Now the anti-smoking bans are going just too damn far...

[Neuromancer]

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articl...w.php?id=66988
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1h15smoke.html

The Daily Journal - San Mateo County's Homepage

Belmont to be first U.S. city to ban all smoking

By Dana Yates, Daily Journal Staff


Belmont is set to make history by becoming the first city in the nation to ban smoking on its streets and almost everywhere else.


The Belmont City Council voted unanimously last night to pursue a strict law that will prohibit smoking anywhere in the city except for single-family detached residences. Smoking on the street, in a park and even in one’s car will become illegal and police would have the option of handing out tickets if they catch someone.
The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted and will likely come back to the council either in December or early next year.


“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,” said Councilman Dave Warden. “What if every city did this, image how many lives would be saved? If we can do one little thing here at this level it will matter.”


Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. Last month, the council said it wanted to pursue a law similar to ones passed in Dublin and the Southern California city of Calabasas. It took up the cause after a citizen at a senior living facility requested smoke be declared a public nuisance, allowing him to sue neighbors who smoke.


The council was concerned about people smoking in multi-unit residences.


“I would just like to say ‘no smoking’ and see what happens and if they do smoke, [someone] has the right to have the police come and give them a ticket,” said Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach.


The council’s decision garnered applause from about 15 people who showed up in support of the ordinance. One woman stood up and blew kisses to the council, another pumped his fist with satisfaction.


“I’m astounded. I admire their courage and unanimous support,” said Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association of California.


Chen has worked in this area since 1991 and helped many cities and counties pass no smoking policies, but not one has been willing to draft a complete ban.


“I feel like the revolution is taking place and I am trying to catch up,” Chen told the council.


The decision puts Belmont on the forefront of smoking policy and it is already attracting attention from other states.


“You have the ability to do something a little more extraordinary than Dublin or Calabasas. I see what they’ve done as five or six on the Richter Scale. What the citizens of Belmont, and of America, need is five brave people to do something that’s a seven or eight on the Richter Scale,” said Philip Henry Jarosz of the Condominium Council of Maui.


“The whole state of Hawaii is watching” he said.


Councilman Warren Lieberman said he was concerned the city will pass a law it cannot enforce because residents will still smoke unless police are specifically called to a situation. Police cannot go out and enforce smoking rules, he said.
“It makes us hypocrites by saying you know you can break the law if no one is watching,” Lieberman said.


However, both Feierbach and Warden argued it is the same as jaywalking, having a barking dog or going 10 miles over the speed limit. All are illegal, but seldom enforced.


“You can’t walk down the street with a beer, but you can have a cigarette,” Warden said. “You shouldn’t be allowed to do that. I just think it shouldn’t be allowed anywhere except in someone’s house. If you want to do that, that’s fine.”

Dana Yates can be reached by e-mail: dana@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 106. What do you think of this story? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smokers' last refuge

Restrictions move tonew arena: rentals

By Emmet Pierce
STAFF WRITER

October 15, 2006


Study measures smokers' residue
Home buyers can follow their noses
Resources



Banned from smoking in more and more public places, tobacco users who view their home as the last sanctuary for lighting up are under assault once again.

Julie Scopazzi, spokeswoman for the California Apartment Association's Tri-County Division, said there's a growing trend among landlords to impose full or partial smoking bans on rental units.

“The California Apartment Association isn't advocating smoke-free housing,” said Scopazzi, whose division represents apartment owners in San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara counties. “All we are saying is it is your property, and you have a right to do what you want to with it. We would like to see voluntary smoke-free housing.”

Restrictions on smoking in attached housing are inevitable, said Serena Chen, policy director of the American Lung Association's Greater Bay Area office. Apartments are one of the last frontiers in the effort to create healthy breathing environments for nonsmokers.

“Because of all the laws banning smoking at workplaces, most exposure to secondhand smoke is in the home and in the car,” Chen said. “At the end of the day, people go home and are exposed to secondhand smoke through no fault of their own. It's the top complaint. All the other areas have been taken care of.”

