California Town Bans Smoking in Condos and Apartments That Share Walls

reply to post by beezzer


Do perfumes emit carcinogens? California has very strict emission standards which exceed the rest of the country, granted it isn't enough given the amount of vehicles on the road but the real measurement is ppm. Society as a whole requires vehicular travel for commerce and industry which sustains us economically, whereas cigarettes do not, and they produce far more localized ppm of carcinogens than a vehicle driving by. This is then made worse by the fact that cigarette smoke contains lingering particles of such size that they are not as easily dispersed by local weather and thus linger and accumulate, especially in a confined location such as an apartment.

Cigarette smoke is just as dangerous when accumulated as VoCs. But I'm sure if you spent the requisite amount of money to remove said carcinogenic particulates to a safe ppm (effectively 0ppm), then I'm sure your neighbors wouldn't bother narc'ing you out.

From the OP's source (emphasis added):

California Town Bans Smoking in Condos and Apartments That Share Walls

Jesus people! It's not just apartments, the article clearly states that they are trying to ban this in condos as well. You know the things that are like an apartment but you pay a mortgage on?

reply to post by DerbyGawker



Would you care to back any of what you just said with any sources? Or are we supposed to just take your word that cigarettes are more harmful than the exhaust of a car?

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Any reasonable person should expect a reduction in rights when sharing an adjoining wall with neighbors, even if you have a mortgage. I'm sure the law even covers duplexes. What's next, townhouses!?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by DerbyGawker

 

Would you care to back any of what you just said with any sources? Or are we supposed to just take your word that cigarettes are more harmful than the exhaust of a car?

You're welcome to use your city's public library access to perform an article query through EBSCOhost to not only read the requisite material but develop your own knowledge of said material. I'm surely not going to condense several semesters of environmental biology and sustainable cities into a few neatly packaged urls for you. Nor do I have any obligation to simply because such topics are general knowledge to me and not yourself.

Take the time to learn about pollution on a fundamental level, you'll thank yourself as you begin to discover how enslaved we are to each other.

Awesome news! Thanks for sharing.

These stories make me smile.

MmmPie
I see no issue here.

When you rent any kind of living quarters, the tenant agrees on certain terms. I've been to a plethora of my friends apartments that are rented, and none of them were allowed to smoke inside. Hell, a lot of them couldn't have pets unless they were service animals.

Renters OWN the property, they set the rules, tenants obey them.

Sometimes rules can be a good thing.

I don't have an issue when its agreed upfront as part of a lease agreement or if condo part of contractual agreement. People have a choice such as "do you allow smoking" ah yes then, I'll take my business elsewhere. or as most complexes are multiple units of 4, 6 or 8 then if market determines that need exists to designate, then it will. Having government interfere with arbitrary regulations that abrogate existing contracts is tyranny.

I DO have a problem with the government coming along and dictating new rules that were never part of any agreements by the parties involved - basically ignoring contract law and in the case of owned property they are really out of line.

If you can arbitrarily dictate no smoking, then I can dictate no candles, open flames, no fireplace, cooking, kids, grilling etc., etc., etc. From a safety standpoint I could say your cologne or perfume is hazardous, got roach spray - not allowed, and that pine sol really irritates me. Just where do you draw the line once the lid is removed from this Pandora's box?

Maybe smokers should unite and start dictating some of this crap right back at cha! see how ridiculous and overbearing things can be made on these other issues so you nannies can get a good taste of tyranny couched in the "collective" mode of thinking.

reply to post by DerbyGawker


No, that isn't how making a claim works. You make a claim, you provide the source. The onus of proof doesn't lie on the person you are talking to, to prove you correct. You prove yourself correct with sources that you provide. So until you provide proof to back your claims up, I'm going to just assume that they are bogus.

reply to post by DerbyGawker


If they wanted to do it due to VoC laws they'd just ban them overall. This seems to be more on the side of the building owner having to do repairs due to smoke damage and everyone else just got thrown under the bus with them due to the laws wording.

reply to post by Diabolical


Applause for them, nothing wrong with curtailing any second hand smoke, and it does come through apartments - if not in wall cracks then in the ventilation systems. Second hand smoke is an enemy of the people, should be put on trial, and hung at dawn (after it has a last smoke).

Phoenix

MmmPie
I see no issue here.

When you rent any kind of living quarters, the tenant agrees on certain terms. I've been to a plethora of my friends apartments that are rented, and none of them were allowed to smoke inside. Hell, a lot of them couldn't have pets unless they were service animals.

Renters OWN the property, they set the rules, tenants obey them.

Sometimes rules can be a good thing.

I don't have an issue when its agreed upfront as part of a lease agreement or if condo part of contractual agreement. People have a choice such as "do you allow smoking" ah yes then, I'll take my business elsewhere. or as most complexes are multiple units of 4, 6 or 8 then if market determines that need exists to designate, then it will. Having government interfere with arbitrary regulations that abrogate existing contracts is tyranny.

