- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Health
California Lawmaker Marc Levine Proposes Ban on Smoking in Apartments, Condos
California Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-Marin) has proposed a new bill that would ban smoking in apartments, townhouses and condos in the Golden State.
According to SFGate.com, the bill, AB 746, would ban smoking in “any residential property containing two or more units with one or more shared walls, floors, ceilings, or ventilation systems.”
“When we sent our children to school, we send them to a smoke-free environment,” Levine told KQED.org. “When we go to work we have protections because of state law to work in a smoke-free environment. Where we should feel safest in our own homes, where we sleep each night, is not protected.”
“We’re not trying to stop people from smoking here, what we’re trying to do is protect the people who want to breathe clean air from having to breathe this toxic air contaminant."
Levine cited a poll by the American Lung Association showing that 82 percent of California renters would rather live in an apartment complex where they don’t have to breathe second-hand smoke.
However, some landlords fear they will be liable for renting to smokers.
“We can’t enter the unit without the tenants’ agreement,” said Debra Carlton, senior vice president of public affairs for the California Apartment Association. “But at the same time it tells landlords you are responsible for the actions of your tenants.”
“We want to make sure we do this right in not putting people out in the streets, but at the same time we’re not harming the tenants next door who don’t want to breathe second-hand smoke."
Levine said that already 40 local jurisdictions, and 18 housing authorities have passed some sort of prohibition on smoking in multiunit housing: “I was part of passing this in San Rafael where we had a 100 percent ban. Enforcement has not been a problem at all.”
Source: KQED.org and SFGate.com
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
It is probably the tolerance
It is probably the tolerance of smoking on the part of people of faith, that motivates the people who hate religion, who are so vociferous in defence of the right to choose other sins far worse than smoking, into their apathy when the right to choose under attack is merely the right to choose to smoke.
Perhaps the true-hearted libertarians, working behind the scenes, could persuade some prominent church ministers and televangelists to preach a few sermons from their pulpits or TV studios, against the evils of tobacco. Then the libruls would feel more inclined to defend the right to smoke instead of attacking it.
They could use the slogan, "Keep your phylacteries out of my ashtrays". You know the drill. Congress shall make no law establishing religion. America isn't a theocracy. All that jazz.
If Leviticus forbade smoking, it would probably by now be illegal to open a shop that didn't sell cigarettes.
Leviticus is actually in
Leviticus is actually in favour of smoking especially weed. Washington state realised this last year when they legalised marijuana at the same time as legalising gay marriage.
Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with another man he must be stoned."
(courtesy of facebook).
LOL!
LOL!
I am afraid that the big
I am afraid that the big quake is probably happen long before Californians grasp that there is life beyond the collective.
If smoking were actually a negative to government and not a political issue to be used in manipulation of citizens, then tobacco would be eradicated world wide. If you say "can't do that" look at what happened to DDT. It was far better to let millions die of malaria than chance that bad science was linking DDT to bird deaths.
I understand the law if smoke
I understand the law if smoke can easily travel from on dwelling to another, but in general that does not happen, and this bill just stinks of social engineering.
If apartment blocks are so badly designed and built such that smoke can drift between apartments, then there are far more serious concerns like the building being a fire hazard, vermin, insects, bad smells etc. that would make it unhealthy to live in that building.
"the bill, AB 746, would ban
"the bill, AB 746, would ban smoking in 'any residential property containing two or more units with one or more shared walls, floors, ceilings, or ventilation systems.'"
I understand why, in some circumstances, a badly designed shared ventilation system might result in smoke from one dwelling leaking into another. But how does Mr Levine imagine that smoke is going to get from one side of a wall to another?
So much for the advocacy that
So much for the advocacy that we reduce global warming by choosing high-density housing instead of the urban sprawl caused by the demand for single-family houses.
Why couldn't the law just
Why couldn't the law just require that landlords designate entire structures as smoke free or not? I don't smoke, never have. I have asthma and allergies that make being exposed to smoke an immediately hazardous situation. People like me should be protected, as well as others who simply do not want to be exposed to the other harmful effects and the odor. That said, smokers should be able to smoke in their homes if they choose.
There should be a way to structure the law to accommodate most people.
@ Savannah Some people who
@ Savannah
Some people who don't smoke have exaggerated, irrational fears of "passive smoking". It has been known for strangers to walk ten yards in the open air, to ask somebody smoking outside, to stop, lest a few molecules find their way into the complainant's lungs. It has also been known for somebody on public transport to ask a fellow passenger please not to use his nicotine replacement inhaler or electronic cigarette on the bus, presumably in case, when he breaths out, some of the nicotine might escape into the air that might end up in the complainant's lungs.
It is overwhelmingly likely that, during the course of reading this sentence, you have inhaled at least one of the atoms that was in Julius Caesar's last breath. I hope you don't catch anything.
You obviously don't
You obviously don't understand the real dangers of "passive smoking". First, it's not the nicotine that is the issue, it is the tar, carcinogens, and other nasty stuff Big Tobacco has included in the cigarette. Someone walking 10 yards in the open air is stretching it, and I doubt anyone has really done that. As far as inhalers and "electronic cigarettes", or any other foreign substance emitted by people, everyone has the right to clean air, and someone using those (or smoking) in an enclosed environment are assaulting the senses and health of everyone, just a someone who goes food shopping wearing enough perfume to gag a French whore.
To be sure, some people have taken the issue to extremes, but if I can smell your cigarette smoke, I am inhaling the same carcinogens and other health threats as you are.
@ gregandrene "You obviously
@ gregandrene
"You obviously don't understand the real dangers of 'passive smoking'."
If asked to explain the dangers of passive smoking, I'd have said more-or-less what you said.
"some people have taken the issue to extremes"
That was what I was referring to.
"if I can smell your cigarette smoke, I am inhaling the same carcinogens and other health threats as you are"
In the context of the main topic of discussion, that is a a good rule of thumb, I agree.
What about Lawrence v Texas
What about Lawrence v Texas and due process? Isn't this a matter of straining at a gnat, but swallowing a camel?
I lean toward anarchy.
I lean toward anarchy. Haven't smoked in years -- and before I quit I was adamantly critical of those who lit up in enclosed places and made captive those around them who might or might not wish to ingest their effluent. I still believe smokers should be respectful of others and smoke in well-ventilated areas and not in the faces of non-smokers.
A few months ago I had occasion to spend a couple days in Kennett, MO. Kennett is located in the "boot-heel" -- bordered by Arkansas on two sides and Tennessee 20 miles to the east. I sat down to breakfast in a restaurant and immediately noticed all tables had ash trays and many customers were smoking. For a moment I wanted to stand up and cheer!
I found myself hoping the owner was simply flouting the "law" -- or better yet, that "the law" was wise enough to steer clear of that remote part of Missouri and let the free market decide the smoking issue.
It's not so much that I've changed my views on smoking. I quit for a reason, believe the habit is not conducive to good health, and takes into consideration only the individual(s) doing the smoking. But I'm decisively a free-market libertarian.
I believe your property is your property. If you own a business and decide to allow smoking that's nobody's business but yours. If I don't like the smoke I can seek out one of your competitors who does not permit smoking in his or her business establishment -- or who provides isolated areas for those who choose to smoke.
Your property is not "our" property.
Sam
@sam, on property rights, we
@sam, on property rights, we totally agree!
Wait a minute. I thought we
Wait a minute. I thought we _wanted_ people to live in higher density housing as a means of reducing global warming. Forcing smokers to live in single-family homes would contribute to urban sprawl, wouldn't it?
Stay out of our lives and
Stay out of our lives and homes!! I do smoke and if we invite friends over they know there will be some smoke. We keep candles going to help with the smoke. But if a guest complains about the smoke then they have the option not to come back. I am NOT leaving my house because of them!
Candles? The smell isn't the
Candles? The smell isn't the issue, it's the carcinogens and the radioactive particles. That and the fact that the people who are your neighbors don't have the "option not to come back" to their own homes because of your addiction.
When I lived in an apartment, my GF had asthma. Since a few other people in the building were smokers, we had to keep the windows sealed at all times and eventually move out, since you can't keep that stuff out if the source is close. If you want to smoke, get a trailer home so you're not sharing/polluting walls/living areas with other people against their will.
carcinogens in cigarettes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20938238
radioactive potassium 40, radium, polonium, lead, and cesium in cigarettes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672370/
Radioactive particles??? It
Radioactive particles???
