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

[igotthatwork]

Interesting this law was passed in the same state which legalized medical marijuana...

 

[bingalpaws]

Well im really not surprised considering its radioactive.

Polonium 210 is found in calcium rich soils and concentrates on the broad leaves of the Tobacco plant

so like, is it enough to give me super powers?

 

[bingalpaws]

(c'mon, just how radioactive, *specifically* are my cigarettes? I just saw that same line of reasoning used the other day by someone trying to support the idea that fertilizer is radioactive, the argument pretty much fell back to something like that, because potassium I think is mined with plutonium or something..)

 

[time traveler]

^^ Yes the superpower of instant cool.......

 

[Tryptamine*Dreamer]

This law is bullshit. If the smoke in their apartment, it is not going to affect the other tenants much at all. The amount of smoke that would end up in someone else's section is going to be small.

I don't want the government telling me or anyone else they can't smoke in their home.

 

[frizzantik]

Do you honestly feel that I should be denied, by law, the right to rent out the other half of my property just because I smoke?

8) dude you're just making up straw man arguments. first of all you can rent out the place if you like. you just can't subject your tenants to to cancer causing chemicals. the government won't let you use asbestos or lead based paint in your apartment either, no matter how much enjoyment you get from eating paint chips.

and the thing that everyone seems to forget is that enforcement will be complaint driven. basically this means if you can be a responsible drug user and not force your drug use on other people, you will never have a problem. but if you're one of those "fuck you if you don't like my secondhand smoke" type of smokers, then i'm sure your neighbors will happily drop the dime on you. Laws like this would never need to be passed in the first place if all smokers were respectful and courteous about their drug use

 

[specialrelativity]

fascist California BS... hehehehe

 

[bingalpaws]

8) dude you're just making up straw man arguments.

god I'm getting so sick of these friggin vogue terms that pop up, I'm seeing the "straw man" claim about 10000X more often than normal the past couple months, but I guess that's the internet

And further, that's not a straw man, as it does refute the original argument - such laws stop a smoker from renting the empty side of his duplex if he wishes to continue smoking in his half.

first of all you can rent out the place if you like.

as long as you quit smoking indoors in your half, of course, but that goes without saying.

you just can't subject your tenants to to cancer causing chemicals.

So you are for a law that would prevent 2 citizens from enjoying a consensual, nonviolent scenario? Because enacting this prohibits me, the smoker, from renting my other half to another smoker, and you seem to be for that. How silly is that, 2 smokers, each in their own half of the duplex, unable to legally light a cigarette. LO......L

the government won't let you use asbestos or lead based paint in your apartment either, no matter how much enjoyment you get from eating paint chips.

And neither will they let you use pot or a million other things. If you ask me, and that's only if you ask me, the government has overstepped their bounds on about a million issues, and this is just another drop in that oversized bucket. If the legislation serves you personally I guess I can't hold it against you to support it, but jesus christ, where the fuck are personal / property freedom rights going these days?

and the thing that everyone seems to forget is that enforcement will be complaint driven. basically this means if you can be a responsible drug user and not force your drug use on other people, you will never have a problem.

Please tell me you're joking. Please. You cannot possibly believe that's true, do you? Wow. Okay, let me draw an analogy to illicit activities that are reported. Let's look at, say, building code violations. Let's say I put up a structure or make some repairs, or improvements, that require permits and I do not pull permits. I can get in trouble, but in reality my main chance of getting caught is a neighbor calling in on me. By your logic, they'll only do so if I did said repairs in a way that caused them problems. In some hypothetical utopia, yeah, that'd be the case. However, in reality, in the world we live in, people don't call in crap like that because it directly affected them, they do it far more often because they dislike a person, and will ignore such activities if they like the people.

I like that you think your average non-smoker will only complain if the smoke is "forced upon them", however in reality I think most people besides you will agree that "forced upon them" equals "smelling any discernable tobacco smoke", which means nah, you can't really smoke anyways.

Laws like this would never need to be passed in the first place if all smokers were respectful and courteous about their drug use

Heh, that statement implies that such laws do need to be passed...

Frizz, can you very, very simply answer a question for me? Why not just let people do as they wish and mandate that apartments/duplexes/condos be distinguished as either smoking or non-smoking? This seems to be quite the fair compromise, it lets both tenants and landlords either rent/rent out properties that are / are not smoking properties, and people can choose for themselves. I'm interested in why you think a straight up ban is needed when people can just say "hey, I don't like the smell, so therefore I need to rent in a place that is a non-smoking place".

 

[mulberryman]

The polonium-210 can be removed through a steam curing process. Why is this not being done? It would certainly benefit everyone.

I'm going to repeat this because I have never once gotten a single answer to this question which I have asked more times than I can remember:

The polonium-210 can be removed through a steam curing process. Why is this not being done? It would certainly benefit everyone.

 

[dorothyperkins]

The polonium-210 can be removed through a steam curing process. Why is this not being done? It would certainly benefit everyone.

I'm going to repeat this because I have never once gotten a single answer to this question which I have asked more times than I can remember:

Does it matter unless you eat it? It's not volatile enough to make it into the smoke and alpha particles it emits wouldn't make it through the cigarette paper let alone the filter.

That russian guy died from it because he ate it.


About the smoking, don't they already tell you if they mind if you smoke or not when you rent someplace? If they do mind, do it anyway but don't be a dick and cover the carpets and sofas in burn marks or fill the place with smoke before they come round with potential tenants. Simple, no new laws necessary.

And surely only a tiny amount of actual smoke will get into your apartment from another, unless your neighbor is blowing it under your door, or there is something really wrong with the building. Just because you can smell it a bit doesn't mean there's actual smoke. It's basically banning people from making a certain smell in their apartment. What if the guy next door has really smelly feet, leaves his shoes out in the hall, and you kinda smell it in your apartment? Should that be banned?

 

[jam uh weezy]

Statistics prove that government institutions and their power struggles have killed more people than any other cause throughout history.

Why don't we ban them?!!

 

[mulberryman]

^nah, just the Republicans.

 

[frizzantik]

Because enacting this prohibits me, the smoker, from renting my other half to another smoker, and you seem to be for that.

uh, no it fucking doesn't 8( 8( 8( if you smoke, and your neighbor also smokes, who's going to fucking call the cops on who? nobody! you're making things up and then arguing against them, which is the exact definition of a straw man arguement.

im interested in why you think a straight up ban is needed

The government has a duty to ensure that the public has access to safe and healthy living conditions, and thus landlords of multi tenant homes are subject to many more regulations than single family home owners. Second hand smoke is responsible for a number of health problems, none of which anyone but the smoker actively choses to bring upon themselves.

Bottom line: It should be up to the smoker to control their drug use, not other people to decide if they want to put up with unhealthy side-effects of their neighbor's drug use. This law puts the power in the hands of the non-smoker and forces smokers to actively control the smoke or face penalties. The burden should be placed on the person who is infringing on the space of their neighbor, not the person who's space is being infringed.

 

[mulberryman]

Interesting this law was passed in the same state which legalized medical marijuana...

Yeah, no kidding. That smoke prolly doesn't count out there either, I bet.

This whole thing seems patently absurd, like peopls suddenly forgot how to open a window or something.

 

[bingalpaws]

I'm not even sure why I'm replying to this as you keep blatantly ignoring points I make, both in this thread and others, and keep harping on / rephrasing the same ones that you're taking out of context and not properly understanding what I had meant. But I'll reply to the points you did acknowledge anyways..

Because enacting this prohibits me, the smoker, from renting my other half to another smoker, and you seem to be for that.

uh, no it fucking doesn't 8( 8( 8(

Well, maybe you need to re-read because yes, in fact, it does. The fact that both sides are okay with it does not make it legal - where are you coming up with that?

if you smoke, and your neighbor also smokes, who's going to fucking call the cops on who? nobody!

You're seriously? I mean I *just* answered that in the last post, but as said before, you just glossed over most of it. As I said before, you and your tenant are not the only ones who can call the police, and if you think people don't call the police on others *solely* because they don't like them, then you are being naive.

you're making things up and then arguing against them, which is the exact definition of a straw man arguement.

