NEWS: (Don’t) Smoke ‘em if You Got ‘em

CULTURE: (Don’t) Smoke ‘em if You Got ‘em

ItÂ’s a bad week for American cigarette smokers.

This week, New Hampshire became the 22nd state in America to ban smoking in the workplace, including bars and restaurants. The ban takes effect in 90 days, so New Hampshire cigarette smokers will have a chance to slowly acclimate to smoking outside bars during northern New England winters. No word on whether bars are considering putting up "live smoke free or die from frostbite" signs.

Meanwhile, a small California town is considering the harshest anti-smoking ordinance in America, which members of the town government hope will be a template for other municipalities to follow. Belmont, a San Francisco suburb, voted on Tuesday night to ban smoking seemingly everywhere in the town.

That’s right; people living in multi-unit housing will no longer be able to smoke in their homes. Police aren’t going to be dispatched door to door, combing areas for evidence of smoking, though. Under the ordinance, a neighbor of a smoker in an apartment complex could contact police if they detected smoke and “police or code enforcement officers would respond and either mediate an agreement or issue a citation.”

The town hasn’t taken any official action on the bill, but they’re not alone in considering a municipality-wide smoking ban — Oakland, CA is also considering a ban on smoking in multi-unit housing.

That's what happens when you vote for democrats.
I suppose we better get used to it.

Land of the semi-free.

Finally, the dems do something right. I can't wait...it'll be nice to be able to head to the pool hall without smelling like an ashtray afterwards.

Sorry, law unconstitutional.
Clear violation of right to privacy. Towns don't get to declare themselves autonomous republics outside of the jurisdiction of the protections guaranteed by being a citizen of the United States.
The end.

What would the difference be between this and some town in Texas banning all homosexual sex acts inside any domicile with a window?
The law can't tell people what to do in there own fucking house.

While I realize that second hand smoke kills people....

...I'd also like to point out that bad drivers kill people too. Can we please ban bad drivers?

Banning someone from smoking in their own home is wrong.

I'm pretty much ok with the banning of it inside the workplace, though.

Have you talked to your neighbors? Told them it bothers you?

We're not all monsters, you know. Just because us smokers want to kill ourselves, doesn't mean we want to kill you non-smokers.

If I was living in an apartment complex, and smoking in my apartment, I would stop and smoke outside, if you told me it was getting into your apartment and annoying you. Just because I smoke, doesn't automatically make me an uncivilized asshole. So please don't treat me like a criminal.

Why do we need to legislate this?

Lazy people.

I'm all for banning it in public places, but to ban it in a private residence, apartment/condo or not, seems a little bit harsh. I would like to see it happen, sure, but I don't believe it'd be considered legal.

THANK you.

And I concur w/what SuicidePuppies said. Any reasonal person, if told by a neighbor that smoking, loud music, etc. was bothering them, would take steps to resolve it.

-TM

New Hampshire?
Live Free or Die
,my ass.
Live Free AND Die.
haha

It does? Who? I can see if you were trapped in a small room with no ventilation and a carton burning at all times, maybe, sure. Makes sense. But where are all these dead waitresses and bartenders who got lung cancer from secondhand smoke? Where are all the people addicted to secondhand smoke?

Furthermore, if there is such a demand for smoke-free bars that entire states are voting for them, why the shit doesn't someone just OPEN A NONSMOKING BAR. Supply and demand, people, the basis of all economics. That way those of us who choose to excercise our right to slow death can do so without a bunch of whimpering assholes oppressing us.

Hmmm, so they've banned smoking in bars in California!?! What's next? No drinking, no talking!?! Hey, let's go to the library for a great party!

~Eddie Izzard

ps. Not to be a dick (I am a non smoker), but if this is one of the most pressing concerns you feel you should be dealing with in a municipal forum (teen pregnancy, ghettos, poor, disease, unemployment being other options) then you should go suck a fuck.

But as you already said, that hinges on it getting into other people's apartments and becoming a problem. Barring that, who's to say someone doesn't have the right to smoke in their own home?

-TM

Tobacco is a controlled substance, as are most other drugs. You aren't allowed to smoke crack in your own house. 10 year olds aren't allowed to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol anywhere. There are already legal restrictions placed on substances, so if any other restrictions were passed by whatever legislature presides over an area, I think they would be valid and constitutional.

Personally, I believe that most drugs should be legal. But they're not, so this ruling doesn't seem to be in conflict with the pre-existing legal structure of the country.

It is a separate living unit, if you want to write a law to protect everyone else, tell them they can't smoke with the windows open. You can't tell them what to do in their house by law.
What you can do:
Ask them not to smoke near your apartment.
Tell your landlord, or ask them to only rent to non smokers, or to ban smoking on the premises.
Move to a place where people are not allowed to smoke.

If someone owns the property they can decide anything they want regarding smoking, that is their right. You can't write a law telling your neighbor what they can and can't do inside their own home.

as far as i'm aware you aren't legally allowed to smoke crack anywhere. it is on the other hand, legal to possess tobacco if you are 18, so analogizing to illegal drugs doesn't work.

anyway, i'm ok with banning it in all public places. as far as the multi-unit housing goes--i think that goes too far when more reasonable means could be taken, such as landlords having a complaint policy just like with noise or anything else. but if isn't getting into your apartment, you don't really have an argument for telling someone else what to do.

maybe a complex could have certain buildings where people are allowed to smoke and others where they aren't? or if it is an urban apartment building, the smartest thing would be to simply ask your neighbor to go downstairs if his smoke is bothering you.

i see rental listings all the time that are looking for nonsmoking tenants. this seems like something that should be left to private landlords to choose to regulate or not. or at the very least, the city should only be able to force landlords in multi-unit housing to put in place some kind of regulatory structure instead of an outright ban.

Ignoring that the entire legal structure of controlled substances is seriously unconstitutional and flawed. It is thinking like this that makes the society lose freedoms gradually through extending completely unconstitutional laws to other protected acts.
It is complete bullshit. If tobacco is illegal it is illegal. Then make it illegal with a law. Stop making bullshit laws like "only poor people who live in apartments can't smoke, because they can't afford to live in a home"
It is illegal substance laws like this enacted in the early 20th century that were struck down already. Like making registration stamps for legal substances, then making those stamps unavailable.
The extension of the law is stretched so thin beyond its original intention as to be meaningless.
I don't understand why any law should apply to anything, if all of them are meaningless, once every person becomes a law breaker at birth.

The bottom line is, you are not going to change behavior through writing laws.
All you are going to do is make more people who are living outside the law.