Originally Posted By RoadTrip Springfield, MO just passed one of the most restrictive anti-smoking laws in the country. I support some regulation but the Springfield law is really excessive in my opinion.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I don't know what they're doing in Springfield, but in Belmont CA - near SF - smoking is prohibited in your own home, if you live in a multiple unit building. Yep, that's right, even if you own your own home, if it's attached to any other dwelling - apartments, condos, duplexes, townhomes - you cannot light up in your own home. This idea is endorsed mostly by conservative republicans who believe in a smaller, less intrusive government.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< This idea is endorsed mostly by conservative republicans who believe in a smaller, less intrusive government. >>> What's interesting about this is that this particular issue is on the noise machine's "short list" of things to rail against, or at least was until a few months ago. As you point out, noise machine consumers would be those most likely to support such a measure, but the powers that be that control the noise machine had decided that the consumers needed to be re-programmed on this particular issue. The most direct reason for this would be that Big Tobacco would be against such measures. I'm not entirely convinced that that was the actual reason for the noise machine's behavior on this particular issue, as there may be something else going on that I'm not catching on to.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "This idea is endorsed mostly by conservative republicans who believe in a smaller, less intrusive government." Same with a woman's right to choose.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I don't know what they're doing in Springfield, but in Belmont CA - near SF - smoking is prohibited in your own home, if you live in a multiple unit building. Yep, that's right, even if you own your own home, if it's attached to any other dwelling - apartments, condos, duplexes, townhomes - you cannot light up in your own home.>> I wish SF had this law. Seriously. Anyone such as myself with chronic health problems cannot live in multiple unit buildings with shared ventilation ducts and systems. And virtually all apartment and condo buildings built in the past several decades have these shared systems. If anyone here has ever lived in "big box" housing, as I'm currently doing here in downtown SF, you know what a nightmare it is to be completely surrounded by smokers who also use Glade plug-in oils to cover up their tobacco and pot smoke smells. I have two air purifiers running 24/7 to keep the levels manageable (i.e., keep me out of the ER). During the day, most everyone is away at work and the apartment air stays fairly clean. But in the evening, when everyone comes home and lights up and cranks up their plug-in oils, the apartment becomes almost unbearable. I have to wear a respirator mask in addition to running the air purifiers, that's how bad it gets. Our building is fairly new and was built as cheaply as a Barbie Dream home. I'm not joking. The smoke and oil vapors come in through the kitchen and bathroom vents, through the wall sockets and recessed lighting in the ceiling, and up from under the baseboards. The walls have zero insulation, and there's a 1/4" gap between the carpet and the baseboard. You can actually feel a current of air flowing past your fingers when you hold your hand next to the baseboard. (This was actually by design in an effort to control mold growth.) Unfortunately, when smoking and oil-based room fresheners are allowed by management in an effort to increase occupancy, the entire building becomes one big stink factory. You can smell these odors in the hallways and common areas, not just in the apartments. It's a nightmare. Even if things like smoke and room fresheners don't make you physically ill like they do for me, you still have to tolerate the smells of other tenants' units. If you're not into the Tropical Breeze Glade plug-ins that your neighbor uses, tough cookies. Your apartment is going to smell like it, anyway. If folks want to live in multiple unit buildings, this should be the price you have to pay in order to do so. No smoking, no plug-in air fresheners in the wall sockets. It's not that big of a deal, and keeps everyone healthier in the long run. It's not fair to folks like me with serious health problems, not to mention young children who have no choice of where they can live, in cities where over 80% of the rental housing is in multiple unit buildings.
Originally Posted By ecdc This is interesting. I think what skinner brings up is a legitimate perspective, yet I'm also hesitant to tell someone they can't smoke if they live in an apartment building. The realities of urban life preclude home ownership for many people (I sure couldn't afford a home in San Francisco) and so they rent an apartment. Could a zoning law help - essentially creating smoking and non-smoking areas of neighborhoods. (Of course, then you're into even more government reach and government telling apartment owners they can or cannot allow smokers in.)
