It's Official -- Belmont Bans Smoking In Some Homes - News Story - KNTV | San Francisco

No smoking in your house.

They're thinking of banning drinking and talking in bars too.
And it was mentioned further down, that music is being banned.

The solution? Let's all go get stoned in the library.

-Dave

And then we can all get viewing screens in our houses so Big Brother can watch us at all times. Freedom was cool while it lasted.

Hetep and Respect, Your home is King Bush's Castle, and now it it also everyone else's castle too.

Once you get a Patriot Act, anything is possible. I hope someone sues the draws of this town.

What does bush have to do with this law, or the Patriot Act? This is the opposite of what Bush would do, think about it...

I do support this law though because of the health concerns. I am probably biased since I am allergic and extremely sensitive to smoke. But believe me if the person below you in an apartment is smoking you will be greatly affected by it. I learned that lesson the hard way.

The reason it is not completely banned is because it generates revenue from taxes, a lot of it. I think it would be fine if it was banned in public places, and parts where people aren't affecting anyone else.

Hetep and Respect, Your home is King Bush's Castle, and now it it also everyone else's castle too.

It's a liberal majority there to the max.
Bush is no way running California.

Hetep and Respect adaykin-180538, I understand your concern see my solution in post #13

I do support this law though because of the health concerns. I am probably biased since I am allergic and extremely sensitive to smoke. But believe me if the person below you in an apartment is smoking you will be greatly affected by it. I learned that lesson the hard way.

I would add to my proposed solution, universal health care, so the person who was mislead into cigarette addiction by corporate anti-humanist, in collaboration with government, could get cured for free, saving his life and yours.

Hetep and Respect FestiveWarrior, what you have said about majority liberals in California true. However, Bush and his crime family have planted rabid anti-humanist in every corner of America from the disgraced Supreme court down.

It's a liberal majority there to the max.
Bush is no way running California.

The person in the White House sets the tone regarding liberty for the nation. Bush has done more to restrict personal liberty in this country, then any other person in that office since the enslavement. Far to many Democrats have become addicted to the same conservative cultural crack that the rabid Republicans are infected with.

It is remarkable no one has passed a law to torture cigarette smokers (not Bush's friends who make the poison cigarettes naturally).

adaykin

P.S. I just remembered there is some new small technology out, that minimizes the effect of any cigarette smoke that might make it into your home. Let me know if you want a link.

You really do get smarter on NV. You just gave me a whole new perspective on something I am working on. In every cloud is a silver lining, for those who's nature it is to look for such things.

It is past my bed time, night.

Alright damnit, Who woke up the aunk?!? Come on now, admit it!

Oh yeah, almost forgot

Hepet and ressspect

Too many voters still smoke?

We're right to be concerned about this, but the other 'bigger' concern is not only what government is willing to take away from us, but if they can regulate smoking in the home (I didn't read the article yet, so I don't know the details) then that pretty much opens the door for regulating anything.

Except sodomy of course. That's a Constitutional Right, unlike smoking...

Doesn't make it any more right. And the constant encroachment of smoking bans, doesn't make single-family, detached homes any safer from the being the next target.

Are you against all public health regulations? That is all this is.

This is more than a simple public health regulation. It's an illegitimate invasion into the right of privacy citizens enjoy in their own homes.

Like it or not, renters have to deal with restrictions of all sorts.

And yes it is a health regulation....when apartments share air vents, a neighbor's smoking can affect my health. The neighbor cannot assault me, nor can he impede on my breathing. '

Not health related, but do you also think that noise ordinances are wrong? Should i have the right to play my music full blast at 1 AM? If not, then tell me how that is different from smoke wafting into my apartment, please.

That's a pretty broad brush you're using on me there.

Regardless, this is much more than public health regulation. This is government telling you what you cannot do something legal in your own home. There are certainly ramifications there beyond public health regulation.

This is also one group of people subjugating some people's rights, for their own.

So you want to repeal noise ordinances because they restrict what people can do in their own homes?

Please explain the difference...smoke wafts into an apartment just as music does and can make life much more dangerous and unhealthy than loud music can for the neighbors. There are restrictions on what you can and cannot do already.

Smoke "wafting" into your apartment? First, I really, really doubt it. I'd love to see some proof. I've lived in a plethora of apartments, and none of them shared ventilation. I'm not even sure it would be up to commercial code for that to happen. But let's assume that it is.

The proper legal recourse would be to change the code so that apartment renters have separate ventilation units, not a blanket proscription from engaging in legal behavior that is occurring within the confines of a person's home.

Additionally, the law will be enforced only through complaints, which opens up possibility for harassment, and arbitrary enforcement. It's basically a bad idea all around.

Most apartments I know of share ventilation pipes--just as I can smell the neighbor's curry they are cooking, the cigarette smoke comes through heating ducts, etc.

And how is this law different than noise ordinances? That limits my rights in my home...if I work nights and want to listen to Manilow at 4AM, I am not allowed to do so, nor can I vacuum. I've asked this question several places and no one can tell me the difference, save that there is no illness caused by secondhand Manilow listening.

there is no illness caused by secondhand Manilow listening

I beg to differ. Thankfully, however, catching wind of Barry secondhand is much safer than purposely partaking! ;)

Ha!

My basic point is that people are upset over their rights in their home being violated with this law, yet there are already laws that restrict what you can/not do in your own home, like playing loud music at 3AM, serving alcohol to minors...where were these people when those laws were enacted?

I understand your point JonesGirl. Personally, I think the vast majority of these laws are too infringing. I would, however, be willing to get behind any movement to ban Manilow... solely in the interest of protecting everyone's basic human rights, ya know? ;)

See, now that is consistent (the first part, not the Manilow part). I tend to see it as we are living in a society and with that comes some niceties, some which need to be put in the law for people to follow. Theoretically I could face legal consequences for allowing an 18 year old family member a glass of champagne at a family celebration, which seems to be a huge step on my rights.

The loud music comparison is pretty much a red herring. You could sit here all day pointing out how other laws subject your rights, but that's hardly the point. What we have in front of us is a new restriction upon your rights to partake in a legal activity. Past examples fail to make future ones excusable.

Regardless, since you really want someone to comment on it, I'll try to play devil's advocate.

I think the biggest flaw I have with the comparison is that you're not being kept from playing loud music during what is considered normal living hours. Would your neighbor get peeved if you were blasting music at 1PM as well, sure, but I don't think you'd as easily get a disturbing the peace ticket for it at that time. So you're at least well within your right to play your music in your home a majority of the time. It only becomes an issue is when society has pretty well equally deemed the night time to be for resting. I know in my neighborhood most noise ordinances don't come into effect until 8PM. Am I technically losing rights? Sure. Is it a largely agreed upon ordinance that people mostly don't mind following in the interest of decency? Yes.

So I don't really think they're fair comparisons. This is an outright banning of the government of an activity that is still legal, but becoming increasing difficult to actually do legally. Society hasn't agreed on a large enough scale that smoking should be banned, if so we would just make cigarettes illegal. Instead, we have a group of people using the law to subject others to their wishes. I can understand why you don't want to breathe in smoke, I don't either, but I don't think I should use the law to take away the rights of others, for my own instead.

JonesGirl

You've made a reasonable case, but I'd like to put in here that the ventilation ducts you are talking about are antiquated. Every new build that I've taken part in or observed has two (or three) very distinct air ducts an intake (sometimes two if heating and AC are on different lines and there is a central AC source) and an exhaust. On modern buildings you cannot smell what your neighbor is cooking if both doors are shut or there is a malfunction in the exhaust. The point in me saying this is that the smoking ban applies to ALL multi-story, multi-unit residencies, not just ones that are antiques or are not functioning properly.

