• 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

opendebate

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
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?
 
Last edited:
opendebate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Every home will need regular searching to be sure the law is being followed. Maybe they can force everyone to install smoke alarms like they have on airplane toilets.

A true boon for law enforcement.

I wonder if they will grandfather the properties that are privately owned? I live in a townhouse and share walls (but not ducting) with the units immediately adjacent. Would I have to move or quit smoking in my own home? Seems a bit draconian but within another decade, I expect full scale nannyism will be the norm in America.
 
That's an interesting approach. As a non-smoker, I would hate it if I smelled smoke from a neighbor's apartment. On the other hand, while I could see this being enforceable if a unit is rented (the lease could specify no smoking) I'm not sure it would hold up in the case where someone owned their condo or duplex portion.

I also don't know how big a problem it is - how much the smoke goes to other units.

Interesting.
 
opendebate said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to know the science of how much second-hand smoking seeping in from the apartment next door actually happens. Incidentally, I work in San Rafael and occasionally smoke.
 
aberrant85 said:
I'd be curious to know the science of how much second-hand smoking seeping in from the apartment next door actually happens. Incidentally, I work in San Rafael and occasionally smoke.
Click to expand...

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.
 
opendebate, don't know if it's a larger agenda or if they are just going further than they should on anti-smoking laws.

But as aberrant points out - we need to know what science is behind this to know if it makes sense or not.

It seems over the top; but maybe they have a lot of leaky-air-buildings in San Rafael
 
aberrant85 said:
I'd be curious to know the science of how much second-hand smoking seeping in from the apartment next door actually happens. Incidentally, I work in San Rafael and occasionally smoke.
Click to expand...

I would be curious about this as well, although generally speaking I feel your right to increase my risk of lung cancer is very close to zero.
 
opendebate said:
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?
Click to expand...



They have no right to ban you from using a legal product in your own home.


There is simply no justification at all. None.
 
Deuce said:
I would be curious about this as well, although generally speaking I feel your right to increase my risk of lung cancer is very close to zero.
Click to expand...

No cars. No coal-burning electricity generation. No campfires upwind of me.

This law basically states that only private landowners and their guests can legally smoke in the city. How can that possibly hold constitutional muster -- issues of the inordinate stupidity and irrational fear at the heart of the law aside?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
No cars. No coal-burning electricity generation. No campfires upwind of me.

This law basically states that only private landowners and their guests can legally smoke in the city. How can that possibly hold constitutional muster -- issues of the inordinate stupidity and irrational fear at the heart of the law aside?
Click to expand...



Be damn hard to enforce too.




Every needless, unenforceable law weakens respect for the ones that are necessary.
 
Goshin said:
They have no right to ban you from using a legal product in your own home.


There is simply no justification at all. None.
Click to expand...

They can if that product's cancer-causing byproduct ends up in my apartment.

It's an interesting issue...what is the ventilation system requirement that does not allow any transfer of air between dwellings? Strong aromas, such as garlic, often filter into adjacent apts....would that type of ventilation also allow carcinogens?
 
Lursa said:
They can if that product's cancer-causing byproduct ends up in my apartment.

It's an interesting issue...what is the ventilation system requirement that does not allow any transfer of air between dwellings? Strong aromas, such as garlic, often filter into adjacent apts....would that type of ventilation also allow carcinogens?
Click to expand...

You're subjected to a constant bombardment of potentially harmful material from the moment you're born. Life comes with risk -- minute amounts of carcinogenic smoke creeping into my apartment from my neighbor's cigar seems like a relatively small one. No need to involve the police.
 
I hate the smell of deep-fat fryers. Given that there is no evidence that merely the scent of tobacco smoke constitutes any sort of health risk, may we not get the conscientious city authorities to ban deep-fat frying in the home as well? Oh, and barbecues. That s**t should be banned too.
 
Lursa said:
They can if that product's cancer-causing byproduct ends up in my apartment.

It's an interesting issue...what is the ventilation system requirement that does not allow any transfer of air between dwellings? Strong aromas, such as garlic, often filter into adjacent apts....would that type of ventilation also allow carcinogens?
Click to expand...

If you drive a car you are doing the very same thing as a smoker, as cars emit carcinogens. If you fry foods or cook foods at very high temperatures or use gas to cook, you emit carcinogens. If the wind blows across a roadway or landscape of some kind it entrains silicon and carbon and other carcinogens in the air. If the amount of carcinogens emitted cannot be detected or discerned above background carcinogens how are you being harmed? Otherwise everyone everywhere emits harmful carcinogens from their own persons, therefore I could say technically YOU wherever you are, is harming me.
 
Last edited:
GhostlyJoe said:
You're subjected to a constant bombardment of potentially harmful material from the moment you're born. Life comes with risk -- minute amounts of carcinogenic smoke creeping into my apartment from my neighbor's cigar seems like a relatively small one. No need to involve the police.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion on what you choose to find acceptable. With that line of thinking, we should just not inform people of radium in their homes, or try to reduce pollution, or subject people to noxious fumes anytime. This is about one individual infringing on another individual...not the entire environment.

Sorry, that 'theory' doesnt fly but it's fine for YOU if you wish to accept it.
 
PirateMk1 said:
If you drive a car you are doing the very same thing as a smoker, as cars emit carcinogens. If you fry foods or cook foods at very high temperatures or use gas to cook, you emit carcinogens. If the wind blows across a roadway or landscape of some kind it entrains silicon and carbon and other carcinogens in the air. If the amount of carcinogens emitted cannot be detected or discerned above background carcinogens how are you being harmed? Otherwise everyone everywhere emits harmful carcinogens from their own persons, therefore I could say technically YOU wherever you are, is harming me.
Click to expand...