It turns out that there are no nuclear reactions taking place in burning cigarettes, after all.
The radioactive isotopes that are in the air or soil anyway, do naturally find their way into the flora and fauna too, including the tobacco leaves tested in the study that Cityboy cited (which were grown in parts of Greece).
John Allman - Mar 19 2013 -
John Allman - Mar 19 2013 - 4:21pm "...It turns out that there are no nuclear reactions taking place in burning cigarettes, after all.
The radioactive isotopes that are in the air or soil anyway, do naturally find their way into the flora and fauna too, including the tobacco leaves tested in the study that Cityboy cited (which were grown in parts of Greece)."
Go back to physics class, it doesn't take a nuclear reaction to produce radioactive particles. Yes, radioactive substances abound in nature, but by concentrating a source of them and than smoking that substance just increases the concentration. Just a putting glue in a plastic bag and inhaling from that bag concentrates the toxins in the glue.
@ gregandrene "radioactive
@ gregandrene
"radioactive substances abound in nature, but by concentrating a source of them and then smoking that substance just increases the concentration."
My point was that the ratio of the radioactive and non-radioactive isotopes remains what it is in nature. The process might concentrate the element, but it won't concentrate one isotope more than another.
True, the ratio remains the
True, the ratio remains the same, but the concentration increases, as does the toxic effects.
City boy, it isn't that I
City boy, it isn't that I disagree with your presentation. You (and the article) may be absolutely correct. I don't argue the health issues of smoking. I believe it is rude to purposely and carelessly light up in the presence of non-smokers -- or to smoke in areas where your effluent will drift into their space. Thankfully, I've been rid of that habit for years.
But rudeness is one thing. Violence is another. Anyone who supports "law" is violent. Well, think about it: so your favorite psychopath -- with your support -- manages to bulldoze his "law" into action (in my book all legislators are psychopaths -- along with the sociopaths they employ to "enforce" their laws. That makes me a weirdo -- fringe extremist. Right? Oh, well, I don't mind being on their terrorist lists).
I decide to exercise my "right" (no, I don't believe in "rights" but we're assuming here) and smoke anyhow. So, dangerously armed individuals in city or state costumes are called. I refuse to cease and desist. They're mostly wusses, so they call for multitudes of "back-ups" (cowardly "swat" teams). If I resist long enough and hard enough from their terrorism, they can and they will shoot me dead.
I support any apartment owner who chooses not to allow smoking in his or her building. Or those who segregate smoking from non-smoking floors or areas. If I rent an apartment with the understanding and agreement that management has prohibited smoking within the confines of that apartment, I'm bound to uphold my end of the contract. If I refuse I've broken my contract and the owner/manager has every "right" to send me packing -- with force, if I choose to refuse to vacate.
Free markets work. Violence does not.
Sam
Samuel Spade - Mar 19 2013 -
Samuel Spade - Mar 19 2013 - 9:37pm "...Anyone who supports "law" is violent..."
And to support "no law" is not violent? I suppose without laws everyone would just get along just fine with no disagreements, or anything?
"...And to support "no law"
"...And to support "no law" is not violent? I suppose without laws everyone would just get along just fine with no disagreements, or anything?..."
I'm a fan of John Hasnas: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf
Here's his take:
"...Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order.
"And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse..."
Sam
If this is passed, violating
If this is passed, violating it would result in a fine, not being arrested. So your breakdown of the whole process to violence doesn't quite hold.
So if I refuse to pay the
So if I refuse to pay the fine, then what?
Few wish to see the gun in the room.
Sam
@ Cityboy "If this is passed,
@ Cityboy
"If this is passed, violating it would result in a fine, not being arrested. So your breakdown of the whole process to violence doesn't quite hold."
You have misunderstood our Anarchist friend's argument.
Fining somebody does potentially lead to violence.
If a fine isn't paid, and there isn't a non-violent way of getting it paid, because the non-payer of the fine lives off a suitcase full of money kept under this bed, eventually the authorities will try force entry into the non-payer's home in order to remove his belongings, so that they can to sell them to pay the fine. At this point, the authorities will use lethal force, if the householder defends his home by threatening lethal force against the invading authorities.