There really shouldn't be a need of this law since a responsible land lord would change policies and impose fees enough to stop the practice if tenants complained of smoke smell.

However, I suspect that the reason houses and condos weren't addressed in the ban was that those people would actually be ready, willing and able (ie, wealthy and influential) to stop these people from making the ordinance. Then again, I've never come across a study or even a rational argument that second hand smoke outside or in well ventalated areas is any type of a health threat at all.

Jones - what's wrong with apartment building owners deciding if their buildings are smoke free or not? You can make that inquiry before you sign the lease and make your decision based on it. If other renters share your concerns, then it would only be natural that some owners will offer the alternative.

But here's why your 'music' analogy doesn't work, at least not the way you are representing it:

You can't blast music in your own 'single-family detached dwelling' either - you don't have a right to annoy your home-owning neighbors anymore than your renting neighbors across the hall. So it's not unique to apartment buildings.

So if we were to subscribe to your logic, then we should also support smoking bans in individual homes or acknowledge that noise and smoke are not the same thing.

JonesGirl - you are saying on the one hand that this is a public health regulation, and on the other hand that it is a public nuisance regulation. Which is it? I know of zero studies on the health effects on you of your neighbor smoking in their apartment/condo.

Then again, I've never come across a study or even a rational argument that second hand smoke outside or in well ventalated areas is any type of a health threat at all.

Exactly. This is the primary point. It always irks me to hear nonsmokers whine about their "health" regarding heavily diluted secondhand smoke, because there's no scientific evidence at all that it is a health problem. If you don't like the smell, then move to a place with a better ventilation system or complain to your apartment management. Don't try to make something illegal just because it annoys you. Christians frequently annoy me but I'm not trying to make them illegal.

This discussion reminds me of Bill Hicks....

Um, one small flaw in your comparison here TJG. If I chose to (not that I would mind you) and I listened to Barry at a volume that violated the noise control laws because it 'wafted' into your apartment I would still have the option of listening using headphones (same volume) or just by turning the volume down. How do you propose a smoker smoke 'less smokily'? Also Noise laws typically are enforced for only one portion of the day. i.e. from dusk till dawn. this smoking ban is an entirely different animal. You will have to do better if you wish to defend it.

You have on the other hand shown that there IS a market for non-smoking apartments. Let the market deal with that. We don't need a law to create it for us.

Wait, is someone comparing smoking bans to loud music? I know I've heard that somewhere before.

Oh, Yeah... The Case for a Ban of Live Music in Bars (a smoking ban analogy)

The smokers do have an option--go to somewhere where smoking is allowed.

Belmont, like much of the Bay Area, has apartments and buildings that were built decades ago, so all the comments regarding new buildings don't really apply.

And as for the noise issue being a red herring because it only applies at certain hours....first of all, it still limits what I can do with my own space, behind closed doors, just as the anti-smoking law does, and you can be cited during daylight hours for noise violations if someone complains. I see no one making a single argument that refutes my point about the noise and smoke being the same coin, so to speak, just words trying to justify how smoking is so different. It's not.

Smoking is a vile habit that affects others, like it or not. And legislation is finally catching up to them, at long last.

The smokers do have an option--go to somewhere where smoking is allowed. Hey, so do the sodomizers-- go somewhere that butt-sex is allowed. Go be gay in Massachusetts. Right? Look, I realize that you have a tepid commitment to the rights of the individual to be left alone by government, but c'mon.

Belmont, like much of the Bay Area, has apartments and buildings that were built decades ago, so all the comments regarding new buildings don't really apply. On the contrary, they DO apply. Belmont has new buildings, as well as old, and the appropriate type of legislation to pass is legislation that impacts only the actual issue, not everyone everywhere. Hence, addressing building owners and requiring updating of ventilation systems is way less restrictive and way less intrusive than a blanket ban on legal activity conducted within the sanctity of one's home. Spin it how you like, you haven't said a single compelling thing that would allow us to conclude otherwise.

And as for the noise issue being a red herring because it only applies at certain hours....first of all, it still limits what I can do with my own space, behind closed doors, just as the anti-smoking law does, and you can be cited during daylight hours for noise violations if someone complains. They're not the same animal, and you know it. Noise ordinances ask people to take reasonable precautions, but allows the activity. The smoking ordinance ignores any reasonable precautions taken, and constitutes a blanket ban. Noise ordinances have pretty clear-cut thresholds in terms of when an citation can be issued. This smoking ordinance appears to have no threshold beyond an unsubstantiated claim being necessary. No threshold level of exposure to secondhand smoke has been set as a level that impinges on the rights of others, it's simply assumed that someone who claims they can smell smoke is being "harmed."

They're not the same coin, they're not the same currency, they're not even in the same country.

If you want to go live in China, go live there; but quit trying to screw up this country, for god's sake.

They are the same--do you have any studies not paid for by tobacco companies to show that there is a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke?

Loud music won't kill, unlike smoking.

Sodomy won't hurt your neighbor.

I love watching smokers try to justify why their vice should be coddled and everyone should live around it.

There is no safe amount of aspirin either. People's freedom is more important than the agenda of anti-smoking zealots.

I doubt you could prove a whiff of cigarette smoke from the neighboring building is likely to take a minute off your life.

Show me anyone who has died of secondhand aspirin taking, please...talk about bad comparisons!

Sorry, but your freedom doesn't give you the right to infringe on my freedom of smoke-free air. Why is your freedom to quiet more important than my freedom to listen to my music at a volume I wish to at 3AM?

Are you saying that the mounds of research on the effects of secondhand smoke are incorrect?

They are the same Saying it does not make it so, Jones. I've shown clearly how they differ. You have not addressed those differences other than to ignore them.

do you have any studies not paid for by tobacco companies to show that there is a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke? Do you have any that are not paid for by the anti-smoking zealots to show that there isn't?

Hell, I'll go you one further, just show me a study that's not tremendously flawed scientifically, that doesn't already assume the conclusion going in; an actual study, mind you, not some "meta-study" attempting to cobble together disparate studies using different methodologies; that looks specifically at the effects of casual exposure to secondhand smoke; that uses the commonly accepted epidemiological guidelines for statistical significance; that concludes that there isn't an acceptable level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. I want the actual study, not somebody's opinion of what it said. I want to see the data, the methodology, how confounding variables were controlled-- all that jazz. I want to see where the level of exposure to secondhand smoke exceeds the level of statistical noise in terms of the harm it does on casual exposure. You've got that on hand, don't you, or know where you can get it?

Then, once we've established that, I want you to show me the study that suggests that apartments in Belmont (or anywhere else, for that matter) on average allow exposure that exceeds that level at which casual exposure to secondhand smoke causes actual harm. You can do that, right? I mean, if we've based this legislation on something other than personal preference and assumptions, you've got to have that data, right?

Otherwise, all your bluster is, pardon the expression, just a smokescreen for elevating your preferences above other people's rights.

Sodomy won't hurt your neighbor. Sodomy is a practice which increases the likelihood of the transmission of blood-borne pathogens such as hepatitis and HIV, which, as sexually transmitted diseases, place the entire population of sexually active persons at risk. Please show that the casual exposure to secondhand smoke through shared ventilation systems in older apartments causes more harm than sexually transmitted diseases transmitted, in whole or in part, through the practice of sodomy. If it turns out that it causes less harm, then surely you must be for the outlawing of sodomy as practiced behind closed doors.