Most of those things YOU CHOOSE to do, they are not imposed on you by someone else. You have control over them. RE: the environmental carcinogens....what kind of data do you have on the harm they are doing to individuals? Do they have the impact of second-hand smoke? Is that impact been documented and recognized? (If they cant be detected....?????)

So for second hand smoke...IF the smoke itself reaches adjacent apts....that is documented as harmful unless there is some type of filtration in place.
 
Lursa said:
That is your opinion on what you choose to find acceptable. With that line of thinking, we should just not inform people of radium in their homes, or try to reduce pollution, or subject people to noxious fumes anytime. This is about one individual infringing on another individual...not the entire environment.

Sorry, that 'theory' doesnt fly but it's fine for YOU if you wish to accept it.
Click to expand...

At the very least, demonstrate harm before you restrict others' activities in their homes. Show that your neighbors' cigarette smoke is a viable medical threat. And the fact is, we do subject ourselves and others to noxious fumes every day we drive to work, do our laundry, turn on and off the bedroom light, etc.

We accept many environmental risks because we recognize the utility of things like cars and microwaves. Tobacco has no utility to non-smokers, so they seem to believe that justifies demonizing and marginalizing smokers.

I speak as a former smoker -- it took me multiple attempts over several years to finally quit. Cigarettes had (and still have, to some degree) a powerful cultural allure, and they're highly addictive. Quitting is a painful experience. Have some empathy for those still grappling with it, or at the least, prove they're harming you before you push the law into their private spaces.
 
Lursa said:
Most of those things YOU CHOOSE to do, they are not imposed on you by someone else. You have control over them. RE: the environmental carcinogens....what kind of data do you have on the harm they are doing to individuals? Do they have the impact of second-hand smoke? Is that impact been documented and recognized? (If they cant be detected....?????)

So for second hand smoke...IF the smoke itself reaches adjacent apts....that is documented as harmful unless there is some type of filtration in place.
Click to expand...

I talking about YOU choosing to do them and therefor inflict harm on ME. Its a known fact every one of the examples I gave, do emit known carcinogens in a measurable amount at the source. Take your pick automobile exhaust, frying foods, cooking gas, ect. There are any number of studies. Why do you think people in California have to smog their cars? Because they just emit water?

On those studies of second hand smoke do they ever mention how concentrated the smoke must be before harm occurs? The devil is always in the details.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
At the very least, demonstrate harm before you restrict others' activities in their homes. Show that your neighbors' cigarette smoke is a viable medical threat. And the fact is, we do subject ourselves and others to noxious fumes every day we drive to work, do our laundry, turn on and off the bedroom light, etc.

We accept many environmental risks because we recognize the utility of things like cars and microwaves. Tobacco has no utility to non-smokers, so they seem to believe that justifies demonizing and marginalizing smokers.

I speak as a former smoker -- it took me multiple attempts over several years to finally quit. Cigarettes had (and still have, to some degree) a powerful cultural allure, and they're highly addictive. Quitting is a painful experience. Have some empathy for those still grappling with it, or at the least, prove they're harming you before you push the law into their private spaces.
Click to expand...


The harm in second hand smoke has been proven. So IMO you should not have the right to impose it on others. Personally even if not harmful, it gets in people's clothes and furniture and carpet, etc so to me, that is morally wrong too.

And if you dont wish to accept the environmental risks of smog or microwaves, you dont have to. If smog really bothers you, dont sit in traffic. If you are really concerned for your health...and some people are...then move. And they do.

But this is a very controllable issue we're talking about. If you choose to share walls/apts, etc then there are many concessions you have to make, legally, socially, things in your lease, etc.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I talking about YOU choosing to do them and therefor inflict harm on ME. Its a known fact every one of the examples I gave, do emit known carcinogens in a measurable amount at the source. Take your pick automobile exhaust, frying foods, cooking gas, ect. There are any number of studies. Why do you think people in California have to smog their cars? Because they just emit water?

On those studies of second hand smoke do they ever mention how concentrated the smoke must be before harm occurs? The devil is always in the details.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Just more out of control government regulation.
 
Lursa said:
But this is a very controllable issue we're talking about. If you choose to share walls/apts, etc then there are many concessions you have to make, legally, socially, things in your lease, etc.
Click to expand...

With rentals, I agree. It's harder to enforce concessions when you own it - like half a duplex or a condo. That's where San Rafael may have a hard time enforcing this ordinance ...
 
Lursa said:
They can if that product's cancer-causing byproduct ends up in my apartment.

It's an interesting issue...what is the ventilation system requirement that does not allow any transfer of air between dwellings? Strong aromas, such as garlic, often filter into adjacent apts....would that type of ventilation also allow carcinogens?
Click to expand...

A wall stops the smoke rather effectively, get over it.
 
Lursa said:
Most of those things YOU CHOOSE to do, they are not imposed on you by someone else. You have control over them. RE: the environmental carcinogens....what kind of data do you have on the harm they are doing to individuals? Do they have the impact of second-hand smoke? Is that impact been documented and recognized? (If they cant be detected....?????)

So for second hand smoke...IF the smoke itself reaches adjacent apts....that is documented as harmful unless there is some type of filtration in place.
Click to expand...

Either get used to it, put in your own filtration system, move or have some "dirty deeds done dirt cheap!" :lol:
 
Lursa said:
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?
Click to expand...

You want your baby in apt with any tailpipe emissions that seeped in from outside?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom