• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

San Rafael Smoking Ban, Strictest In The Nation, Goes Into Effect

If you can prove that frying food fumes or cooking gas getting into your apt from mine are harmful than IMO it is no different from 2nd hand smoke. And no apt should allow exhaust fumes to get into attached apts...that is deadly and I assume property owners mitigate it with exhaust fans, etc since people arent dropping dead daily from CO poisoning.

But 2nd hand smoke is proven to be a killer, as measured over time and exposure. I dont know about ppm. Do you want your baby in an apt with ANY 2nd hand smoke?

Who proved secondhand smoke is a killer. How and in what concentrations over how much time? Water can kill you if you drink too much and that's what you are mostly made of. Its takes breathing cigarette smoke directly decades to kill you. And that's getting the full dose every time. Secondhand smoke is a bull**** scam. You breathe in more silicon from the ground you walk on than you do any kind of secondhand smoke.
 
Either get used to it, put in your own filtration system, move or have some "dirty deeds done dirt cheap!" :lol:

AC/DC my favorite band.:rock
 
A wall stops the smoke rather effectively, get over it.

I thought this was about 2nd hand smoke being able to get into adjacent apts?

If not, if there is no exchange....what is the issue? I thought this ^^^ was the basis for the issue?
 
Either get used to it, put in your own filtration system, move or have some "dirty deeds done dirt cheap!" :lol:

I thought this was about 2nd hand smoke being able to get into adjacent apts?

If not, if there is no exchange....what is the issue? I thought this ^^^ was the basis for the issue?

...............................
 
Who proved secondhand smoke is a killer. How and in what concentrations over how much time? Water can kill you if you drink too much and that's what you are mostly made of. Its takes breathing cigarette smoke directly decades to kill you. And that's getting the full dose every time. Secondhand smoke is a bull**** scam. You breathe in more silicon from the ground you walk on than you do any kind of secondhand smoke.

LOL

You are disputing that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer?

Good luck with that. The studies have been out and received medical community acceptance for years. That is not even being disputed in the OP.
 
Goes way too far. If challenged, I doubt it would pass constitutional muster.

I said 20 years ago that if people didn't stand up to invasive laws that infringe on their rights to make their own lifestyle choices and vendetta against smokers (I quit smoking 12 years ago), they'd eventually find laws expanded into what they could and could not legally eat (yay, it's already happened!!), and what perfectly legal (as of then) foods/activities they could and could not have in their own homes.

We've got self-important legislators from city councils up to congress making laws about whether allowing kids to eat at McDonalds or indulge in chips, sweets, etc., is child abuse, how big a soda is allowable to be sold/consumed, what kind of fat is allowed to be used, etc. People just keep grumbling and accepting these totally unacceptable laws that govern what even adults are allowed to consume and how much is allowed.

Eventually folks who keep saying "doesn't affect me, I don't smoke, eat junk food, or drink soda" will end up wondering why they suddenly are not allowed to have a juicy steak, margarine/butter on their baked potato, discover all cooking oils have been banned, salt is rationed (for your own good), special permits required to purchase anything with more than 15 grams of sugar, etc.

Go ahead and laugh. I'm used to it. I was right 20 years ago, and I'm right now. :)
 
LOL

You are disputing that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer?

Good luck with that. The studies have been out and received medical community acceptance for years. That is not even being disputed in the OP.

Please cite the specific studies of which you speak

Thom Paine
 
I don't smoke and I hate hate hate the smell of cigarettes but I feel like this is a little over the top. Like I said, it seems as if they could have taken other steps to accommodate the stated outcome (non-smokers being protected from the dangers of 2nd hand smoke) This approach almost makes it seem as if they have a larger agenda.
Pandering to the political majority at the expense of the politically weak?
 
Please cite the specific studies of which you speak

Thom Paine

No thanks. It's so mainstream now I cant be bothered. It's like asking me to provide links that smoking causes cancer.

Are you disputing that 2nd hand smoke has been found to cause cancer?
 
LOL

You are disputing that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer?

Good luck with that. The studies have been out and received medical community acceptance for years. That is not even being disputed in the OP.