Here are two things you could really use some information on-- dosage, and length of exposure. I suggest you do a little research on the impact of both in any suspected harm done by secondhand smoke.

I love watching smokers try to justify why their vice should be coddled and everyone should live around it. I'm not a smoker.

I love watching authoritarians dance around why their preferences should be elevated above everyone else's rights. I love watching smoking Nazis make the assumption that everyone who disagrees with them is a smoker. And I love watching people who don't understand the concept of "rights" pontificating about how their "rights" are being trampled by people that they, by and large, can't even identify.

In those respects, Jones, I love you.

So you have no studies, iarunoucon? I asked for you to show me your examples, why should I show you anything when I asked first and you seem to not be wiling to do the same? Bluster is nice, but it is just bluster you seem to have.

Sorry, but you haven't discredited a word I have said. And your example of sodomy is more than a bit flawed, you have to extrapolate it out to make it work, which negates its value. But I'm sure you realized that but just can't admit your point doesn't stand.

TJG,

To say something as extreme such as "no amount of second hand smoke is safe" means a person is in danger from a single molecule of it.

That's patently absurd. As for aspirin and drugs and general, none are risk-free. There IS a certain level of second-hand smoke that if ONE SUSTAINS OVER A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME will cause serious problems, but to get all zealous about a whiff or two emanating 25 feet away is ridiculous.

And living next to a person who smokes is a prolonged period of time.

Here's a bibliography of studies on secondhand smoke effects, b but I guess they are all paid members of the AntiSmoking League or somesuch, right?

Link

I notice no one touched the post about my mom and the effects of secondhand smoking on her--her asthma has been set off by my wearing of a sweater I had on when I was around smokers. A person's right to breath is greater than someone's right to a vice in my book.

So you have no studies, iarunoucon? I asked for you to show me your examples, why should I show you anything when I asked first and you seem to not be wiling to do the same? You're the one making the claim that secondhand smoke causes actual harm to occupants of apartments next to the apartments of smokers, TehJnoesGril. You made the claim, you pony up the data. Look at it this way, in order for me to prove that secondhand smoke doesn't harm these people, I'd have to test every last one of them. On the other hand, for you to prove your statement merely requires proving that a statistically significant portion of them are harmed, and that exposure to their neighbors secondhand smoke is the likely culprit. Ball's in your court.

Funny how science works, isn't it?

And, seriously, if you're going for "dismissive," try to be more creative than to use exactly the same term I used in response to you. It makes you seem like a copycat.

Sorry, but you haven't discredited a word I have said. Actually, I have.

your example of sodomy is more than a bit flawed, you have to extrapolate it out to make it work, which negates its value. Actually, it doesn't.

I'm sure you realized that but just can't admit your point doesn't stand. Honey, you don't seem to have anything in your arsenal but "I know you are, but what am I?" That defense sort of went out of fashion after the third grade. If you want to SHOW why you think my rebuttal is inapplicable, you're welcome to. If you want to SHOW why the similarities you claim exceed the differences I note, I welcome your efforts. But you're not going to get very far simply saying "No, it's not." That's not an argument (or a discussion), it's simple contradiction.

You're doing your own argument a disservice.

You're great at typing lots of words, iarnoucon, but not so great at analogies or making a solid point, unless you consider attacking people to be a point.

All I asked for is that you show me one study, not paid for or attributed in any way to the tobacco companies/lobby about secondhand smoke and you began to bluster and attack. It's ok if you have nothing, simply say so.

And btw:

Although some have argued that tobacco smoke cannot cause cancer below a certain level, there is no evidence that this threshold exists. In the absence of such evidence, carcinogens at any level are considered by EPA to increase risk somewhat, although the degree of risk certainly is reduced as exposure decreases. The increased risks observed in the secondhand smoke epidemiology studies are further evidence that any threshold for secondhand smoke would have to be at very low levels.

link

But that's just some wacky anti-smoking group, right? I've shown my science, your turn to show any links at all not tied to tobacco.

Here's a bibliography of studies on secondhand smoke effects, b but I guess they are all paid members of the AntiSmoking League or somesuch, right? Well... it does say right at the top, American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, "defending your right to breathe smokefree air since 1976." It'd be a bit naive to believe that they'd put anything in their bibliography that disagreed with their mission statement, wouldn't it? (BTW, it's customary to be nice enough to put a warning in place when you link to a PDF... some people have problems opening PDFs.)

What's notable about your bibliography (having already read some of the papers noted there) is that none of them study the effects of environmental tobacco smoke on people casually exposed to it (i.e. NOT living with a smoker). Now, maybe you think living NEXT to a smoker is the same thing, but I'm pretty sure the rest of the world would have a hard time agreeing. Additionally, some of those studies included have already been noted by critics as being seriously flawed, and some-- such as the study that claimed New York's smoking ban reduced the number of myocardial infarctions by nearly 4000-- simply aren't relevant, since they deal with the effects of direct smoking, not ETS.

Regarding responding to your post about your mother, I'm sure many of us don't wish to be disrespectful to your mother. But your anecdotal story about her asthma having been set off by your sweater simply isn't sufficient as proof. Anecdotes are rarely considered scientific evidence precisely because there's no possibility for assessing confounding variables. Her asthma could as likely (or perhaps more than likely) have been set off by something other than the lingering smell of tobacco smoke on your sweater. There's simply no way to know. So it's irrelevant.

A person's right to breath is greater than someone's right to a vice in my book. A "right to breath." Positing that there IS such a right, what duties does it impose on others?

As a society, how far, exactly, do you want to push for society's responsibility to mitigate personal risk? Because society cannot make you perfectly safe. And if your choices as to what to make society responsible for making you safe from are arbitrary in terms of the actual risks to which you are subjected, why shouldn't everyone else simply ignore your preferences?

You keep avoiding answering these questions, Jones. Why?

I love watching smokers try to justify why their vice should be coddled and everyone should live around it.

I'm not a smoker (anymore). I still think you should be able to smoke in your home. I'm not a pot smoker (anymore). I still think you should be able to smoke it in your home. I'm not a drinker (anymore. I still think you should be able to drink in your home. I've never done heroin, but I still think you should be able to do it in your home. It's not vices I want to protect, it's freedom.

Smoking is not a vice anyway, it is a fullblown physical addiction. It's really hard for people to stay off it. Studies rank its addictiveness up there with heroin. Addicts should be treated with compassion - regardless of substance - they don't need your contempt as they have enough problems of their own.

You've ignored my repeated requests to back yourself up, Iaruonocon, so why should anyone take your words seriously? I gave you two links, you've presented exactly nothing except for your opinions. I can understand why you'd be a little upset, since you seem to have nothing, nothing to add.

I would posit that a right to breath is the same as the right to life...imposing on another's right to live is a crime, yet you are comfortable with allowing smokers to do just that.

Why is the vice of smokers, which can and does affect others deserving of coddling? Why should everyone have to make excuses for smokers and give them a wide berth? You avoid those questions.

And my mom's example isn't irrelevant--it is a real life example of what secondhand, heck, thirdhand smoke can do to a person's health, but you of course brush it aside as it doesn't fit your agenda. By the way, she's in her mid-50s, ahd healthy in all other regards. Why should she have to live her life around another's vice that causes her harm?

Smokers with their secondhand smoke are like a slow-motion version of drunk drivers, whom I am sure, to be consistent, you will also see no issue in allowing.

Bottom line, you seem to like to see yourself type lots of words but can't back yourself up. Oh, well..and I once thought you were a rational Viner. My bad!

Your freedom to your vice/addiction ends where it starts to affect others, IMO. People make a choice to smoke or to do any drug and have zero right to do them when it affects others.