I DO have a problem with the government coming along and dictating new rules that were never part of any agreements by the parties involved - basically ignoring contract law and in the case of owned property they are really out of line.

If you can arbitrarily dictate no smoking, then I can dictate no candles, open flames, no fireplace, cooking, kids, grilling etc., etc., etc. From a safety standpoint I could say your cologne or perfume is hazardous, got roach spray - not allowed, and that pine sol really irritates me. Just where do you draw the line once the lid is removed from this Pandora's box?

Maybe smokers should unite and start dictating some of this crap right back at cha! see how ridiculous and overbearing things can be made on these other issues so you nannies can get a good taste of tyranny couched in the "collective" mode of thinking.

You had a valid argument regarding candles and fireplaces as they are analogous, but then you lost your credibility with non-analogous examples.

However, if you are truly looking for an end-game, it's relatively simple. The government can force any business to change the method in which they contract so long as it benefits the public good within reason. They do posses not only the legal right to regulate artificial persons but the moral obligation to ensure that said artificial persons operate with regard to the general welfare of all people with whom they contract.

Context is truly key when abstracting statutory construction. The law does not make it illegal for you to smoke, it makes it illegal for you to smoke contrary to a law that requires foremost that commercial agencies contractually require your agreement to not smoke within the residence (of which this would be a civil violation) and secondly in a manner that would create a breach of the peace just as a noise complaint would.

No one has the right to directly interfere with the quality of life of others, the truth is (and as a smoker I can admit this) that smoking directly trespasses against your neighbors just as unreasonable auditory levels would.

By the way, the state already possess the right to suspend your right to burn on particular days. In Arizona we call them Red Flag Warning's and it does in fact make it illegal for you to start a fire with kindling outside not only for the risk of embers being carried by the wind but that the increased particulate count (in ppm) would exceed federal guidelines for acceptable air quality.

I don't understand why people have a problem with this, I do agree it has evolved under left-wing liberalism however, it is perfectly in accordance with constitutional law without excessive interpretation. I don't want your choices to negatively affect my health. Nor do I expect that I have the right to do the same with others.

does that apply to eCigarettes ?

and what about marijuana... Cali loves that stuff.

there are people with medical conditions who may not be able to walk outside to use their medication.

maybe they can just turn the top levels of buildings into smoking floors?

we made this compromise in the past when it came down to trampling on others rights.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Should I provide credible sources regarding the color of the sky? Discussing what ought-to-be common knowledge is not the same as making a claim.

However if you want a quick reference: press.psprings.co.uk... & faculty.washington.edu...

Should you not find the article to be credible, I don't care. As I said, I am not willing to condense several semesters of study into a few concise links for you.

There are several interdisciplinary sciences involved in studying, understanding and applying said knowledge to be capable of understanding why the above article is truthful.

Note that on page 6 of the Washington URL it states that the mean CO emission from a warm car is 0.24, a non-filtered cigarette is 2.4 while astonishingly a FILTERED cigarette is 2.8.

"Cigarettes clearly put out much higher concentrations of CO than most cars."

DerbyGawker
No one has the right to directly interfere with the quality of life of others, the truth is (and as a smoker I can admit this) that smoking directly trespasses against your neighbors just as unreasonable auditory levels would.

there is no direct evidence that smoking leads to lung cancer... this has been thru the Supreme Court more times than you can count. It is an ongoing never ending legal battle.

the evidence can not be proven that second hand smoke degrades the quality of anyone's life... and if you can pull that information from the FDA website I would appreciate it.

in humans... cancer is predisposed, and the truth about America today is we have alot less smokers in the nation... but lung cancer rate has actually increased... imagine that.

imagine a person who has never smokes tobacco in their entire life developing lung cancer... and with the data we have today about the numbers of smokers in the United States vs those who develop lung cancer... the facts state that there are more people developing lung cancer now that have never smoked.

--

many do not realize how many nonsmokers get lung cancer, too. Every year, about 16,000 to 24,000 Americans die of lung cancer, even though they have never smoked.

www.cancer.org...

reply to post by SisyphusRide


I think you're missing the root of the argument. While smoking has not been legally or scientifically linked to cancer, the carcinogens within the smoke have been.

More importantly, the discussion of cancer has no relevance. Music has not been linked to cancer yet society has acknowledged that a nuisance may be criminalized if it infringes upon the rights of others which smoke(ing) does (given the proper context).

The overall discussion does not pertain specifically to the health risks, it pertains to the rights of others not to be subjected to your nuisance.

EDIT: Your analysis of the facts is highly erroneous, you are misinterpreting the problem.

While it is true that a person may develop lung cancer without ever having smoked or even having ever been exposed to second or dare I say even THIRD hand smoke the overall probability is that it developed from the intake of particulate matter consisting of carcinogens (whether from exhaust, tire tread, industrial emissions, etc) of which are also present within cigarette smoke.