The apartment association is preparing its members for the shifting regulatory climate. Last year it warned that “the anti-smoking movement has been gathering steam in California and throughout the country ever since secondhand smoke was declared a human carcinogen.”

The trade group has developed contract language to help landlords impose smoking restrictions. “Smokers are not a protected class,” Scopazzi said. “Landlords can make their buildings smoke-free if they choose.”

The lung association has made smoke-free rental units a national priority. According to the group, fewer than 14 percent of adults in San Diego County are smokers. It has cited an emerging national body of case law that holds landlords responsible for exposing tenants to “environmental tobacco smoke.”

Anti-smoking groups were quick to claim a victory in August when the apartment owner Centrum Management became the largest such firm in the U.S. to impose a smoking ban on tenants. Virginia-based Centrum operates nearly 5,500 rental units in six states.

“I think it is a huge step,” said Jim Bergman of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project. “There are an increasing number of smaller apartment owners who have adopted smoke-free policies, but Centrum is by far the largest.”

Maryetta Ables, president of FORCES International, a nonprofit group that defends smokers' rights, says tobacco users who live in apartment complexes are in danger of losing their homes.

Smokers across the country “need to come together as a political force to stop this,” she said.

Health concerns aside, there are sound financial reasons for limiting smoking in apartment complexes, said Bob Pinnegar, executive director of the San Diego County Apartment Association. Local landlords often complain about the cost of cleaning units after heavy smokers have moved, he noted. Contractors and cleaning firms say it easily can cost $1,000 to remove cigarette odors from a soiled unit.

Smoking bans are an ongoing topic of discussion, Pinnegar said. “I've talked to landlords who would love to do it because it reduces wear and tear on the units. The blinds don't get soiled, the unit doesn't need to be repainted as often, and the carpets last longer.”

So far, relatively few local landlords have been willing to restrict smoking, he said. Some worry about being sued by smokers, he explained. Others aren't certain there are enough nonsmoking tenants to keep their units filled.

“If you have a building that is nonsmoking, and you can't fill it because there aren't enough nonsmoking tenants, what do you do?” he asked. “Can you go back to a smoking building? Will you then lose people who came in with the expectation that they would be in a nonsmoking building?”

Another problem is enforcement. Most landlords don't want the task of policing what goes on inside people's homes, particularly if the occupants are good tenants, said Scopazzi. The eviction process can be costly and time-consuming.

Odor control

In El Cajon, the Kevane Co. operates about 200 apartment units. Property supervisor Christine La Marca estimates that between 25 and 30 percent of her tenants are smokers.


When a smoker vacates a rental unit “we do a thorough walk-through so we can assess how much time and work is going to be required,” she said. “Obviously, the smell is the first thing that jumps out at you. The carpeting is probably the biggest expense. The walls can't be readily painted. They have to go in and wash the walls and then prep them” with a an odor-containing primer.
An extensive cleanup that temporarily takes a unit off the market can end up costing several thousand dollars in labor, materials and lost rent, she said.

In its 2005 report, the apartment association said 84 percent of Californians don't smoke. It cited a survey commissioned by the American Lung Association of California of 602 apartment residents statewide. The poll found that nearly 70 percent favored regulations requiring landlords to offer nonsmoking sections. Nearly 40 percent said they would prefer to live where smoking was banned. Forty-six percent said they had experienced secondhand smoke drifting from other apartments.

Chen said many older apartment buildings have shared ventilation systems. “You may be living a healthy lifestyle, but what happens when smoke drifts from your neighbor's bedroom?”

With some exceptions, California law now bans indoor smoking in public places and the workplace. Nine cities in the county, including San Diego, have banned smoking on beaches, at parks or other public places, said Debra Kelley, vice president of government relations for the San Diego of fice of the American Lung Association of California.

Bad science?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 37,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year. In January, the state Air Resources Board declared secondhand smoke to be a toxic air contaminant. In June, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona weighed into the issue with a report saying there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke.