Again, thanks for the cool definition and all, but making up a 100%, WHOLLY VALID SCENARIO is completely proper while discussing something, a strawman is if I'm creating an argument that seems as if it's what you're arguing for but really are not (the strawman), which I then argue against, even though it wasn't your position. But this is your position - your position requires me and my tenant, both smokers, to break the law to light a cigarette.

Less with the 'straw man', 'ad hom', and more with direct replies to the points I'm making plz.

The government has a duty to ensure that the public has access to safe and healthy living conditions, and thus landlords of multi tenant homes are subject to many more regulations than single family home owners.

This statement does not necessitate the smoking ban - you're *not* drawing clear enough need for a ban from the obvious fact there needs to be safe housing. Yes, there needs to be ACCESS to safe and healthy living conditions (which need to be smoke free in your example), but please tell me, why is a ban on anyone smoking in a duplex necessary to create ACCESS to duplexes that are smoke free? Seems that would ALREADY be the case, as some places are currently smoking, some non-smoking.

So again, why is a ban needed to create access to smoke free housing when there currently IS accesss?

Bottom line: It should be up to the smoker to control their drug use, not other people to decide if they want to put up with unhealthy side-effects of their neighbor's drug use.

Great opinion, even though that same reasoning supports no smoking on public streets .

This law puts the power in the hands of the non-smoker and forces smokers to actively control the smoke or face penalties.

How about everyone has the power in their hands? Why does power need to be taken and given when people can just go ahead and choose for themselves? Just the simple act of requiring a landlord to declare any rental unit as a smoking/non-smoking unit will put the power in everyone's hands - again, why wouldn't that work? I know you're not gonna answer but I had to ask.

We get it, you don't like smokers, but the fact you'd want it to be illegal for a smoker to rent out his place to another smoker, and neither can legally smoke in the place, is just taking it to far. You're making it seem that, w/o this ban, there's just no place to go for a renter and they may need to choose a place to live that subjects them to cigarette smoke, which is clearly not the scenario.

The burden should be placed on the person who is infringing on the space of their neighbor, not the person who's space is being infringed.

Again, if apartments/duplexes were just clearly designated as smoking or non smoking (which many/most are now), then there doesn't need to be anyone's space being infringed. I hate how you keep making this "one side's space being infringed", "take the power from the hands of the smoker to give to the nonsmoker", when it doesn't need to be that way. If you smoke, find a place to rent that allows smoking. If ya don't, find a place that doesn't. I don't know how it could be any simpler, and have yet to hear a solid case from you as to why we need the gov to step in and hold hands here. You last replied with "because healthy places need to be accessible", well, yeah, no foolin, but they already are, and you've yet to demonstrate the need for such a ban.

 

[mulberryman]

I don't see what all the fuss is about ppl smoking cigarettes anyway with all those cars and factories slowly making the entire atmosphere unbreathable, it seems really quite retarded. I don't smoke tobacco, but if someone is in the house, I open a window to smell that shit instead. Seeing that is about 5 degrees here, and I'm not complaining, it must be just absolutely frigid in California... 8)

 

[qubert]

A lot of the fucked up laws in the U.S start out in California. Here is another one.

Can’t smoke in your home because it is unhealthy but never mind the 8 lane highway and the poisonous smoke stacks that create that brown cloud and horrid air quality.

But don’t worry scientist are working on a study that claims the brown cloud is actually good for you.

 

[twgburst]

So can I still smoke crack in my apartment?

 

[DarthMom]

as a smoker, this does not bother me. for many of the reasons already stated, so i won't go into it.

someone doesn't want to live in that town in a condo, they have other options....a freestanding home or another city. non smokers have a right to clean air.

i loathe people who smoke in public spaces near non smokers or where they may likely pass. i do my best to never do that.

 

[mulberryman]

Any defense of this law is faulted because the law itself is faulted. We all know this was not meant to target people smoking prescription marijuana, nor was it meant to target people burning incense. This law was specifically meant to target tobacco, but since it doesn't specifically say so in its wording, it relies heavily on common sense, which we all know is neither common, nor makes sense. Its vagueness is it downfall, and it would only take someone with a 215 rx slip or better yet an incense burner to find it completely unenforceable in a court of law.