SF may prohibit people from smoking in their apartments

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Good policy; I hope it gets replicated elsewhere.

May we eventually regulate tobacco into non-existence.

Shall we also repeal the 21st Amendment?

A lot of society's problems would be fixed if we did that (no more drunk parents beating up children, no more accidents due to drunk driving, no more brawls at bars, no more gambling while drunk (which causes people to lose track of how much they actually gambled))

You do realize that I was referring to the Usonian Constitution, not the Utopian Constitution, don't you?

Yes I do and I would like to reinstate the 18th Amendment.

Then I have no choice but to conclude you are either an idiot incapable of learning from history, or a troll.

Or maybe we should actually do something about alcoholism, instead of pretending that it isn't an issue

It is an issue, but prohibition is policy that has been proven to be a failure.

[SevenEleven]

Smoking inside is: [...]

Bad for future residents of the apartment, who have to deal with smoke damage on the walls and the potential for radon in carpets.

Sounds like a issue for the lessor to deal with, not the government.  I could see government allowing lessors to place non-smoking requirements on lessees, and government requiring lessors to both enforce any such bans and that lessors disclose to potential lessees whether smoking bans have been in place on the apartment or even adjacent apartments. However, from a legal or public health standpoint, what's the difference between banning smoking in apartments and banning it in private homes?

Private homes don't share ventilation with other families who choose to be healthier.

I can't imagine that duplexes and row houses don't have the same ventilation issues as apartments. Disclosure requirements meet the stated goal of enabling renters to find healthier housing. More importantly, where are non-propertied smokers supposed to live if they can't rent?

What in the world are you talking about? They can rent they just need to friggin go outside to smoke. How in the world is that difficult or complicated?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Smoking inside is: [...]

Bad for future residents of the apartment, who have to deal with smoke damage on the walls and the potential for radon in carpets.

Sounds like a issue for the lessor to deal with, not the government.  I could see government allowing lessors to place non-smoking requirements on lessees, and government requiring lessors to both enforce any such bans and that lessors disclose to potential lessees whether smoking bans have been in place on the apartment or even adjacent apartments. However, from a legal or public health standpoint, what's the difference between banning smoking in apartments and banning it in private homes?

Private homes don't share ventilation with other families who choose to be healthier.

I can't imagine that duplexes and row houses don't have the same ventilation issues as apartments. Disclosure requirements meet the stated goal of enabling renters to find healthier housing. More importantly, where are non-propertied smokers supposed to live if they can't rent?

What in the world are you talking about? They can rent they just need to friggin go outside to smoke. How in the world is that difficult or complicated?

So it never rains or is otherwise inclement in San Francisco?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Good policy; I hope it gets replicated elsewhere.

May we eventually regulate tobacco into non-existence.

Shall we also repeal the 21st Amendment?

A lot of society's problems would be fixed if we did that (no more drunk parents beating up children, no more accidents due to drunk driving, no more brawls at bars, no more gambling while drunk (which causes people to lose track of how much they actually gambled))

You do realize that I was referring to the Usonian Constitution, not the Utopian Constitution, don't you?

Yes I do and I would like to reinstate the 18th Amendment

You're either a joke, or need a one-way ticket to somewhere you'd enjoy like Iran.

[Ancestral Republican]

Smoking inside is: [...]

Bad for future residents of the apartment, who have to deal with smoke damage on the walls and the potential for radon in carpets.

Sounds like a issue for the lessor to deal with, not the government.  I could see government allowing lessors to place non-smoking requirements on lessees, and government requiring lessors to both enforce any such bans and that lessors disclose to potential lessees whether smoking bans have been in place on the apartment or even adjacent apartments. However, from a legal or public health standpoint, what's the difference between banning smoking in apartments and banning it in private homes?

Private homes don't share ventilation with other families who choose to be healthier.

I can't imagine that duplexes and row houses don't have the same ventilation issues as apartments. Disclosure requirements meet the stated goal of enabling renters to find healthier housing. More importantly, where are non-propertied smokers supposed to live if they can't rent?

What in the world are you talking about? They can rent they just need to friggin go outside to smoke. How in the world is that difficult or complicated?

So it never rains or is otherwise inclement in San Francisco?

oH nO iTs rAinInG WhAt dOo

[darklordoftech]

When will these people gain some self-awareness? The Republican ads write themselves.