I have some compassion for those with addictions, but in many cases, they seem to use that as an excuse to justify their use of the substance and make little effort to break their addictions. How many people keep on smoking because of their fears that quitting will make them fat? That is an excuse, not an illness in my book.

BTW, Brian--do you have the same compassion for say, sex addicts? Or those addicted to eating? Or gambling or shopping?

Should someone addicted to the thrill of stealing not be punished and treated with compassion instead? Where do you draw the line?

I think that even sex addicts should be allowed to have sex in their own homes. Don't you? Second hand sex does NOT kill.

You're great at typing lots of words, iarnoucon, but not so great at analogies or making a solid point And you're great at avoiding questions, Jones, but not at answering them. You want me to boil it down for you? Use words with small numbers of syllables? Ok:

Noise and smoke aren't the same thing, and this ordinance does not treat them in the same way, despite your claims, for precisely the reasons I outlined.

You seem to be concerned about the risks of secondhand smoke, but unconcerned about the risks of sexually transmitted disease propagated through unprotected sex. Can you show that the risks to society of the former outweigh the risks to society of the latter, and if not, why would you focus on smoke and not sex?

Where's your proof that secondhand smoke from a neighbor's apartment represents a credible health risk to otherwise healthy individuals? This is what you're basing your argument upon. Pony up.

All I asked for is that you show me one study, not paid for or attributed in any way to the tobacco companies/lobby about secondhand smoke and you began to bluster and attack. Bluster and attack? So far you've made assumptions about the people who are arguing against your position (such as that they're smokers) based on nothing but your attitude, cursed @#$! smokers, told sad stories about your mom, etcetera, but haven't backed up your position other than to name-call. Get this straight:

I'm not the one making a claim that secondhand smoke from the next apartment over represents a risk to my health. You are.

That said, provide the proof, or kindly shut up.

It's neither my obligation nor my responsibility to provide a study for you showing the effects of secondhand smoke on smokers' neighbors. You're the one making the claim in that regard. It's your obligation. It's your responsibility. "I asked you first," while perhaps how you dealt with arguments with your siblings, carries no weight, here. You made the claim. Back it up.

And not with the EPA study. Paraphrasing a much earlier post in a different story on ETS, I have questions about the EPA study, and so should you (if you were remotely honest) because the EPA announced its conclusions prior to completing the study; after carefully selecting 30 studies on which to base its meta study, the EPA later chose to discard 2/3 of them for showing no statistically significant effect of ETS; the EPA reduced the confidence level of the study in order to reach its conclusion from the 95% that is universally accepted in epidemiological studies to a less stringent 90% used nowhere but in this study; and that even after all the shenanigans only found a lifetime increase on constant exposure (i.e. living with a smoker) of about 1.19-- epidemiological studies of everything but environmental tobacco smoke typically write off increases of less than 2.0. That's the science, Jones, that undercuts your "science" from the EPA.

The EPA concludes that secondhand smoke for people living with smokers represents a 19% increase in the lifetime risk of cancer, after cooking the books. And in an unrelated study concludes that the lifetime relative risk of cancer as a result of consuming chlorinated tap water (existing in every major metropolitan area an in most rural areas, as well) equalled 50%. Which represents the bigger danger? But which one are you crying about?

You want me to provide you with the science, but I'm just sick enough of this anti-smoking bull@!$%# to not want to have to go through it all over again. If you're interested, you can read my comments on the subject, and the data I've already provided, in this story or this story. Bottom line is that you want to trot out studies that don't support what you say they support, and which, even if they DID support the conclusions you reach, still wouldn't address the question as to whether ETS has any effect whatsoever on a smoker's neighbors.

So while your juvenile responses aren't entertaining, they have the added bonus of also not being informative.

Again: where is your evidence that ETS presents a risk, at current exposure levels, to individuals who live near, but not with, smokers?

It's a simple question, Jones. Provide a simple answer.

Should they be allowed to use their addiction as an excuse to raping someone or having sex with a consensual partner in public?

I apologize that I haven't the time to read all the responses in this article at the moment, so I may be speaking in some haste here, but I wanted to touch one two comments that stuck out to me as I quickly skimmed this thread;

Sorry, but your freedom doesn't give you the right to infringe on my freedom of smoke-free air.

At the root, this is what bothers me with laws like these, evaluating whose freedoms are more important. Your freedom to breathe smoke-free air is worthy of respect because it is your freedom, nothing more. Someone else's freedom to smoke is worthy of respect because it is their freedom, nothing more. However only one side is actively removing someone else's freedom to partake in a legal activity through laws. Many rights and freedoms inherently infringe on someone else's rights and freedoms. Outlawing one isn't a practical solution in a free society.

A person's right to breath is greater than someone's right to a vice in my book.

Again, you're determining whose freedoms are more important, but if we're all equal, everyones freedoms are to be respected. If we continue down these roads, where do we stop. I mean why not ban the eating of peanuts and peanut products? Certainly someones right to life is more important than someones right to eat peanuts?

I love watching smokers try to justify why their vice should be coddled and everyone should live around it.

For the record, I'm not a smoker either, and I have certain businesses I will not go to because they are far to smoke filled for me, I can certainly understand the appeal of smoke free establishments. However, I'm not about to push for the law to control that for me.

I thought I remembered hearing that some school districts do not allow peanut butter or nut products on campus--it isn't a law, but it is a regulation that puts one child's health over another's eating.

Bottom line for me is that I think when you start to affect another's health, you are the one in the wrong.

it isn't a law, but it is a regulation that puts one child's health over another's eating.

Your right, a regulation voluntarily put forth by that particular school or school district. Now why can't rental property owners use that same discretion, avoiding the need to legislate?

I have to admit, I'm surprised to see you try to legitimize what I believed to be a pretty absurd example.

Regardless, there is quite a difference between the government making a law about such things, and an establishment making its own regulations. If an apartment complex in Belmont had decided to make its apartments smoke free, you wouldn't have seen me in this thread.

And I am equally amazed at the belittling of my example of noise restriction laws, which is the same as banning smoking, except that no one has health issues from a neighbor's loud stereo.

Actually many folks due have health issues from loud music. A friend of mine has seizures that are set off by the thumping bass cars.

And I am equally amazed at the belittling of my example of noise restriction laws, which is the same as banning smoking, except that no one has health issues from a neighbor's loud stereo.

How did this come back up? I tried to reply to your example and why I didn't find it having a place in this discussion. I haven't belittled you or been disrespectful, but you're choosing to not address my points. You don't seem to be gathering that my point is the government shouldn't be involved in these types of things, where its noise or smoking. I tried to rationalize the noise ordinances, and I've stated I can understand the appeal of non-smoking environments, but those aren't the true points I've been repeating, so if you want to stammer your feet, so be it.

And I simply think that when it comes to things that have a terrible affect on someone's health, the government has every right to be involved. I have no problem with laws such as seatbelt laws or helmet laws that tell me what to do in a private car and have no issue with laws that make smoking illegal in residences that share walls and ductwork or in parks.

Don't like it? Don't live in Belmont or if you do, live in a standalone building. There are options, if you simply must smoke at home.

And I simply think that when it comes to things that have a terrible affect on someone's health, the government has every right to be involved

Thats where your wrong turn is I think. Everything has a terrible affect on someone's health. So ban everything?

We're dying from the moment we're born. Therefore, the only solution is to ban birth.

Don't like it? Don't live in Belmont or if you do, live in a standalone building.

Do you understand how this statement could be applied both ways? What if a smoker was saying this to you instead?