Originally Posted By ecdc I'd add, I have no dog in this fight. I'm not a smoker, apart from the very occasional cigar with friends, but smoking has never really bothered me the way it really seems to upset some people.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<What parts of it do you think are excessive?>> The law bans smoking in private clubs, specialty tobacco shops where customers can currently sample the various blends of tobacco, and outdoor parks. I also think it is excessive to ban smoking in bars... places where the majority of the revenue is from liquor, not food. The law not only bans tobacco products, but also bans electronic cigarettes which means essentially they are banning water vapor. Apparently just banning smoking wasn't enough for the Bible thumpers... they also passed a law banning alcohol sales in any movie theater where more than 25% of the customers are under the age of 21. If I owned the one theater in town that currently sells alcohol I'd retaliate by running porn on a couple of the screens to increase the adult percentage and piss off the thumpers.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper As a park director I have no problem with banning smoking in outdoor parks. My community wants to do it but there are some preemptive state laws that don't allow us to. I would simply say, can't common sense prevail? You go to parks in order to maintain/improve your health (by and large). Why then would you allow people to smoke in the park? We actually don't want to ban it completely. We would still allow people to smoke in the parking lots or in their cars. We would restrict them from smoking around playgrounds, dugouts, picnic shelters, restrooms and other areas where people congregate. Want to kill yourself in the parking lot? Knock yourself out.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If folks want to live in multiple unit buildings, this should be the price you have to pay in order to do so. No smoking, no plug-in air fresheners in the wall sockets. It's not that big of a deal, and keeps everyone healthier in the long run. It's not fair to folks like me with serious health problems, not to mention young children who have no choice of where they can live, in cities where over 80% of the rental housing is in multiple unit buildings.>> I have a real problem with banning smoking (or air fresheners) in private homes just because a certain percentage of the population has health issues. That would be like banning all public consumption of alcohol because some people are alcoholics and should not be exposed to drinking. I think it would be better to address the issue through building codes. People should not be exposed to smells from other units whether those smells are from smoking or from cooking odors. Multi-unit building should have to be designed to prevent that from happening.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<We actually don't want to ban it completely.>> I would have no problem with that. Setting aside a few smoking areas and banning it everywhere else (like Disney does in their parks) would be fine with me.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm also getting killed over my position that we sould not allow guns in parks. The Florida legislature is banning guns in public schools, on college campuses, at professional stadiums...but not in public parks. Not sure why the first three deserve those protections but parks do not. I did take issue with Disney when they first set aside those designated areas. They were typically adjacent to restrooms and one could not get to the restroom without walking through the smoking area. It really defeated the purpose.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Multi-unit building should have to be designed to prevent that from happening.>> Good luck with getting building codes that strict to pass anywhere in this country! Do you have ANY idea how prohibitively expensive it would be, to force architects and contractors to adhere to construction standards that would essentially keep the air flow in each individual apartment from reaching surrounding units? Each apartment would have to have its own ventilation duct. How does that work in a sixteen-story building with over 120 apartments, like the ones in my apartment complex? It would be much easier to simply ban smoking and aerosol products in multi-unit buildings, then try to hermetically seal every individual apartment.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Couldn't individual heating/cooling units like those used in hotel rooms be used to resolve the problem? My mother lives in a low-income retirement building that is populated primarily by Chinese and Russian immigrants. She has a real problem with some of the strong cooking odors and a smoking ban would do nothing for that. I'm just trying to think of a way you could prevent ALL smells from transferring to other units.
Originally Posted By Labuda Wow, this is an interesting issue for sure. I have to say, when I read the first post, I was on Trippy's side... then I read what skinner (I think) posted about his health issues and the multi-unit dwelling thing. Because of that post, I'm more likely to believe it's best to have strict anti-smoking laws. We KNOW it's bad for us, yet we do it anyway. At least make it harder for people to kill themselves, and do your best to ensure they don't take anyone else with them.
Originally Posted By dshyates Great, I can't smoke in my apartment, yet everything I own smells of Chorizo. Seems fair?!?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox The chorizo smell doesn't cause asthma. The chorizo smell doesn't cause cancer. The chorizo smell doesn't put a porphyric in the hospital. Any further stupid questions?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Couldn't individual heating/cooling units like those used in hotel rooms be used to resolve the problem?>> Have you ever lived in a high rise? Or even a building just 8 stories tall, which are the shortest buildings in my neighborhood. Where would the units go? Not to mention, how does that solve the common ventilation duct problem in the kitchen and the bathrooms, which is how most of these noxious fumes travel from one unit to another. You have no idea how large buildings are constructed.
Originally Posted By dshyates "The chorizo smell doesn't cause asthma. The chorizo smell doesn't cause cancer. The chorizo smell doesn't put a porphyric in the hospital. Any further stupid questions?" Ok, that was a joke, but if you want to go there. I am 4+ allergic to chemical fragrances. I have ended up in the ER from being spritzed with perfume at Macy's. I have also ended up in the ER just from walking into a Yankee Candle Shop. My throat closes up just by walking past a coin laundry. I believe that everyone that I come in contact with, or live around should be legally prohibited from using these troublesome chemicals.