In addition to apartments, the lung association is concerned about the health of condominium residents, said Kelley. Unlike renters, they often own their units and can't easily move to avoid secondhand smoke. Not everyone shares that concern. Some even reject the scientific evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful.

Ventura resident Robert Best, a pack-a-day smoker, serves as California coordinator for The Smoker's Club, a smokers' rights group. He contends that the surgeon general and others have exaggerated the dangers of smoking. He also is skeptical of claims that cigarette smoke can travel from unit to unit in attached housing.

Anti-smoking activists “are trying to tell people smoke is wafting throughwalls, and it's actually seeping back out of the wall after the smoker has been gone,” said Best. “I don't think it is the danger they make it out to be.”

Ables contends that some reports on the dangers of cigarettes have been fabricated to sell products designed to help people quit smoking.

“There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows there is any harm to a nonsmoker from secondhand smoke,” she said.

Quality of life

Some residential property owners view growing sentiment against smoking as a business opportunity. In August, Woodland Village, a new, 55-plus rental community in San Marcos, announced that all 204 of its units would be smoke-free. The complex is intended for people who are concerned about quality of life, said Craig Engstrand, Woodland Parkway Development LLC's managing member.

Eager to make the transition to nonsmoking smooth, Centrum Management is counting on tenant attrition to make its nearly 5,500 rental units smoke-free. Residents who are smokers were grandfathered in when the ban was imposed in August. They can continue to smoke without fear of eviction.

Most of the apartments Centrum manages are for people age 55 and older, said Centrum President Rob Couch. So far, the response has been positive.

“I haven't heard a single negative comment from anybody,” Couch said. “A lot of people have come up and said, 'Thank you very much.' ”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmet Pierce: (619) 293-1372; emmet.pierce@uniontrib.com

[doctorcue]

Wow, I work one town over from Belmont. How dumb is this? So I wonder about the Belmont City Council's health history? Perhaps I should propose an ordinance to ban cheeseburger or pizza consumption? You know how many lifes we would save if no one had heart attacks?

Even better, I live in Dublin (land of the secondhand smoke re-written law) and in an apartment complex.

I swear, sometimes I feel just like

[burninator]

Behold the dangerous nature of democracy.

[dunng]

Now that IS F'D UP!!

[Simon Templar]

Full smoking ban just passed here in Ohio. We are now a smoke free state. I have heard if you arecaught smoking outside after December that a stiff fine can be imposed. I am doubly mad as I NEVER smoke around a person before asking if they mind and even then I try to be courteous as possible. I am carefull not to blow my smoke towards them as I feel my habit should impact them as little as possible. But a total ban? This is going too far. What about my buddies and I wanting to share a drink, a few laughs, and a smoke at our local tavern. Burninator had it right. Do not get me wrong we live in the greatest country on earth with oppurtunities others only dream of but Democracy can be a double edged sword. Oh well. Sorry for the long post. Just ranting.

[qwerty1500]

Next on the agenda ... ban on public nose picking.

Was stuck in traffic the other day and the lady in the car next to me had her finger stuck up there for several miles. As a registered "do- gooder," it is vital that we protect the public from sub-humans like this.

A lot of people don't carry tissues and I'm very concerned that the public is being subjected to second-hand boogers.

Fingers carry all sorts of dangerous germs that are being intorduced through the nose. We need to protect nose pickers from themselves ... for their own good.

Plus ... it's just gross.

All in favore say ... aye.

[tnip23]

[QUOTE=Neuromancer;603771]


“We have a tremendous opportunity here. We need to pass as stringent a law as we can, I would like to make it illegal,” said Councilman Dave Warden.There are a lot of things i would like to make illegal too, like busybodies on city councils interfering with the rights of U.S. citizens.


Armed with growing evidence that second-hand smoke causes negative health effects, the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later. In other words "Constitution be damned, we know what's best for you."