For years, I've asked for cited studies and no one has produced even one such study.... poppycock

Thom Paine
 
No thanks. It's so mainstream now I cant be bothered. It's like asking me to provide links that smoking causes cancer.

Are you disputing that 2nd hand smoke has been found to cause cancer?

I just wish to see these supposed studies that no one can produce.

Thom Paine
 
No thanks. It's so mainstream now I cant be bothered. It's like asking me to provide links that smoking causes cancer.

Are you disputing that 2nd hand smoke has been found to cause cancer?

This response suggests, once again, that such studies cannot be produced.

Good eve to you Lursa

Thom Paine
 
So this is interesting.

"Last week, the San Francisco suburb made active a smoking ban that officials say is the strictest in the country, prohibiting smoking cigarettes in your own home.

The ordinance specifically bans smoking in dwellings that share a wall with another unit, including apartments, duplexes and condominiums. The hope is to eliminate second-hand smoke from creeping through doors and windows, ventilation systems, floorboards and other susceptible openings. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report, secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, including 430 infants.

The San Rafael City Council unanimously approved the ban last year."


This seems pretty extreme to me but at the same time I can understand the rationale. It seems to me that while someone has every right to smoke if they chose and expose THEMSELVES to the health risks associated with it they do not have the right to make that choice for me.

I do wonder thought if they could have accomplished protections from second hand smoke in a less invasive way.

What are you thoughts?

I think it will go largely unenforced except in extreme circumstances. One would have to be able to prove that the person is smoking inside and that could probably only be accomplished with video evidence or some kind of smoke related damage to the other part of the structure. People aren't really that concerned with ratting each other out for something so trivial unless it really does effect them negatively.

I wouldn't start calling 911 for this unless you want to piss off the police.
 

So far, I see only reports and not the studies and determination basis... I will spend more time during the next couple of days.
congrats... you at least came up with something worth spending some time to verify. Maybe we can continue another time.

G'd eve Ma'am

Thom Paine
 
I thought this was about 2nd hand smoke being able to get into adjacent apts?

If not, if there is no exchange....what is the issue? I thought this ^^^ was the basis for the issue?

It is about just being able to get a whiff of the smell of smoke not second hand smoke.
 
I thought California was so liberal or is it liberal as long as you go along?
 
Why anyone at all still lives in California is beyond me.
 
Did you ever try a google search?

Nope .. it's not my argument to prove...
but refer to post #41 above. I will be reading the evidence as presented over the next couple of days as time permits.

Have a great day Paddy

Thom Paine
 
I thought California was so liberal or is it liberal as long as you go along?

I think CA was the first state in the country where an entire town banned smoking in public. It was 'Walnut Grove' or something like that.
 
I thought California was so liberal or is it liberal as long as you go along?

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

As someone who has lived most of their life in California, I can personally attest that California is the least tolerant "tolerant" place there is. For all the preaching people spew forth regarding tolerance, they're only tolerant of those who fall in line with them.
 
So this is interesting.

"Last week, the San Francisco suburb made active a smoking ban that officials say is the strictest in the country, prohibiting smoking cigarettes in your own home.

The ordinance specifically bans smoking in dwellings that share a wall with another unit, including apartments, duplexes and condominiums. The hope is to eliminate second-hand smoke from creeping through doors and windows, ventilation systems, floorboards and other susceptible openings. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report, secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, including 430 infants.

The San Rafael City Council unanimously approved the ban last year."


This seems pretty extreme to me but at the same time I can understand the rationale. It seems to me that while someone has every right to smoke if they chose and expose THEMSELVES to the health risks associated with it they do not have the right to make that choice for me.

I do wonder thought if they could have accomplished protections from second hand smoke in a less invasive way.

What are you thoughts?

Government loves being in your home telling you what to do.
 
Last edited:
Government loves being in your home telling you what to do.

I don't really think government is the boogeyman. I think it's a mix of different people with different motivations and different intentions like anything else. I do however think that if anything can bring out the worst in someone, it's a little power, so anyone who has any is worth keeping an eye on.
 
Back
Top Bottom