Our OP is kaput so I won’t directly respond to him, but he said something about smog. I pay more for gas so we get a special blend which reduces smog - and I can see the mountains almost every day, which I understand didn’t used to be the case. We have some spare the air days based on weather conditions, but the weather reports don’t give pollution levels anymore. So it is not like California ignores air quality except when applied to smokers.
I’m willing to temper my sweeping generalization, if informed of which bans on popular recreational drugs in this country have been wildly successful.
But by making that statement, you have already tempered your sweeping generalization.
I lived in an apartment next to a couple that smoked and then an old hippy lady who smoked weed. For the seven years I was there the only time I smelled smoke was when I was passing or in the common areas. i.e. the pool, bbq pit or playground where people were outside smoking.
Maybe you lived in a shitty aparment.
Good idea. Just make people smoke a couple less cigs a day.
Does this law provide an exception if all residents of attached units unanimously agree that smoking up the place is okay?
Sure, :rolleyes:as long as the guests of tenants and future tenants and people who work in or service the apartments also agree.
I think that was sarcasm, but I’m not sure? Regardless, it wasn’t helpful.
Isn’t that more or less why we have smoking rooms in hotels? I can’t see the actual downside behind a designated smoking apartment building–similarly to hotels, the exposure to unaffiliated workers to secondhand smoke is or can be limited (perhaps by prohibiting smoking while maintenance personnel are present.).
Regarding guests, I cannot see banning smoking in residents for the sake of the guests of said residents. That’s over a line.
That is what I do, but the same California cities which are banning smoking in private residences are also banning it in common areas and public places.
If the smoke isn’t getting inside someone else’s private areas, that’s asinine at that point.
I mean, make no mistake, I think we don’t need any of these residence-related laws at all–I think it’s feasibly addressed under existing rules for nuisances.
I haven’t treated anyone here as if they were an idiot and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.
Which is why I asked why we can’t be more honesty about how we treat tobacco and just ban it. Current trends are headed towards tightening regulations on where someone can smoke. In a decade or two smoking might be de facto illegal because there will be so few places one will be legally allowed to smoke.
I have no idea if you are a smoker, but I think that considering someone killing themselves (and endangering others0 with an expensive habit pretty well defines “being an idiot”.
Mind you, if you are trying to quit, I respect that. Nicotine is a nasty monkey.
But I have no respect for those in denial.
I don’t smoke. It’s just that “we don’t allow people to keep nuclear materials in their homes” is an asinine argument.
Why? You just said someone who smokes is an idiot. What difference would it make whether or not I was trying to quit? No, forget it, it doesn’t matter. The truth is that it’s easy to attack smokers. So why not pass more laws restricting their habit?
You have no respect for smokers, period. You just said they were idiots.
Good god. I can’t stand smoke, support bans on smoking in restaurants, but this is ridiculous.
That said, my friend lived in an apartment where the people smoked so much it got into his place. I don’t think he would object to the ban.
Well, we could ban smoking everywhere while also making all sales and possession of tobacco illegal, but I’m not sure why that would make you happier.
Uhhh…because it is addictive and poisonous?
So what?
So banning something that is both addictive and poisonous is a good thing.
Isn’t it?
Is it? Banning marijuana doesn’t seem to have been a good thing, on balance. Banning alcohol didn’t work out very well either.