The council’s decision garnered applause from about 15 people who showed up in support of the ordinance. One woman stood up and blew kisses to the council, another pumped his fist with satisfaction. Don't know how big Belmont is but 15 busybodies supporting something isn't exactly overwhelming. how many people were opposed? the article doesn't say.


“I’m astounded. I admire their courage and unanimous support,” said Serena Chen Courage??? please, courage is going to war to defend the
rights of these busybodies to speak and propose such inane laws as this.

“I feel like the revolution is taking place and I am trying to catch up,” Chen told the council. at least che and castro didn't want cigars banned. imagine that, communism with no smokes. i suppose that's the plan in the peoples republic of belmont.
Councilman Warren Lieberman said he was concerned the city will pass a law it cannot enforce because residents will still smoke unless police are specifically called to a situation. Police cannot go out and enforce smoking rules, he said.
“It makes us hypocrites by saying you know you can break the law if no one is watching,” Lieberman said. here's hoping for a lot of hypocrites in belmont







“All we are saying is it is your property, and you have a right to do what you want to with it. amen, this is the only statement that makes any sense

[mosesbotbol]

This is and I can't believe we just let it happen. This is just like the Jews letting fascism permeate in Germany and we know what happened there. Our rights are being stripped away until the day comes where you get arrested for smoking in your own home? What country are we living in? Soon, you'll have to wear a yellow cigarette patch on your jacket when walking in public.

Ugly people make my stomach feel ill; maybe we should ban them too? Why do we let a few retirees sculpt the future of our society? They'll be long dead, but we are forced to live with their self-righteous decisions because smokers have no lobbying power...

I could go on all day about this

[boonedoggle]

[jinny]

ha! welcome to California...

that's some restrictive stuff...

Law or not, of my own volition, I've already taken to smoking in my backyard only... I guess soon that may be the last place that it's alowed... well, I've always thought of the place as a retreat... I guess it's as good a place as any for a last stand.




I wonder if the fact that most, if not all, police officers in the US are not allowed to use tobacco products while on duty (and some off duty too) has anything to do with these new laws?

they have to enforce it, sure, I've never seen complaints from them about the laws... maybe they're just cranky 'cause they can't use... and they take it out on us... imagine how much more easy going cops would be if they were allowed to smoke somthing

[a2vr6]

I agree that this has gotten a little out of hand. I can understand not smoking in enclosed places and people having to breath in second hand smoke (that is only fair) but In my own backyard or porch? Ridiculous...

[jgros001]

Only a matter of time until one of these really restrictive laws goes to court. Only allowed outside for "single-family detached homes" - there are a number of arguments to bring up why this probably would not hold muster through the Supreme Court - and I do not know how they could muster a good public safety argument for something so broad. Just gonna take one person (who actually gives a ****) enjoying a cigar on their own property to get a ticket.

I think I might bring in a bulldozer and knock the townhome next to me down....there detached!

[ky toker]

I'm not too sure how they can ban smoking outside.

I'm prepared for a revolution. I need ten more people, who's in?

Seriously! Once they can tell you that you can not smoke walking down the street or even in your own backyard, they have no boundaries for any other agenda they wish to push.

[burninator]

Originally Posted by Simon Templar

Full smoking ban just passed here in Ohio. We are now a smoke free state. I have heard if you arecaught smoking outside after December that a stiff fine can be imposed. I am doubly mad as I NEVER smoke around a person before asking if they mind and even then I try to be courteous as possible. I am carefull not to blow my smoke towards them as I feel my habit should impact them as little as possible. But a total ban? This is going too far. What about my buddies and I wanting to share a drink, a few laughs, and a smoke at our local tavern. Burninator had it right. Do not get me wrong we live in the greatest country on earth with oppurtunities others only dream of but Democracy can be a double edged sword. Oh well. Sorry for the long post. Just ranting.

It's things like this that illustrate the importance of maintaining the constitutional republic, as opposed to instituting democracy. The former is governance based on predetermined rules established to protect liberty. The latter is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

[stogie_kanobie_one]

Makes one wonder where are the politicians that stand up 'against' such things?