San Francisco Banned Smoking In Apartments

[anotherbob]

Back to the original topic at hand, I can see why a municipality might enact an indoor apartment smoking ban. With shared walls and other systems, smoke (particularly cigarette smoke) can easily make its way into other apartments and pollute the air in someone else's home. While I believe we should have a strong right to do what we want in our own homes, I also believe that the right to control whether or not we have clean air should trump that right. Simply put, if the action you are taking is making someone else's life worse through no fault of their own, then it's not necessarily your right to do it.

I've lived in a few apartments that had smokers next door and the smoke would get in and hang out and just stand there. I never personally minded that much but I don't have children or any common medical conditions that would make that more then just a yucky. And in a place like san fran where real estate is at an extra premium people get little apartments and if you get the lucky of being between two smokers you could not buy a pack and still get your nicotine with that awesome fog of cigarette smoke. And if you can't imagine that being a problem just realize you could end up living next to someone that chain smokes Captain Black Grape or whatever blend you can't stand. Or that old guy that somehow smoked cigars that he chomped on for hours giving that yummy soggy cigar smell

 

[cosmicfolklore]

They won't even have to declare independence: they'll be asked to leave or be kicked out outright.

Everyone makes such a big deal about California, but the states that have been the biggest drain on the Feds, have always been Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, Kentucky, West Virginia... etc... But, no one ever makes jokes about these states getting kicked out of the Union. Hell, each of those states I mentioned alone use more federal funds to keep them going than California. Kentucky is way more of a burden on the US than California.

But, that'd probably be political.

 

[anotherbob]

One of the things that I love here, is that my house is in a small town, with lots of small town festivals and stuff happening every month. But, my farm is about five miles down the road, secluded, where I can hunt and the kids can ride four wheelers. And, twenty minutes away is Birmingham, with lots of city things, like art shows, museum events, plays, great restaurants. And, just an hour or so in different directions, I have the mountains, rivers, and the best beaches in the world. It's like anything a person could need... unless you need a taxi or a subway.

yeah every place has it's plusses and minuses. You're lucky if you can find what works best for you and afford it too.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Or an Apple Store.

I walk right by the Apple store every evening when I walk the dog. Do you not have an Apple store where you are? I thought they were like McDonalds, everywhere.

 

[Country Bladesmith]

Back to the original topic at hand, I can see why a municipality might enact an indoor apartment smoking ban. With shared walls and other systems, smoke (particularly cigarette smoke) can easily make its way into other apartments and pollute the air in someone else's home. While I believe we should have a strong right to do what we want in our own homes, I also believe that the right to control whether or not we have clean air should trump that right. Simply put, if the action you are taking is making someone else's life worse through no fault of their own, then it's not necessarily your right to do it.

If it was actually invading someone else’s living space, then yeah, I agree, somewhat. What I mean is, I kind of see that as the landlord’s problem, and they should enforce a no smoking rule with a contract upon leasing. Tenant ignores it, they get the boot or lose their deposit, or whatever. It shouldn’t involve legislature. It’s just another ploy for an already overreaching government to stamp out tobacco.

Look at the smoking in your house thread. Vast majority support not doing it. Makes it easy for cities to take the next step.

Yes, sure, but it’s the ability to choose that’s important.

 

[jpberg]

One of the things that I love here, is that my house is in a small town, with lots of small town festivals and stuff happening every month. But, my farm is about five miles down the road, secluded, where I can hunt and the kids can ride four wheelers. And, twenty minutes away is Birmingham, with lots of city things, like art shows, museum events, plays, great restaurants. And, just an hour or so in different directions, I have the mountains, rivers, and the best beaches in the world. It's like anything a person could need... unless you need a taxi or a subway.

Being from New York (albeit 7 hours north of the city) I feel it’s my duty to remind you that The Big Apple is and will forever remain the greatest city on earth. Yes, it’s a socialist shit hole, and not exactly in its prime, but still......

 

[olkofri]

If it was actually invading someone else’s living space, then yeah, I agree, somewhat. What I mean is, I kind of see that as the landlord’s problem, and they should enforce a no smoking rule with a contract upon leasing. Tenant ignores it, they get the boot or lose their deposit, or whatever. It shouldn’t involve legislature. It’s just another ploy for an already overreaching government to stamp out tobacco.

It's also an overreach to impinge upon the rights of landlords. They can't rent out to polluting smokers, but they must not refuse people who stink the whole building up with their funky cooking and leave the walls and fridges with a cover of grease milimiters thick because it'd be discrimination.

RE: kicking them out: it's not really that easy, because they appeal and the cases end up invariably in court (i.e. involving legislature in a way). Most of the times, the tenant wins because the arbiters/judges are mostly SJWs. I've seen it happen many times. Heck, it took the longest time to kick out a couple of pot smokers from my building.

