“San Francisco will ban tobacco smoking inside apartments in an effort to curb the negative health impacts of secondhand smoke. Cannabis smoking, however, will still be permitted.”
This is going too far. If smoking is legal one place you should be able to do it is your home.
Is there such a thing as “medicinal tobacco”?
Does this apply to condominiums and townhomes?
I can sort of see how rental units can be subject to this, but not owned property. Also enforcing this strikes me as impossible, making the law bad on it’s face.
The ban on eCigs as a side note is incredibly counter-productive. If we can get every smoker to move to eCigs we’d see a massive harm reduction overall. This is not something we should be attacking at the moment.
The better reason for banning smoking in apartments is to protect smokers from burning themselves up and all their neighbors along with.
Baking and consuming hash brownies could remain on the table (until eaten).
ETA: It is quite common, however, for landlords to forbid smoking in their rental units.
Some of the rationale for this is that smoke often doesn’t stay in the apartment, it can leak through vents and other means into other units (albeit in much smaller doses, of course). A state agency sponsored a lot of anti-second-hand-smoke TV spots over the past few years (although I realized I haven’t seen them lately) that showed such things as smoke drifting from a living room, through an open window to the outside and up to the next unit, where it drifted in through an open window into a baby’s room. Many of these I thought had really overblown the risks of this as compared with the soot and exhaust that would drift in through the same window, but I’m no expert.
Regarding the cannabis exemption, the important point is that “state law prohibits cannabis users from smoking in public places,” i.e. outside or in any public building. So to include them in this restriction would effectively make cannabis smoking illegal again, for some classes of users.
The ordinance apparently does not apply to condos. Many who don’t live here don’t realize that most SF single-family homes are built with no space between, due to 25’ lot frontages, so although they don’t share walls like townhomes might, they are just as close otherwise.
It’s true landlords can prohibit smoking of any kind in their properties, but the only thing they can do in retaliation is whatever is written into the rental agreement, such as refusing to refund the cleaning deposit. Enforcement of this law is problematic, and is probably going to rely on neighbor complaints. I can imagine how well that is going to work out. Perhaps instead of drug busts, we’ll be treated to news stories about police raids on tobacco smokers.
Once, I went to donate blood, and when they measured the blood pressure of the girl sitting next to me it was too low. So the guy suggested her to go outside and smoke a cigarette before coming back, and she did and it worked.
Are you sure? I recently read one article that suggested that the solvent used in e-cigs may be just as bad as the tars in tobacco, maybe even worse. Has this been carefully studied? Remember how long it took for the dangers of tobacco to be realized.
Yes. There are Native American medicinal uses that have been preserved to this day, and it’s employed that way in other parts of the world.
This is not to say that tobacco is necessarily effective medicine, or that the cure couldn’t be worse than the disease. I ran across a Cherokee Nation page alleging that monthly ritual use of tobacco posed no risk of cancer (yeah, surrrre). Since a lot of Americans cite their Cherokee heritage, however massively diluted, maybe that’s a way to get past the S.F. indoor smoking regulations.
Secondhand smoke from other apartments DOES seep thru walls, vents, etc. Especially in older wood framed buildings like my former studio space in Oakland, CA. Cannabis reek is just as intense, possibly more so, than tobacco. I don’t know which is worse.
I personally like weed but not cigs, but I don’t want to breathe either one 24-7.
The complex politics of cannabis is probably off-topic here. Those who believe… REALLY believe. I think there is some value, for some people, but it’s over-hyped right now.
You don’t need to smoke it to get the medicinal benefit, so that’s a red herring.
The CDC is pretty unambiguous about this.
About Electronic Cigarettes (E-Cigarettes) | Smoking & Tobacco Use | CDC
No not enough long term studies- but from what little there has been it appears e-cigs have little or no second hand smoke dangers or cancer danger for the smoker. It is still a addictive drug of course.
No, that is about as ambiguous as you can get.
Are e-cigarettes less harmful than regular cigarettes?
Yes—but that doesn’t mean e-cigarettes are safe. E-cigarette aerosol generally contains fewer toxic chemicals than the deadly mix of 7,000 chemicals in smoke from regular cigarettes.3 However, e-cigarette aerosol is not harmless. It can contain harmful and potentially harmful substances, including nicotine, heavy metals like lead, volatile organic compounds, and cancer-causing agents.1
So, yes e-cigs contain stuff that may be dangerous to the user , there does not seem to be any studies whether or not the smoke is actually deadly like second hand smoke. SHS kills 50000 American a day.
And here’s the thing- a smoker often goes thru two packs a day, sometimes three-I dont know many dope smokers that smoke even a quarter that much. In fact, most I know smokes two a day.
I think you’re reaching here. The question “Are e-cigarettes less harmful than regular cigarettes?”; the answer “Yes”. That’s the definition of unambiguous.
And honestly, I think you misread what I was saying. eCigs are preferable to cigarettes in all cases. Full stop. I made no comparative statements relating to MJ.
Groovy.
We live in a condominium complex. While we are renters, most people here own their units. Smoking is banned inside the units and on the property inside the grounds proper. I have no idea how they enforce this since we are not smokers and don’t pay much attention to smokers, but it seems to be universally followed. The smokers here have to go outside the complex gates to puff, not unlike sneaking behind the buildings back in high school.
As someone who lives in a condo, that’s the problem. One of my neighbors goes nuts every 2-3 months and when he does, my entire unit smells like weed. (I honestly don’t know how he can breathe - it’s that bad on the other side of the wall and through several doors.)
Shouldn’t people’s neighbors be free from smoke inside their homes?
A few weeks back I was enjoying a meal outdoors when someone pulled into the parking lot, lit up, and started puffing away. I hadn’t notice until the smell hit and I had to look around to see where it was coming from. Thankfully I was pretty much finished with my meal by then. I can live with occasionally smelling cigarette smoke when I’m out in public but I’d be super annoyed if I could frequently smell it in my home. (And it’s usually just cigarette smoke I find disgusting. I don’t typically find pipe or cigar smoke to be as annoying.) I can’t say I object overly much to this ban. But I dislike the smell of marijuana even more so I’d be super pissed if my apartment was skunky because of my downstairs neighbor.
I imagine it’s going to hit those in the lower income brackets a lot harder though. And I wonder if it’s going to lead to people losing their homes to make way for more gentrification.
When my mother was pregnant with my older brother her doctor warned her not to try and quit smoking because the stress would be bad for the baby.
No it’s not. I can’t tolerate edibles even in the smallest doses. Smoking/vaping has a very different effect than eating.