How many people think, “Oh no, my neighbor won’t be able to smoke in their apartment” when they vote?

[The Arizonan]

Smoking inside is: [...]

Bad for future residents of the apartment, who have to deal with smoke damage on the walls and the potential for radon in carpets.

Sounds like a issue for the lessor to deal with, not the government.  I could see government allowing lessors to place non-smoking requirements on lessees, and government requiring lessors to both enforce any such bans and that lessors disclose to potential lessees whether smoking bans have been in place on the apartment or even adjacent apartments. However, from a legal or public health standpoint, what's the difference between banning smoking in apartments and banning it in private homes?

Private homes don't share ventilation with other families who choose to be healthier.

I can't imagine that duplexes and row houses don't have the same ventilation issues as apartments. Disclosure requirements meet the stated goal of enabling renters to find healthier housing. More importantly, where are non-propertied smokers supposed to live if they can't rent?

What in the world are you talking about? They can rent they just need to friggin go outside to smoke. How in the world is that difficult or complicated?

So it never rains or is otherwise inclement in San Francisco?

There are ways someone can smoke outdoors when it's raining outside.

I can't wait until smokers bother to step outside to smoke in Las Vegas.

[dead0man]

I can't wait until smokers bother to step outside to smoke in Las Vegas.

no doubt the jack boots in this thread would love to see that.  Authoritarians love to see the lessers suffer.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Smoking inside is: [...]

Bad for future residents of the apartment, who have to deal with smoke damage on the walls and the potential for radon in carpets.

Sounds like a issue for the lessor to deal with, not the government.  I could see government allowing lessors to place non-smoking requirements on lessees, and government requiring lessors to both enforce any such bans and that lessors disclose to potential lessees whether smoking bans have been in place on the apartment or even adjacent apartments. However, from a legal or public health standpoint, what's the difference between banning smoking in apartments and banning it in private homes?

Private homes don't share ventilation with other families who choose to be healthier.

I can't imagine that duplexes and row houses don't have the same ventilation issues as apartments. Disclosure requirements meet the stated goal of enabling renters to find healthier housing. More importantly, where are non-propertied smokers supposed to live if they can't rent?

What in the world are you talking about? They can rent they just need to friggin go outside to smoke. How in the world is that difficult or complicated?

So it never rains or is otherwise inclement in San Francisco?

oH nO iTs rAinInG WhAt dOo

get wet and miserable seems to be your answer.

[Alcibiades]

Good policy; I hope it gets replicated elsewhere.

May we eventually regulate tobacco into non-existence.

Shall we also repeal the 21st Amendment?

I would hope by now we'd have given up the folly of trying to criminalize personal vices.

Unlike with Prohibition, policies to discourage smoking (which have of course been much less heavy-handed than the 18A) have proven over the years to be immensely successful, literally saving millions of lives the world over.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Good policy; I hope it gets replicated elsewhere.

May we eventually regulate tobacco into non-existence.

Shall we also repeal the 21st Amendment?

I would hope by now we'd have given up the folly of trying to criminalize personal vices.

Unlike with Prohibition, policies to discourage smoking (which have of course been much less heavy-handed than the 18A) have proven over the years to be immensely successful, literally saving millions of lives the world over.

So have less heavy-handed policies to discourage alcohol abuse. I'm not against all public policies to discourage personal vices, just those such as criminalization that have historically been shown to cause more problems than they solve.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I can't wait until smokers bother to step outside to smoke in Las Vegas.

no doubt the jack boots in this thread would love to see that.  Authoritarians love to see the lessers suffer.

You just don't get it, Dead0.

Look, I think the top priority of government must be to ensure individual rights and liberties. That said, just look at this pragmatically. Indoor smoking bans just aren't a big deal. At worst, they're a minor inconvenience for those who choose to smoke.

This is an area where you just need collective action. One person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units. You may not appreciate it living in a single family home but this is a much-needed regulation. Surely you don't want people smoking on airplanes or inside restaurants and shopping centers--because one person can ruin the experience of thousands. This is the same damn thing.

Telling people they have to stand outdoors to smoke just isn't that much to ask. There are other, more important hills to die on.

[dead0man]

Surely you don't want people smoking on airplanes or inside restaurants and shopping centers--because one person can ruin the experience of thousands. This is the same damn thing.

I think that if airlines and shopping centers thought that smoking versions of their products could make money that the govt shouldn't have a say in it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units. You may not appreciate it living in a single family home but this is a much-needed regulation. Surely you don't want people smoking on airplanes or inside restaurants and shopping centers--because one person can ruin the experience of thousands. This is the same damn thing.

If one person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units, then those units must be so crappily built that smoking just outside is going to have a similar effect. This isn't a tragedy of the commons issue, this is a Puritans want to feel superior and make lives miserable for tobacco addicts issue. If the goal were actually to make it possible for those who don't want to live in an apartment that was previously smoked in or adjacent to ones that are currently being smoked in, there are ways to accomplish that without doing a complete ban on smoking in apartments. I've already suggested several ways in this thread and I imagine my ideas can be improved. But so far, all I've seen in this thread amongst those supporting this draconian ban is a smug Puritanism that has no concern for those who are unlike themselves.

[Alcibiades]

One person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units. You may not appreciate it living in a single family home but this is a much-needed regulation. Surely you don't want people smoking on airplanes or inside restaurants and shopping centers--because one person can ruin the experience of thousands. This is the same damn thing.

If one person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units, then those units must be so crappily built that smoking just outside is going to have a similar effect. This isn't a tragedy of the commons issue, this is a Puritans want to feel superior and make lives miserable for tobacco addicts issue. If the goal were actually to make it possible for those who don't want to live in an apartment that was previously smoked in or adjacent to ones that are currently being smoked in, there are ways to accomplish that without doing a complete ban on smoking in apartments. I've already suggested several ways in this thread and I imagine my ideas can be improved. But so far, all I've seen in this thread amongst those supporting this draconian ban is a smug Puritanism that has no concern for those who are unlike themselves.

I’m sorry, smoking in a context in which others will inhale the second-hand smoke is both highly unpleasant and harmful to those who do not smoke. This is a case of “the right to swing my arm ends where your face begins.” Those who smoke are making a choice, and the rights of those who want no part in it have to take precedence.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units. You may not appreciate it living in a single family home but this is a much-needed regulation. Surely you don't want people smoking on airplanes or inside restaurants and shopping centers--because one person can ruin the experience of thousands. This is the same damn thing.

If one person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units, then those units must be so crappily built that smoking just outside is going to have a similar effect. This isn't a tragedy of the commons issue, this is a Puritans want to feel superior and make lives miserable for tobacco addicts issue. If the goal were actually to make it possible for those who don't want to live in an apartment that was previously smoked in or adjacent to ones that are currently being smoked in, there are ways to accomplish that without doing a complete ban on smoking in apartments. I've already suggested several ways in this thread and I imagine my ideas can be improved. But so far, all I've seen in this thread amongst those supporting this draconian ban is a smug Puritanism that has no concern for those who are unlike themselves.

I’m sorry, smoking in a context in which others will inhale the second-hand smoke is both highly unpleasant and harmful to those who do not smoke. This is a case of “the right to swing my arm ends where your face begins.” Those who smoke are making a choice, and the rights of those who want no part in it have to take precedence.

Which is why I accept the proposition that people should be able to find and rent smoke-free apartments. It does not follow from that proposition that all apartments must be smoke free.

[Alcibiades]

One person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units. You may not appreciate it living in a single family home but this is a much-needed regulation. Surely you don't want people smoking on airplanes or inside restaurants and shopping centers--because one person can ruin the experience of thousands. This is the same damn thing.

If one person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units, then those units must be so crappily built that smoking just outside is going to have a similar effect. This isn't a tragedy of the commons issue, this is a Puritans want to feel superior and make lives miserable for tobacco addicts issue. If the goal were actually to make it possible for those who don't want to live in an apartment that was previously smoked in or adjacent to ones that are currently being smoked in, there are ways to accomplish that without doing a complete ban on smoking in apartments. I've already suggested several ways in this thread and I imagine my ideas can be improved. But so far, all I've seen in this thread amongst those supporting this draconian ban is a smug Puritanism that has no concern for those who are unlike themselves.

I’m sorry, smoking in a context in which others will inhale the second-hand smoke is both highly unpleasant and harmful to those who do not smoke. This is a case of “the right to swing my arm ends where your face begins.” Those who smoke are making a choice, and the rights of those who want no part in it have to take precedence.

