California City Becomes First to Ban Smoking In One's Own Home

Frizz, I am honestly shocked and amazed you consider this legislation a good thing.
 
I didn't read the whole thing, but are they talking about tobacco? If that's the truth then that's some major bull shit, I can't even think of words to describe how stupid that would be, if it is tobacco you are talking about.
 
frizzantik said:
This law helps guarantee nonsmokers can live in smoke free homes, and i think it's a good thing.
Click to expand...
But see, this law was *not* needed to guarantee non-smokers can live in smoke free homes. They already could, they'd just need to check with the landlord or property manager if smoking is allowed. They find a place where no smoking is allowed, and they're in the same situation - non-smoking residence.

This law doesn't make it so that non-smokers can live in smoke free homes, it takes the choice of smoking away from the smokers, the non-smoking tenants, and the people who own the property in the first place!
 
We should also ban farting while we're at it. I fucking hate it when someone farts around me and I have to smell that shit!
 
And burping, I'm sure there's some potentially dangerous gases in both farts and burps.

And probably incense too, until we can get some safety testing done on the carcinogenic potential of the smoke.
 
phrozen said:
with proper ventilation the other tenants won't be affected.
Click to expand...

if the other tenants aren't affected then you won't have any problems since enforcement is complaint-based. If your neighbors don't care, nobody is gonna say shit. But if you're bugging your neighbors, then you might run into problems. If you can use your drugs responsibly and not affect others, there is no problem.

it takes the choice of smoking away from the smokers, the non-smoking tenants, and the people who own the property in the first place!
Click to expand...

yes, i agree.. smokers no longer have the choice to poison their neighbors, and landlords no longer have the choice to allow cancer causing chemicals to be released on their property. oh the horror!

If you're a non-smoker, you should not be forced to look for housing that will not poison you.

If you are a smoker, you should be required to do whatever it takes to keep you poisonous smoke to yourself. You get to chose to smoke, but others do not get to chose to inhale your second hand smoke. The burden is on the smoker to fix the problem, not the non-smoker
 
Last edited:
pot is already illegal. smoking it outdoors will likely get me in more trouble than smoking indoors, which is not true of cigs at all. Trust me, I would love to be able to smoke pot on a city sidewalk.. I would be overjoyed if that were the case, and would happily make concessions like not being allowed to hotbox my next-door-neighbor's apt with my weed smoke

If my neighbors smell pot smoke and it bothers them they can call the cops on me. so i do everything i can to make sure my smoke does not bother them. Thats all cig smokers will have to do to be allowed to smoke in their homes.. put in an real effort to keep their smoke away from other people. I don't see whats so hard to get about that. This law doesn't make it illegal to smoke in your home, it makes it illegal to force that smoke on other people.
 
"Poison"

Oh come on, we're not talking about being in the same room for extended periods of time with heavy smokers.
 
werd.

frizz, what do you think of allowing incense? That was only a half joke, w/o knowing what's in incense smoke, it could potentially be as, or more, dangerous than tobacco on a weight-basis.
 
phrozen: there is plenty of research which suggests even brief exposure to second hand smoke is harmful. and the bottom line is: keep your smoke to yourself! you get to choose to smoke, others do not.

frizz, what do you think of allowing incense? That was only a half joke, w/o knowing what's in incense smoke, it could potentially be as, or more, dangerous than tobacco on a weight-basis.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure incense is linked to close to half a million deaths in the US per year.... but if it were i'd have the same feelings about it.
 
frizzantik said:
pot is already illegal. smoking it outdoors will likely get me in more trouble than smoking indoors, which is not true of cigs at all. Trust me, I would love to be able to smoke pot on a city sidewalk.. I would be overjoyed if that were the case, and would happily make concessions like not being allowed to hotbox my next-door-neighbor's apt with my weed smoke

If my neighbors smell pot smoke and it bothers them they can call the cops on me. so i do everything i can to make sure my smoke does not bother them. Thats all cig smokers will have to do to be allowed to smoke in their homes.. put in an real effort to keep their smoke away from other people. I don't see whats so hard to get about that. This law doesn't make it illegal to smoke in your home, it makes it illegal to force that smoke on other people.
Click to expand...

Come on, no one is forcing it on you, which would entail blowing it in your face. You're "forcing" your herb smoke on others, legal or not. What's the difference? I think your apparent militant anti-tobacco view is getting in the way of perceiving this issue rationally. If the ventilation in your building is a problem, it should be fixed, physically, not with legislation.
 
Come on, no one is forcing it on you, which would entail blowing it in your face.
Click to expand...

uh, no. second hand smoke can easily travel from apartment to apartment. in my building it travels through common areas and up the side of the building from one window to the other. In other buildings it goes through the walls and basically anywhere there is a crack.


as far as me "forcing my smoke" I have a large box fan on a side of the building which does not have any windows which don't belong to me, and no one lives above me. No one has complained and if they did I would go to even greater lengths to control the smoke. If that still didn't solve the problem, I would move to somewhere where it wasn't a problem instead of complaining that my neighbors just need to deal with it or move.
 
So you think it's perfectly rational to solve your problem through legislation instead of, you know, fixing the physical deficiencies of your building? Close the windows, install some weather stripping on the offending door and windows, problem solved.
 
Close the windows, install some weather stripping on the offending door and windows, problem solved.
Click to expand...

I agree, smokers should do all of those things to keep their smoke from bothering other people. Unfortunately they don't seem to be willing to do that by choice, so this legislation has been put in place to give them some more encouragement.

It's your smoke, your problem. Don't expect your neighbors to remodel their apartment so you can smoke in yours 8)
 
phrozen: there is plenty of research which suggests even brief exposure to second hand smoke is harmful. and the bottom line is: keep your smoke to yourself! you get to choose to smoke, others do not.
Click to expand...

Define "harmful." Is it really any worse than the car exhaust we're constantly exposed to?
 
frizzantik said:
landlords no longer have the choice to allow cancer causing chemicals to be released on their property
Click to expand...
exactly. if someone owns land, they should be able to do what they want with it -- fart in it or otherwise release methane, smoke in it, build a 10 foot dildo, build a spaceship

in the case of smoking-allowed apartments, you have a landlord allowing poison on HIS land, and individuals CONSENTING to live with a little smoke

we don't need more consensual crime laws

what if all the inhabitants are smokers? then the law becomes as stupid as any other drug law
 
frizzantik said:
I'm not sure incense is linked to close to half a million deaths in the US per year.... but if it were i'd have the same feelings about it.
Click to expand...
Of course incense is not, because it's not viewed as the pariah of public health. Surely you aren't presuming incense is even studied for risks with any seriousness? I've gotta say I don't see why you would just assume incense is gonna be good, at least cigarettes have some safety tests (or I thought they had *some* kind of oversight, maybe not. But either way, incense doesn't).

Both instances are creating smoke that can hurt you, but one smells pretty and another has negative connotations of disease and death, from where I'm standing it seems that has to be playing a part in your stance.
 
second hand smoke does not contribute to half a million deaths per year.

there is no way it will be made illegal: its too big of a cash crop and too many people like it... a lot.

Bush says Irans nuclear weapon program will bring World War III. a faster way would be to make tobacco illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top