 

[olkofri]

I walk right by the Apple store every evening when I walk the dog. Do you not have an Apple store where you are? I thought they were like McDonalds, everywhere.

Yeh, there's an iWorld store here. I don't care, really, as I'm not a crApple fanboi. It's just that your post reminded me of some vexing guy in my IRC channel many years ago who wouldn't live in a city with no Apple Store.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Yeh, there's an iWorld store here. I don't care, really, as I'm not a crApple fanboi. It's just that your post reminded me of some vexing guy in my IRC channel many years ago who wouldn't live in a city with no Apple Store.

In running my jewelry store routes, I actually pas six of them. I just assumed they were everywhere.

 

[smudgersmissingleg]

I saw a couple of documentaries recently on San Francisco's homeless problem and it was a real eye opener. Local people were saying it had got totally out of hand even though they spend a billion Dollars on it and they're one of the richest cities on the planet.

People defecating all over the place, shooting up and discarding their needles, violence, aggressive begging, it really did look quite chaotic.
The various elected officials don't seem to have many answers either.

 

[olkofri]

and they're one of the richest cities on the planet.

Which is one reason why I find the "California is the 6th greatest economy in the world" statement meaningless. High dollar numbers are not a measure of societal health, just like a stocky body does not equate absence of illness(es). A place is not well-off or a paradise just because a few industries cash in the dollars and boost its stats.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Which is one reason why I find the "California is the 6th greatest economy in the world" statement meaningless. High dollar numbers are not a measure of societal health, just like a stocky body does not equate absence of illness(es). A place is not well-off or a paradise just because a few industries cash in the dollars and boost its stats.

Come down here to Alabama... You get paid 1/10th of what you'd make in California, plus we got whole forests full of homeless meth heads. We don't let our homeless drug addicts just wonder around where people can see them, but that doesn't mean we don't have them. Also, when a plant closes here, the State pulls up a van and just puts everyone on disability to keep the numbers off of the unemployment list. That is how us red states do it. It makes it look like we have a great economy, while the Goobernor asks for huge hand outs every year just to keep our state floating, then they keep kicking the can down the road, over and over. It is way more likely that those states I listed above bankrupts the country long before California does. I may support this one party system we have down here (because it's all we have), but that doesn't mean most of us don't know what is going on. We HAVE to re-elect them, because no one ever runs against them.

Oh, and to keep it on topic... at least we don't have a bunch of smoking laws.

 

[sfduke]

@Old School 3319
The no smoking ban in apartment units impacts high density buildings. Agree it is strange tobacco smoke and marijuana smoke are treated differently.

Only in SF can a neighbor call the police to cite for tobacco smoke from an open window or backyard. No restrictions for marijuana smoke sadly.

 

[sablebrush52]

Kentucky is way more of a burden on the US than California.

Kentucky also has the distinction of having one of the highest rates of lung cancer and other cancers in the US.

California is a fucking mess. Way too many people for its resources. People keep leaving and more keep coming.

But y'all better keep an eye on your own glass houses before you go throwing stones.

 

[bnichols23]

You are not allowed to smoke tobacco in apartments but you can smoke the green stuff. I dont understand that state at all and I feel for the people in that state

Even if you own & aren't a tenant??

 

[bnichols23]

They spend too much money to stand alone.. they need the rest of us to kick in our share so they can continue to feed the monster.

The cali boys should be here soon to justify this..

Are they a net lender state in federal $$, or net borrowers? If net lender they subsidize net borrower states that *take* more in federal bucks than they pay in. (FWIW, I'm in SC, as red as it gets.)

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Look at the smoking in your house thread. Vast majority support not doing it. Makes it easy for cities to take the next step.

My nerves can't take that thread.. ?

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

Not a Cali boy here. Grew up in Oregon HATING Californians, but you're just plain wrong. California, and many other high-tax high service blue states, pays more to the federal coffers than they get in return. Meanwhile, states such as South Dakota, Alabama, and Mississippi receive far more in federal funding and services than they pay in. I'm not going to argue the merits or faults of this system, but this idea that California (and states like it) are sucking at the teat of the federal government (and taking more than their share) are demonstrably false. If anything, it's states such as your own that are taking more than their share.

Actually nope, you're just plain wrong... if you count ALL of the money. What you say was true at a time, but not anymore. You shouldnt be so fast to call the next guy wrong, this information is available..

Here you go @bnichols23 and @cosmicfolklore

California no longer pays more to Washington than it gets back, study finds - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/politics/amp/California-no-longer-pays-more-to-Washington-than-15243861.php

 

[saltedplug]

Weed smoke smells like skunk ass.

I beg to differ. The smell of pot smoke was better than the aroma of pot roast roasting on Sunday.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

I beg to differ. The smell of pot smoke was better than the aroma of pot roast roasting on Sunday.

There ya have it.. One man's ass skunk is another man's pot roast.