Which is why I accept the proposition that people should be able to find and rent smoke-free apartments. It does not follow from that proposition that all apartments must be smoke free.

That is highly impractical (How would you decide which ones are smoke-free? Would those living in smoking ones who are adversely affected by second hand-smoke have to pack up and find a new home?), much more so than making smokers step outside for a few minutes.

[The Arizonan]

I can't wait until smokers bother to step outside to smoke in Las Vegas.

no doubt the jack boots in this thread would love to see that.  Authoritarians love to see the lessers suffer.

Is it wrong to ask someone to step outside to freaking smoke a freaking cigarette?

[dead0man]

I can't wait until smokers bother to step outside to smoke in Las Vegas.

no doubt the jack boots in this thread would love to see that.  Authoritarians love to see the lessers suffer.

Is it wrong to ask someone to step outside to freaking smoke a freaking cigarette?

the govt using guns to force people to do it?  yes, I think so.

[John Dule]

I can't wait until smokers bother to step outside to smoke in Las Vegas.

no doubt the jack boots in this thread would love to see that.  Authoritarians love to see the lessers suffer.

Is it wrong to ask someone to step outside to freaking smoke a freaking cigarette?

the govt using guns to force people to do it?  yes, I think so.

I'm of two minds here. Obviously it's crazy to ban someone from smoking in a house that they own, but in a public place, smoke encroaching on my nostrils violates the NAP.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units. You may not appreciate it living in a single family home but this is a much-needed regulation. Surely you don't want people smoking on airplanes or inside restaurants and shopping centers--because one person can ruin the experience of thousands. This is the same damn thing.

If one person smoking inside their apartment can ruin the air in 30 other units, then those units must be so crappily built that smoking just outside is going to have a similar effect. This isn't a tragedy of the commons issue, this is a Puritans want to feel superior and make lives miserable for tobacco addicts issue. If the goal were actually to make it possible for those who don't want to live in an apartment that was previously smoked in or adjacent to ones that are currently being smoked in, there are ways to accomplish that without doing a complete ban on smoking in apartments. I've already suggested several ways in this thread and I imagine my ideas can be improved. But so far, all I've seen in this thread amongst those supporting this draconian ban is a smug Puritanism that has no concern for those who are unlike themselves.

I’m sorry, smoking in a context in which others will inhale the second-hand smoke is both highly unpleasant and harmful to those who do not smoke. This is a case of “the right to swing my arm ends where your face begins.” Those who smoke are making a choice, and the rights of those who want no part in it have to take precedence.

Which is why I accept the proposition that people should be able to find and rent smoke-free apartments. It does not follow from that proposition that all apartments must be smoke free.

That is highly impractical (How would you decide which ones are smoke-free? Would those living in smoking ones who are adversely affected by second hand-smoke have to pack up and find a new home?), much more so than making smokers step outside for a few minutes.

If they rented an apartment that was supposed to be smoke-free and it wasn't, they clearly they'd have a case against their landlord and/or the offending smoker, presumably also backed up by civil penalties.  It would be up to the landlord to decide which apartments would be smoke-free.  Requiring landlords to include the smoking status of the apartment in both the lease and any advertisements would be a reasonable regulation.

Yes, smoking is a nasty, unhealthy habit. But fining smokers for smoking in their own apartments isn't going to get them to quit, and there are less draconian measures that will solve the problem of ensuring people who want smoke-free apartments have access to such apartments.

[politicallefty]

I'm generally very opposed to most laws telling people what they can or cannot do in their own home, but I'm also supportive of most anti-smoking laws. I'm quite undecided on this as most people do not own their apartments and the ventilation systems may not be the best. Apartments are quite different from detached houses. There is no such thing as a right to smoke and I'm particularly annoyed by smokers that think they should be able to engage in their nasty habit anywhere they want and have no issue poisoning others. That's part of the reason why I'm very supportive of comprehensive indoor smoking bans (and also a set distance from building entrances). On the other hand, I think a well-informed adult should have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies, so long as no one else is harmed. By that reasoning, I'm very much opposed to laws that have raised the smoking age to 21.

[jaymichaud]

Meh, as long as they aren't doing it around kids mind your business.