But as my previous posts have shown, cigarette smoke contains much higher concentrations of carcinogenic particulates, CO, etc. And as their "emissions" are far more localized and concentrated, they produce much higher associated risks than vehicular exhaust.

reply to post by DerbyGawker


it is more likely that you are just prejudice against a group of people because of their smell... the facts stipulate that this is truth.

I am going to make a petition to ban cooking Ethiopian food or Chitlins in condo's too... the smell is offensive.

have you ever smelled pork intestine (bowels) boiling with feces still in them?

DerbyGawker
reply to post by beezzer

 

Do perfumes emit carcinogens? California has very strict emission standards which exceed the rest of the country, granted it isn't enough given the amount of vehicles on the road but the real measurement is ppm. Society as a whole requires vehicular travel for commerce and industry which sustains us economically, whereas cigarettes do not, and they produce far more localized ppm of carcinogens than a vehicle driving by. This is then made worse by the fact that cigarette smoke contains lingering particles of such size that they are not as easily dispersed by local weather and thus linger and accumulate, especially in a confined location such as an apartment.

Cigarette smoke is just as dangerous when accumulated as VoCs. But I'm sure if you spent the requisite amount of money to remove said carcinogenic particulates to a safe ppm (effectively 0ppm), then I'm sure your neighbors wouldn't bother narc'ing you out.

I don't have the kind of fancy background it takes to know all of the ppm emitted by a cigarette or a car. What I do know for a fact is that if you stand in a closed garage filled with chain smokers for several hours some of them might have a cough or watery eyes, but all would be alive and well. If you park a running vehicle in the same closed garage for several hours, ALL of the people in the garage would be dead! How is it that cigarettes are worse than cars?

What is never included in this argument is the concept of how Edward Bernays handiwork was so effective at making smoking a RIGHT - a god-given, natural-human right.

Prior to the advent of PR and the effort cigarette manufacturers used to convince people it was super cool to smoke, people were indifferent about the fun. But, PR made it a right of passage, a he man thing to do, a super duper cool thing to do - smoke and be better then those who do not. But that wasn't enough, the smoker had to be at war with the non smoker, he had to occupy a polarity cause - he must not only smoke to be cool, but to defend the RIGHTS of the smoker every where. Smoking RIGHTS is akin to free speech, freedom of expression and those is partake cannot be tread on.

This is all PR. You do not have any RIGHT to smoke. Smoking is a problem for those who do not smoke. You do not have a RIGHT to bother others. Your RIGHT ends where it conflicts with another.

If I say, "there is a law preventing using 2000 watt stereos in parks" I doubt anyone would say, "hey I have a RIGHT to blast my music where I want!" If I said there is a law to prevent driving around without a muffler, I don't think there is an argument in favor. But since the PR campaign was so damn effective at making smoking a RIGHT, the smoker is compelled to ignore the fact that the smoke is bothering others, is a concern to their health, is a problem with residual odor and so on.

The smoker is the new victim, the outcast, the man who just wants to be cool and be left alone while he does.

the ONLY reason to take up smoking is because you think it is cool.
Cigarette MFG's need warriors to keep them in business.
PR people created a "cause" around the addiction in order to give purpose to smokers.

reply to post by DerbyGawker


Don't be absurd, I can walk outside and see what color the sky is. I cannot however breath in cigarette smoke then car exhaust and tell you which is more harmful. All I asked is for some links backing up your claims. I obviously don't study environmental sciences like you do. Your condensation isn't necessary either, because believe it or not there are more people out there who are unaware of these facts that you consider standard knowledge. I'm sure there are topics of study that I pursue that you do not where I know simple things about it that you do not, it doesn't mean I get to be all cocky and indignant if someone asks me to prove a claim that I make about the aforementioned simple thing. By the way, your first link doesn't work.

I still do not agree with not letting people smoke in the privacy of their own homes. By the way, I'm not even a smoker, I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. I just don't agree with dictating other people's lives to make mine more comfortable when they are in their home. Whether or not cigarette smoke is harmful or not, I do know that these buildings in question have air filters installed throughout them and even in the small cracks that the smoke may filter from room to room, there wouldn't be enough of it to cause any serious harm to someone. Legislating this just appears to be another attack against those "evil" smokers.

reply to post by colddeadhands


You reduced the scenario to absurdities. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that vehicle exhaust also contains: Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen oxides and Sulphur dioxide.

@SisyphusRide, as I said, I am a smoker. I'm simply as mindful as the rights of others as my own.


@Krazysh0t, Unless you're talking about a True HEPA filter, it won't do any good regarding cigarette smoke. Most filters are built for dust and skin cells, hair, etc. Extremely large particles, not the type of particles that cause respiratory issues.