You're repeatedly, actively putting your preferences and freedoms above someone else in this argument, yet it appears obvious you'd not be amendable with the deal with it attitude if the shoe was on the other foot.

Unless breathing is a vice, I'm not putting my vice over anyone else's rights.

Nowhere is the right to smoke listed as an absolute, though I'd think so if I listened to some people.

I didn't say anything about vices, I'm talking about freedoms, of which smoking is currently one. You're attempting to belittle that point with your personal opinions of smoking, which isn't conducive to the debate.

And my mom's example isn't irrelevant--it is a real life example of what secondhand, heck, thirdhand smoke can do to a person's health, but you of course brush it aside as it doesn't fit your agenda. By the way, she's in her mid-50s, ahd healthy in all other regards. Why should she have to live her life around another's vice that causes her harm?

Your mom LIVED with smokers in close proximity to their smoke. Dose always determines toxicity. Your mom would have received almost no dose from the neighbor smoking, so the toxicity would be almost not there.

BTW, Brian--do you have the same compassion for say, sex addicts? Or those addicted to eating? Or gambling or shopping?

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I hope all those people get help if their lives are being impacted by their addiction. Outlawing eating, shopping, and sex isn't on anyone's agenda yet as far as I know.

Smokers with their secondhand smoke are like a slow-motion version of drunk drivers, whom I am sure, to be consistent, you will also see no issue in allowing.

I go back and forth on that issue actually.

Bottom line, you seem to like to see yourself type lots of words but can't back yourself up. Oh, well..and I once thought you were a rational Viner. My bad!

What is it you want me to back up?

And I simply think that when it comes to things that have a terrible affect on someone's health, the government has every right to be involved

Heart disease related to diet and lack of exercise is the biggest killer in the country. Do you think government should get involved there?

No, Brian, she's talking to me, and trying to get me to play the "prove a negative" game. And since I can't prove a negative, naturally, she has no obligation to prove her positive claim-- someone smoking in the next apartment represents a true health risk to her. The logical fallacies are apparent, but she thinks this passes for compelling rhetoric.

But what it boils down to are the same two questions that I keep asking her, and the answers which she keeps finding creative reasons not to supply: What's the threshold for damage from secondhand smoke, and what's the average exposure for those living next door to a smoker?

Since I can't prove that secondhand smoke is harmless (a claim I never made), she thinks she doesn't have to prove her claim that her neighbor's smoke is killing her.

Oh, believe me, they're next.

Oh, believe me, they're next.

Yes, they are.
The ground work is already being laid.

Smoking is a vile habit that affects others, like it or not. And legislation is finally catching up to them, at long last.

And here we get down to the nitty gritty of the issue. This isn't about how smoking affects your health, this is about the fact that you despise smokers. It's worthless trying to debate with someone like you.

I just came down with tonsillitis and my throat is killing me, but I'm going to go smoke a cigarette now just out of spite, and I hope you can smell it, wherever the hell you are.

Was this a stick frame?

If the air ducts are working right you should not have this problem, sometimes people smoking pot will, out of paranoia cover up the exhaust which can cause the pressure in the room to be just enough to allow for odors to enter the intake and spread smells and push the air through the cracks, and tobacco odor always beats pot odor. I'm just sayin, if the system's balanced, this shouldn't happen, but a lot of them don't get balanced, or get imbalanced by people.

so I can say categorically that I enjoyed not smelling others smoking after I moved into a single-family house.

That is no doubt true, but should the law be used to make you happy over other people?

How about getting an air purifier or ionizer? They work wonders and it would certainly require less government invasion into our basic freedoms.

Or move.

This is reminiscent of an old beer brewery/ethanol plant in my old neighborhood that nearby people suddenly decided they couldn't tolerate the smell.

Hello!

Why should someone have to move for another's habit, Otto? How is that fair, unless you think that someone has a right to demand that you pay for his infringing on your space?

a3dmofo, why should the law make the smoker happy over other people?

Smoking is the only vice that people think should be coddled in the law, for some bizarre reason...why?

a3dmofo, why should the law make the smoker happy over other people?

It shouldn't, but that's my point. Why should the law make you happy over a smoker? It shouldn't. As I stated above, many freedoms inherently infringe upon another freedom. You shouldn't be given the freedom to decide whose is more important in a free society.

Smoking is the only vice that people think should be coddled in the law, for some bizarre reason...why?

Actually, quite the contrary, non-smokers are the ones looking to be coddled by the government in the case. Smoking is a legal activity that you happen to not like, and thus want the government to protect you from. That's not smokers looking to be coddled.

It is very much smokers looking to have their habit allowed anywhere they want to smoke. Too bad for them, we live in a society and one that is turning against their habit.

If by anywhere you mean in their own home.

If it leaves their home and gets into mine, that is a problem. I didn't create the problem, they did by their actions.

I didn't create the problem, they did by their actions.

unless they are exhaling into your window, or have a fan intentionally blowing the smoke into your home, I think you are wrong here.

If I fart in my home and you smell it in yours, should that be against the law?

Why should someone have to move for another's habit, Otto?

Why should person A dictate to person B what they can and can't do in their own home simply because person B has some anal obsession or minor annoyance with what that person is doing. I'm siding against the person who is trying to tell others to live by his or her own rules. I have neighbors who annoy me - I'm not going to support sweeping government intrusion to get them to stop annoying me.

The government does not own homes or apartments. If you have a problem with a nieghbor, you the neighbor and the property owner should all be big boys and girls and work it out amongst yourselves without getting big government involved. And yes, if the neighbor and the property owner sides against you, then you should look into moving.

It's not about moving for someone elses habit - it's about moving because the property owner can't or won't give you the kind of living conditions you demand and it's absolutely deplorable and inexcusable to think the solution is to have a fascist government initiative to get you what YOU want.

I hate to break it to you Jones, but the world doesn't exist to appease you and your sensibilities.

Let's look at dogs and cats. There are buildings that allow pets and buildings that don't. Do you think it would be better to have Big Government ban all dogs in all apartment buildings? Pets can be dirty, unhealthy, stinky, create allergies...and I can't stand them. I want Big Government to tell you and everyone else (including the property owners) that my desires trump everyone else's.

It's so despicable.

Pets can be dirty, unhealthy, stinky, create allergies...and I can't stand them.

Plus my dog smokes cigars ;)

it should be illegal to burn your dinner. I burned a hard boiled egg once. Once the water all boils away the egg tends to explode. stinks up the entire house and you ahve to clean the ceiling as well. That should NOT be legal.

I burned a hard boiled egg once.

You should be caned. :)

I was working Graveyard shift at a hotel and going to the University at the time. I came home and wanted a quick bite before sleeping for the afternoon. When the egg exploded it sounded like a rifle shot! I had fallen asleep on the couch.

My room-mate at the time did not forgive me for the smell...

The laws banning smoking in bars and restaurants came about to protect the health of the workers, not the general public. And there is a work around--the owner just has to make his employees co-owners of the establishment and smoking can be allowed..

And if you return with a comment of "but...but they can get jobs elsewhere!" I will posit this: there are many laws regarding health and safety in the workplace, the anti-smoking one is just a more recent example of one. So either we repeal all health and safety codes in the workplace because people can "choose to work elsewhere" or accept that the codes will change as hazards are discovered.

there are many laws regarding health and safety in the workplace, the anti-smoking one is just a more recent example of one.

The major difference between smoking bans and the rest of the laws concerning workplaces, is that the osha codes are actually based on real proven dangers. The smoking laws are based on that wacky fuzzy science. If we are going that route then we may as well teach intelligent design in science class, makes just as much sense.

The dangers of secondhand smoke are wacky, fuzzy science? Well, maybe if you focus on the "science" put out/paid for by tobacco companies and their representatives.

I'm noticing a total lack of objective science offered by you, in rebuttal, Jones.

But you certainly are overflowing with assertions.

I asked you to show me your science, iarnuocon, before you asked me. Do you always ask others to do what you won't?

That you won't and then carry on proves you have zippo and are on to trolling.

Do you understand the concept of proving a negative? You keep asking people to show a report that shows that something is not correlated, it can't be done.

All the studies that I have seen are based on the faulty report which saw identical cancer rates in those exposed to second hand smoke and the control group. That is a negative result. When they draw the conclusion that second hand smoke increases the risk of cancer based off of identical numbers that is indeed fuzzy science.

Read my link.....and yes I understand science and proving negatives, which isn't what I am asking.

I'm asking for one--just one--study from a non-related to the tobacco industry in any way group/scientist that shows that there is no danger to secondhand smoke. After all, y'all must have something other than blind faith that secondhand smoke is safe, Right?

All I see is obfuscation in response. Par for the course, I guess.

You are asking someone to produce a report showing there is no danger to secondhand smoke. That is asking for someone to show a report proving a negative.

Blind faith, no. But until proof shows up, that actually shows danger to secondhand smoke, I see no reason to change society for the whims of whiners.

There are plenty of studies that show the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Your faith that it doesn't is on par with flat-earthers in my book, but rock on.

If i could find any that actually did their own study instead of regurgitating the old flawed studies I might believe it. But the anecdotal evidence that I have seen tells me that second hand smoke poses no danger.

Going down the list of links you post above, each one falls back on the old flawed government studies or draws an absurd conclusion. My favorite is the "Passing the 2003 clean air act directly reduced the number of mycardial infarction cases" one, talk about a stretch.

I asked you to show me your science, iarnuocon, before you asked me.

the dreaded 'I asked you first', no, I asked you FIRST defense. LOL

More like the "don't ask others to do what you won't" defense.

Christ, Jones. I can't believe you're this big an idiot.

• I understand science and proving negatives, which isn't what I am asking.
• I'm asking for one--just one--study from a non-related to the tobacco industry in any way group/scientist that shows that there is no danger to secondhand smoke.

In what way is that NOT asking me to prove that secondhand smoke isn't dangerous? You're asking me to prove a negative, which, as has been noted, isn't rational. The appropriate question is to ask whether secondhand smoke IS dangerous.

Which is why, since you've made the claim that your neighbors' smoke puts you at a health risk, I asked you to prove it.

So, quit playing semantic games, and prove it.

You're saying that you, in your little room, are affected by smoke traveling from your neighbors' little room.

[neighbor]---smoke--->>[you]

Now this is really simple, and can totally shut me up-- I outlined it for you above-- show:

1. what's the exposure level to secondhand smoke at which a statistically significant risk of adverse health conditions arises? And,
2. What's the level of exposure to secondhand smoke that exists in the average non-smokers' apartment in Belmont (or anywhere else)?

You claim to know these answers. You've provided plenty of "science" without answering these two simple questions.

That's all you've got to do to prove your case-- show the actual risks.

It doesn't matter what I show or don't show. I'm not claiming secondhand smoke is harmless. I'm not claiming smoking is good for you. I'm not claiming anything other than that this legislation is intrusive, where less intrusive legislation could deal with the situation more positively for everyone involved. That doesn't require me to link to studies or anything else. All I'm saying is that unless you show the level at which harm occurs, coupled with proof that this level is exceeded in apartments adjacent to those of smokers, you haven't proved anything other than that your preference is that people not be allowed to smoke.

So answer the two questions.

I once thought you were a rational Viner. My bad! Luckily, I never made that mistake regarding you.

I see lots of words, con, but no points being made in your diatribes.

And actually, I do remember you being pleasant to me on several occasions, though I guess your desire to win some argument here is greater than your desire to be pleasant.

As one of my links says, the threshold for secondhand smoke is low. How low? The scientists aren't completely sure, but I'd rather err on the side of zero exposure than risk anyone's life for another's vice/addiction. Perhaps you are ok with gambling on health risks, but I am not And in my book, anyone who thinks that any exposure to secondhand smoke is ok and without risks is pretty close to a flat-earther and ignorant of science.

By the way, con, perhaps if you had to watch a loved one suffer with respiratory distress as i have, you might have a little compassion for my view, for those who think smoking is a dangerous horrid activity for which no excuse should be made.

As one of my links says, the threshold for secondhand smoke is low.

Actually what it says is "there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer" which they give no supporting evidence for, it is presented as a fact which is not born out by the case studies.

I see lots of words, con, but no points being made in your diatribes. Then you've got a serious problem with reading comprehension.

I'll repeat, because you're just not getting it.

You're saying that you, in your little room, are affected by smoke traveling from your neighbors' little room.

By the way, con, perhaps if you had to watch a loved one suffer with respiratory distress as i have, you might have a little compassion for my view, for those who think smoking is a dangerous horrid activity for which no excuse should be made. It's hubris on your part to think that your life experiences are any more compelling than my own. You have no idea who or how many I've watched suffer, or for what reasons. I have all the compassion in the world for your plight, but not enough to think that it is OK for you to tell people what they are allowed to do with their own bodies. People who want to smoke should be able to smoke. People who want them to quit should be able to make rational arguments in favor of them quitting. But people who want them to quit should, in now way, ever, be allowed to force them to quit.

By my argument, we're all adults.
By yours, we're all children.

Grow up.

if you had to watch a loved one suffer with respiratory distress as i have

I personally, until my recent heart surgery, suffered from a diminished ability to breathe properly. The problem was only exacerbated by smoke or any really strong smell. I felt it was my responsibility to avoid situations in which my condition would be worse than it already was.

Again, I will ask if we should outlaw strong perfumes or force people who stink to take showers because those types of people were definitely affecting my right to breathe.

And I have very little patience for people who intentionally act stupid in order to avoid being wrong.

Well then, I guess you have a tough time with yourself. I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be one.

But I am sick of your less than respectful tone and realize that you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, except for attacks. You've proven nothing except your own rudeness.

Bye!

I agree, people who want to smoke should be allowed to smoke...in regulated places. In Belmont, that no longer includes an apartment home. Too bad.

Perhaps, iarnoucon, you should go take a photo of a sunset and calm down? Telling me to "grow up" is a childish retort.

Jason, perhaps you can show scientific studies of the dangers of secondhand perfume? I will agree it should be legislated once it is proven to have a real danger to it...and my mom is also affected by perfumes.

I'm not a scientist and I don't claim to be one. Then quit pretending that your position is backed up by science.

But I am sick of your less than respectful tone and realize that you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, except for attacks. Yes, clearly this is why you refuse to answer the questions. Because I'm rude.

They're two little questions, Jones. Do you need me to find someone else to ask them before you'll address them?

I will agree it should be legislated once it is proven to have a real danger to it

I know the dangers. I could not breathe around any really strong smells. I was told to avoid situations like that by my cardiologist or I would be in very real danger of dying. I don't need studies to prove to me what I lived through.

For the record, I agree that second hand smoke is dangerous. Please don't lump me in with others because I disagree with you. I simply feel it is my responsibility as an individual with a (former) health condition to be aware of my surroundings and to change them when necessary.

Do you think that you should have to go so far as to move residences to allow someone their right to smoke, Jason? That you should have to incur the expense and trouble to allow them their vice? I don't. As the saying goes, "your rights end where my nose begins."

Secondhand smoke is a form of assault, far as I am concerned. We don't give those who assault a blank check to assault everyone or do it behind closed doors, why should smokers have that right?

iaurnoucon, you have been disrespectful since the start of this and I apologize if any of my words hurt you as yours did me. I see no reason to discuss this issue with you further as you have nothing but attacks to contribute. Science is on my side, no matter how you parse it.

Science is on my side, no matter how you parse it.

No, the fuzzy science is on your side. The science hasn't found anything.

Your nose doesn't begin in their apartment, Jones, no matter what you might think.

iaurnoucon, you have been disrespectful since the start of this and I apologize if any of my words hurt you as yours did me. An empty apology is not worth the electrons it's represented as, Jones. I see no reason to take you at your word. I've asked you honest questions, and you've responded with a panoply of childish avoidances.

I see no reason to discuss this issue with you further as you have nothing but attacks to contribute. I have contributed very pertinent questions. Your motivation for seeing no reason to continue discussion is that you have no answers. That's apparent. But rather than simply say that, you've done some creative spin-meistering, and made this about me, rather than the subject. Nevertheless, you still haven't answered, and the questions are as pertinent as ever.

Science is on my side, no matter how you parse it. When you get around to answering the two questions I posed to you, I might begin to believe you.

Smoking was allowed when they moved in so it's not like they didn't know. If they were living in a smoke free building and then it suddenly became a smoking building then there would be an issue.

I chose to live in a house that is not attached to anyone or anything. I realize not everyone has this ability but most do have some choice in where they live and the percentage of those who don't would have to be very low.

Do you think that you should have to go so far as to move residences to allow someone their right to smoke, Jason? That you should have to incur the expense and trouble to allow them their vice? I don't.

and a quote from above;

Don't like it? Don't live in Belmont or if you do, live in a standalone building. There are options, if you simply must smoke at home.

I don't know why I'm pointing this out again, but again, you're determining that your freedom is to be respected, but someone else should not have their freedom respected. For a smoker to partake in their freedom, they should have to move residences to allow your freedom to not be around smokers, but it doesn't work the other way?

I realize your attempted defense is that one is harmful, but I'm not debating about that, I'm debating that regardless, both are freedoms and should be respected as such.

No, the fuzzy science is on your side. The science hasn't found anything.

Are you implying that smoking is not dangerous? I don't think any sane person can claim that smoking is not dangerous.

This rule makes perfect sense, it only affects people in apartments where their smoke will affect other people. People are no longer able to poison other people with second hand smoke which has in fact been scientifically proven, whether you would like to believe or not.

Your nose doesn't begin in their apartment, Jones, no matter what you might think.

Their smoke sure does though and ends up in mine. So I guess I can stand on my balcony and spray toxic chemicals towards my neighbor and they have no recourse.

iarnonucon, I answered your questions when I said I am not a scientist. I know you must want some "OMG! I am so wrong!" type of response but that won't be happening, because I am not wrong. You cooked up those silly questions that no one but a scientist can answer then keep tossing them at me. Quite adult of you(sarcasm). Considering all you have done is toss your opinion around, I don't know why I wasted any time on this inane vein of conversation.

Are you implying that smoking is not dangerous? I don't think any sane person can claim that smoking is not dangerous.

No, I am saying that second hand smoke has not been proven to be dangerous.

No, I am saying that second hand smoke has not been proven to be dangerous.

Actually it has. Ask any professional doctor. I dare you. Please do some research on your facts. Or maybe you prefer Bush's dark age of science.

Do you really expect people to just believe flat out lies like second hand smoking is not dangerous?

I have done the research. Every report I can find on the subject which claims a connection is based on the original faulty studies, which found identical rates of cancer in those exposed to second hand smoke and their own control group. To me that's not proof of correlation thats proof of a lack of correlation.

Do you really expect people to just believe flat out lies like second hand smoking is not dangerous?

There is a burden of proof to claim that something is dangerous. No one has done the work and proven it for second hand smoking.

I answered your questions when I said I am not a scientist. I know you must want some "OMG! I am so wrong!" type of response but that won't be happening, because I am not wrong. LOL, if you're not a scientist, and can't answer those questions, then you have no idea whether you're right or wrong. That's the whole point. Your sentence parses to "I don't know, but I'm not wrong!" In other words, it's nonsense.

You cooked up those silly questions that no one but a scientist can answer then keep tossing them at me. I keep "tossing them at you" because they're not silly. They're the questions on which your entire defense of this legislation is built.

Let me see if I can make this more plain. Your argument is, essentially (correct me if I'm wrong)

• Secondhand smoke is dangerous to people
• Secondhand smoke can enter my apartment from the apartment next door.
• Therefore, someone smoking next door is dangerous to me

I accept the structure of the argument. It's not invalid on its face. But the question remains as to how dangerous it is to you. A clarification of the argument would be

• Secondhand smoke above threshold [x] is dangerous.
• Secondhand smoke can enter my apartment from the apartment next door.
• If secondhand smoke from the apartment next door exceeds threshold [x], I am in danger
• Therefore, secondhand smoke should be prevented from entering my apartment

the problem, here, is that you haven't provided two of the necessary pieces of the puzzle-- the threshold at which secondhand smoke becomes dangerous, and the concentration of secondhand smoke that occurs in your apartment when your neighbor is smoking.

Those aren't "silly" questions. They're pertinent questions. And the answers are essential for determining whether your "right" to breathe supersedes someone else's right to smoke in the confines of their own home.

I'm sorry that you think me taking your argument seriously isn't "adult," but I think your dismissal of the questions is either a) disingenuous (as in, you understand why they're important but don't want to consider the answers because the answers may undercut your position) or b) juvenile (as in, you're unconcerned about the truth or falsity of your proposition, and just want people to agree with you, no matter what).

Before we ascertain whether this legislation is the best answer to the problem, we have to determine whether there is, in fact, a problem. You haven't established that.

Once their smoke comes into my apartment, they aren't smoking in their own home, but in mine. Why do you ignore that point?

People are no longer able to poison other people with second hand smoke which has in fact been scientifically proven, whether you would like to believe or not.

No, I am saying that second hand smoke has not been proven to be dangerous.

Quite simply dose determines toxicity. The more smoke you inhale, the more the health effects. The less smoke you inhale, the less the health effects. If you're a smoker the health effects are highest. If you live with a smoker who smokes inside, or if you work in a place that had smoking indoors like a bar, that is the next level of exposure (daily, for several hours). If you go out to a bar that has smoking once every 2 weeks or 4 weeks, that's way down the exposure level. If your only exposure is the smell from a neighbors, that's way down there.

There has to come a point when the amount of damage from your secondhand exposure to smoke falls below the respiratory damage from your daily exposure to car exhaust, at which point it no longer makes sense to legislate. Without a hard measurement of the amount of smoke getting into your apartment from your neighbor I can't say I'm 100% certain that's the case here, so I'll just say I'm 99% certain.

Once their smoke comes into my apartment, they aren't smoking in their own home, but in mine. Why do you ignore that point? I'm not ignoring that point. I just don't think it's very relevant. It's your apartment, if you don't do something to seal it up 100% so that outside air doesn't infiltrate it, why should everyone on the outside have to be careful of your sensitive nose? Do you have a problem with car exhaust? As DAWeb crudely put it, if he farts in his apartment, and you smell it in yours, should the legislature outlaw farting? If germs come from your neighbors apartment, and infect you, and you wind up in the hospital with pneumonia, can you sue your neighbor for assault?

You could say that you have no way to seal your apartment, given the shared ventilation, but all this highlights is that the problem is shared ventilation, not these things which may impact your personal space incidentally.

If you have a problem with the outside world coming into your house, it's your responsibility to prevent it, not the responsibility of the outside world to tiptoe around your preferences. Hence, in this situation, if you're arguing (as you vociferously have) that secondhand smoke should be treated differently from these other things because of the health risk it represents, you're going to have to address the argument as I laid it out above.

Good point. Perhaps that tax needs to be raised by @ $6/pack instead. Just get the rich smokers living in single family homes that way...

Anyone trying to make (or making) smoking outside illegal should be shot in the face. With every breath of air you take you are inhaling one air molecule from the flatulence of every single human being who lived a thousand years ago, and you're really worried that much about the tiny amount of cigarette smoke you might be inhaling in an outdoor environment because someone's smoking ten feet away from you? This is not a health concern, this is retardation. @!$%# Belmont.

All BBQ units will now be fitted with custom exhaust systems if anyone is to be around them. Same is true with chimneys and heater vents.

Danny--perhaps I should introduce you to my mom, who never smoked in her life, but grew up with parents and siblings who smoked who now suffers from regular bouts of bronchitis, pneumonia and pleurisy and asthma, who can have a life-threatening asthma attack when someone in her vicinity smokes.

Why does a smoker's vice come before her right to breath? Just as sex and drinking vices are corralled, so are smokers now.

&^%$ smokers.

&^%$ socialists! :)

TheJonesGirl - that's a nice anecdote, but since they probably lived in a single family home it's irrelevant to this ordinance.

Study after study has shown that the threshold for secondhand smoke exposure is extremely low. Of course, you are free to post any studies that say otherwise.

The threshold being low for exposure is quite relevant to this ordinance.

And here's a solution--if you don't like the ordinance, you can stay out of Belmont. You aren't forced to live there or attend events there.

Study after study has shown that the threshold for secondhand smoke exposure is extremely low. Show one. And not the EPA one, either, because of the reasons I outlined well above.

The threshold being low for exposure is quite relevant to this ordinance. I agree, which Is why I keep asking you what the threshold is, and whether there is anything indicating that the threshold is exceeded in the average apartment adjacent to a smoker's apartment in the city of Belmont. Strangely, you refuse to answer.

What's the threshold for damage from exposure?
What's the exposure present in non-smokers' apartments when they're located next to those of smokers?

What are your answers?

And here's a solution--if you don't like the ordinance, you can stay out of Belmont. You aren't forced to live there or attend events there. But weren't you the person above, claiming that making people relocate was an onerous burden? Guess we can't do that. Better to figure out a solution that respects everyone's rights.

Unless, of course, you're no respecter of rights.

Your rights end where another's nose begins, iarnuoncon. Unless of course, I have the right to stand on my balcony and spray noxious chemicals your way.

And I have the rights to sue you. And If I can prove that your noxious chemicals actually caused me harm, guess what? I get to collect damages from you.

Your nose doesn't begin in my apartment.

And, listen, since you're apparently so big on respect, having made quite a fuss about it several times, try to get my handle right, ok?

i-a-r-n-u-o-c-o-n

It's right there in print at the top of my every post. Give it a shot. Whaddaya say?

As soon as you stop calling me "Jones." I only let friends shorten my name, yet you did it anyway, therefore, your complaints about my misspellings of your name look silly. You can use Gretchen, or TheJonesGirl, but to shorten it to "Jones" is rather brazen of you.

If you have some great way to seal your apartment so you are 100% sure the fumes stay in there, have at it....but such a thing doesn't exist. But the second the smoker's fumes enter my apartment, it becomes my issue as well as yours.

LOL... ok, Gretchen, I'll acquiesce, for now. But the instant you mangle my handle in the future, it's back to "Jones" for you! ;)

If you have some great way to seal your apartment so you are 100% sure the fumes stay in there, have at it....but such a thing doesn't exist. That's another unsubstantiated claim. As I noted in one of the first responses to you, which you dismissively ignored, separate ventilation units could be installed. This would make it an apartment owner issue-- does the owner want to make his building all smoking, all non-smoking, or mixed? Or barring giving the owner that choice, simply mandating that the owner retrofit apartments with separate units would be less intrusive, anyway, as only the building owners are affected. None of the residents are impacted at all. Everybody still gets to do their thing in their own home.

But the second the smoker's fumes enter my apartment, it becomes my issue as well as yours. Right, and I just dealt with this above, in response to your other post. This is precisely the reason why you should be endeavoring to answer the questions I put to you.

Unless of course, I have the right to stand on my balcony and spray noxious chemicals your way.

What like perfumes? Bug spray? Window spray? etc.?

Danny--perhaps I should introduce you to my mom, who never smoked in her life, but grew up with parents and siblings who smoked who now suffers from regular bouts of bronchitis, pneumonia and pleurisy and asthma, who can have a life-threatening asthma attack when someone in her vicinity smokes.

Perhaps I should introduce you to my nephew, whose father was a heavy smoker and who now has asthma. We are not talking about nearly the same level of secondhand smoke exposure. It's a moot point.

And, listen, since you're apparently so big on respect, having made quite a fuss about it several times, try to get my handle right, ok?

i-a-r-n-u-o-c-o-n

What the hell does that mean, anyway? I've always wondered.

It's the un-Americanized spelling of my last name.

So are we Californians :)

What? Is that suppose to hurt? LMAO! :-))

Nope, just a statement, like yours...was yours supposed to hurt/bother Californians?

Enjoy Texas.

Strange how you seem to think that his insult of a state is some kind of justification for you to insult him. (or at least make an attempt to do so). Didn't realize that rules like the Code of Honor get thrown out the window as soon as the other person breaks them. even if it is only in your view...

It was a joke, DAWeb. It could be argued that Texas broke the COH when she/he made her comment as it doesn't add value and its spelling could be seen as an attack on Californians.

'Californians' do not post here. He does. Yours was a personal attack and you then tried to justify it. Interesting that you have such difficulty admitting it.

This is the way it should be.

The landlord's choice. He owns the unit.

Babies can vomit in your eyeball too. That's no picnic. Plus, they could be rabid and bite your ankles. At a minimum, we could expect responsible parents to fit their child with a ball gag and leash, and keep the vaccination tags on their kid's neck.

Plus, they could be rabid and bite your ankles.

WHAT!?!

I'm never leaving the house again. And I actually had stuff to do tonight.

Damn rabid ankle-biting babies, always sucking the fun out of everything.

That would work IF there were places that continued to allow smoking . . . banning laws are one sided on this issue.

Exactly. If you look at Ohio's smoking ban, it was carefully worded to basically exclude any possibility that there would be anywhere for smokers to go. Smoking clubs have to be in isolated buildings (i.e. no common walls with anything else) separated by 100 yards distance, and can't have any employees. And they've defined"employee" for the purpose of the ban to include any non-paid volunteers who are members of the club.

Couple that with something like Belmont's ban on smoking in your own apartment, and you can see where that leaves smokers... nowhere.

Why not just cut to the chase and make cigarettes illegal?

Well, our government has already seen fit to ban drugs OTHER than tobacco, like marijuana, yet nobody stood up for that. Maybe people should have!

I've been "standing up" for the abolition of laws against drugs for something on the order of twenty years, now. But if you make drugs legal, you suddenly lose a whole lot of law enforcement jobs, penal system jobs, regulatory jobs, social controls on the populace, etcetera, etcetera.

There are a lot of people standing up for legalized marijuana. Every once in a while, somebody even covers a story where the government murders one of them.