for the rights of all people somehow manage to miss the irony of those very self same people carving out a group of undesirables from the population to push around. Oh, it's all for good reasons I'm sure, and I'm very sure that's the rationale they'll use to take the sharp edges off of that hypocrisy, in the interest of a good night's sleep.

[Lucian]

106. I believe in choice when it doesn't negatively affect other individuals.

But your choice to smoke does negatively affect me. The moment I smell it, the moment the smoke goes into my lungs, it affects me. Your choice to smoke is literally killing me. Not only is it carcinogenic, I'm allergic to it AND I have asthma. I don't think I should have to tell you what happens when I get into contact with cigarette smoke.

[ElboRuum]

110. Oh, good gravy.

All kinds of choices have consequences which have direct or indirect real or potential harm and we don't ban them. Why it could be argued that just about every choice we make shows some linkage to some harm.

My choice to smoke would never negatively affect you. You know why? Because you'd tell me you were asthmatic/allergic/whatever, then I'd say I'm sorry and either put it out or go walk away somewhere else to smoke. And if that was somehow not good enough for you, you are free to exercise your choice to walk away.

The fact is that smoking/smoker as easy target of public censure enjoys popular support, even from people who would rather self-immolate than be perceived as the bullying type. And what are rights for? Protecting the unpopular.

Besides, the ban in question entered into the realm of owned property (condominiums). If you can't see the obviousness of the very real threat to liberty controlling what goes on in someone else's home represents, then I don't know what to tell you. At one point or another there has to be a place where a smoker can go to smoke without having to get a note from you stipulating that your health requirements have been met. That place is the smoker's home. It is the last bastion of true individual freedom in a country which apparently gives a pile of lip service to the concept but gives the smirking nod to petty authoritarians so long as they wrap it up nicely in the unassailable perfume of good intentions.

It's not good enough to say you believe in choice when it doesn't negatively affect others. That's a crock from the word go. That logical morass can be used to justify any sort of restrictive measure so long as you define 'negatively' to suit the needs of the argument. Taken to extremes, I could justify banning awards for sporting contests because it could negatively impact the loser's self esteem. Ridiculous? Yes it is. But so is using one's own personal maladies and preferences to curtail the rights of others when you certainly have it within your own power of choice to manage these infirmities by avoiding contact with us. What's more, smokers have been very accommodating, realizing the health impact of their actions, and have not resisted the non-smoking shift in this country to any great degree. Sure, we grumble about it, but we see the logic in it and accept it, and are willing to comply with it in the interest of our communities TO A POINT. That point is the line where we, as individuals, ARE the community, that is in our own homes, and THAT is the line this ban sticks its big toe right across.

[Lucian]

111. Okay...

I'm going to go there. You can't legally gamble in your home. But you should be able to, because you own it, right? You can't kill anyone in your own home, unless it's self defense. You can't legally rape people in your home. You can't legally molest people in your own home. You can't legally sell drugs from your home. You can't legally spy on your neighbors in your own home. You can't legally hold cock fights in your own home. But it's YOUR home, right? But, but, but, the government is telling you what you can't do in your own home! Where's the outrage in that?

Oh. You only pick and choose what you want to be outraged about. Fauxrage. Just because you own a home doesn't mean you can do whatever you want in it. There are laws in place which prevent you from doing certain things in your own home, and all of those laws make sense. Since many people live in condos, and since condos are connected, when someone is smoking in one of them, their smoke can travel to other units. That affects everyone. Not everyone wants to be subjected to that crap. That's what you don't understand. You just want to claim the gubmint is taking away your right to, what? Smoke? Infect others with your filth? And you're picturing yourself as this member of a persecuted group where everyone's out to get you.

Excuse me while I don't give a damn.

[ElboRuum]

112. No.

If it is a legal act, you should be able to do it in your own home. Smoking is legal. You're being obtuse, probably because you aren't even reading my posts. So the discussion is precisely unnecessary. Yes, you've made up your mind, throwing away any hope of having a rational discussion.

I don't get outraged by much of anything, especially not this. Brick wall conversations are far to common a tale to possibly generate any emotion other than boredom.

Damn not given, damn not returned.

[NutmegYankee]

124. Holy sophistry Batman!

Your examples are incorrect. Possession of drugs is illegal, anywhere. Murder is illegal, anywhere. Rape or molestation is illegal, anywhere. Gambling is only illegal when organized; people play Texas Hold'em or Fantasy Football with friends legally in their own homes routinely.

Smoking is a legal activity. Businesses and towns may forbid you to smoke on their property, but you don't own that land. It's similar to the fact that a man with a suspended license can legally drive around on his own land, but not on public roads. It's your home - and cigarettes are legal to possess.


What do you think the end game is here? Are you going to call SWAT in to stop homeowners because a few will no doubt resist with violence? Are we going to relive the wonders of setting children on fire with flash bang grenades tossed onto them while sleeping or the point blank execution of pets during raids? That isn't freedom!

[polly7]

134. Associating smoking in your 'own home' with killing, raping? Really???

No, smoking in the privacy of your own home affects no-one but you and those who live with you, unless your neighbour has drilled a hole through your wall or something just to check up on how you're behaving. I'm all for people having the right to protect themselves from harm by others, but this is ridiculous.

[AnnieBW]

100. Under some circumstances, it is.

My husband has asthma. One of his triggers is cigarette smoke. We used to live in a condo building where the owner of the unit below us rented it out. One of their tenants chain smoked and blared her stereo all hours of the day and night. It was an older building, and the smoke traveled up into our unit. When we complained, she ignored us and got hostile. We complained to the condo management, but they couldn't do anything because she was a tenant. The owner was out-of-state. So, we wound up buying a heavy-duty air cleaner because of this bitch.

Yeah, you many not get cancer from someone else smoking in an apartment below yours. But you can sure as hell have asthma attacks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

102. in some circumstances it may very well be the case

I'm an Asthmatic too. In spite of living next to a number of smokers over the years I can't recall any incident where a neighbors smoke caused a problem for me. But I have had an incident where the neighbors overly friendly cat triggered my asthma. I'm not prepared to ban people having cats because of some circumstances. People's televisions frequently become an irritant in apartment and condo complexes. But asking an authoritarian nanny state to ban televisions because some people are inconsiderate on how they use them would be going way too far. Many neighbors are disturbed because someone upstairs from them seems to walk too hard on the floor others have noisy children. I had a Filipino neighbor once who cooked fish with a lot of strong smells. Some neighbors were bothered by that and wanted the poor fellow evicted. Apartment living comes with a number of irritants. I don't think we need the government acting like morality police controlling peoples' personal lives. We can agree that in the best of all possible worlds, nobody would smoke and everyone would exercise and eat a balanced die avoiding heavy fats and excessive amounts of sodium. Perhaps there are those would claim that their neighbors other bad habits besides smoking is causing a disturbance and being a bad influence. But this business to me sounds like a liberal secular version of the religious right. They think they know whats best for everyone too. They don't think women should have abortions and that only married heterosexual couples should have sex. Sometimes I think the left creates its own version of the same concept. We have all heard the saying about how we want government to stay out of peoples' bedrooms and not to control peoples' bodies. I agree.

[taught_me_patience]

108. I like how you know how other posters react to cigarette smoke

judgemental much?

Yeah... I feel like gagging when I smell tobacco smoke.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

88. Belching is not a class A Carcinogen.

[laundry_queen]

105. Bing meet go. nt

[laundry_queen]

104. People never did have any freedom in their own homes.

After all, it's illegal to murder someone in your own home. Or beat your wife and kids. Or run a money laundering operation.

I know. It's about as ridiculous as your belching assertion.

[ElboRuum]

119. False Equivalence.

Murder is illegal. Abuse is illegal. Money laundering is illegal.

However, smoking is legal. So is belching, as far as I know.

Of course people have freedom to perform legal acts within the privacy of their own homes, so I'm not sure what you mean that people never did have any freedom in their own homes. Since when did people start equating "freedom" with "illegality?" It's the second time I've had to correct this false equivalency. Seems odd, because one doesn't even come close to meaning the other.

[laundry_queen]

144. whoosh!

If they make smoking indoors illegal, then it will thus be an illegal activity. When they do that, THEN will it be okay for people to be against smoking in one's home? This is what I was trying to get at.

[Tikki]

76. Great news....one by one the excuses to keep smoking fall by the wayside....

Just because you can still stand outside in the parking lot and smoke
doesn't mean you should.

I thank my Great State of California for helping me to quit smoking.
Tikki

[Broderick]

77. The sad reality, the boondoggle of tobacco

is the subsidies, the inherent influx of revenue both make government a quandary.

[ibegurpard]

85. there are a lot of things that you SHOULDN'T do

that you do anyway
grats on quitting smoking...i quit 2 1/2 years ago
and it's none of my business or yours if anyone else continues to do so

[BarakaFlakaFlame]

78. da fuck?

this just for cigs? cause i smoke milds an swishers

[GoneOffShore]

90. Along with the foie gras ban, more lunacy from CA.

[Arugula Latte]

94. This is lunacy:

Banning it is sanity.

[pipi_k]

91. Well, if the complexes are big enough...

Why couldn't they just make some units smoking and some non-smoking. On separate sides of a big parking lot, even.

Voila...everyone is happy.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScreamingMeemie]

109. ...

[TransitJohn]

98. Just tobacco, or weed too?

You'd think it'd apply to smoking any herb, but I'd but a brazillion dollars it's only prohibition on tobacco.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

107. Good. When your neighbors smoke it is a nuisance.

When I'm in a store, I can walk by someone just a few feet away and smell them if they are a smoker.
It permeates their bodies and it's gross.

I don't want to breathe someone else's poison.

I've gotten massive sinus infections and bronchitis from being around smokers and I want no more of it. I almost died of bacterial pneumonia five times. If my doctor had not rinsed my lungs out I would have drowned in my own pus-filled lungs.

[Tx4obama]

121. This is BULLSHIT

I would rather live on the street before being forced to live in an apartment or condo where someone told me that I was not allowed to smoke cigarettes.

Cigarettes are a LEGAL product in The United States of America.

Sitting in traffic jams five days a week is the same as smoking two cartons of cigarettes. Are people refusing to drive? NO.

I worked in a couple of nursing homes a few decades ago and we had patients that smoked cigarettes for 60-70 years, and they were more healthy than some of the other patients that did not smoke.

There are MANY things that cause cancer: fumes from new carpet/building materials, cleaning chemicals, car exhaust, factory emissions, etc.

STOP picking on the SMOKERS!

If you don't stick up for the smokers then YOU will be next when they come after you for using BUTTER, red meat, perfume/after-shave etc!

[Tx4obama]

123. When I was growing up ....

It was legal for folks to smoke in:

Offices
Grocery stores
Retail shops
Restaurants/Bars
Hospitals
Teacher lounges
Court houses
Jury rooms
ETC.

FUCK anyone that says smokers should not be allowed to smoke in their OWN homes, backyards, balconies, and cars!

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. same here. I fear America is becoming a nation of cry babies, whiners and professional tattle tales

I have not lived in mainland United States since 1989 - but I certainly never heard of anyone complaining because a neighbor was inside their own home smoking. I will grant there might be some extreme circumstances where that might legitimately bother someone - but I certainly never heard of it even from the most vehement anti-smokers. Anything can annoy someone if they want it to. The religious right is annoyed because some people are gay. They, like these folks in Sonoma County know what's best for everyone too. Whether tyranny comes from liberals or from right-wing nuts - it is still tyranny.

[taught_me_patience]

129. Times change.

Nobody is saying people cannot smoke it their cars or single family homes. The new law in Sonoma county says they cannot smoke in their condo/apartment because it often creates a toxic nuisance to neighbors that live a few feet away.

[raccoon]

143. And when I was growing up, it was legal to ride in cars without seat belts or air bags. nt

[BR_Parkway]

125. But they still require 2 parking spaces per unit - wonder that they don't

see the absurdity of saying someone can't smoke in their own home, but require space for 2 vehicles - and the much greater amount of air pollution they put out

[leftyladyfrommo]

127. Don't care about the smoking - but am worried about fires in apartments

That is my only real concern.

We have had several really bad apartment fires here in KC that were started from smoking materials. Many people ended up without honmes as a result.

[chrisa]

131. It's kind of pointless since it's totally unenforceable

[Odin2005]

132. This is idiotic. I support PUBLIC bans, but I don't give a damn if you smoke in your own home.

Have we learned NOTHING from Prohibition? I think smoking is a dirty, disgusting habit, but if you are doing it in your own home I don't really give a crap.

[workinclasszero]

138. Good rule

Second hand smoke KILLS...and it stinks like hell also.

Plus maybe your neighbor wont fall asleep on his sofa with a lit cig and burn down your apt too!

[raccoon]

141. Wish my county would do that, but that'll never happen. nt

[sarcasmo]

146. The health care industry will be in you're fridge next.