|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,685
Loc: Raccoon City
|
San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments
#27079013 - 12/08/20 04:24 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
https://reason.com/2020/12/03/san-francisco-board-of-supervisors-passes-ban-on-smoking-tobacco-but-not-cannabis-in-private-apartments/
Quote:
On Tuesday, the San Francisco Examiner reports, the board voted 10–1 in favor of a bill, sponsored by retiring Supervisor Norman Yee, to prohibit smoking tobacco inside private dwellings in buildings with three or more units. Violators of the new law could receive fines of up to $1,000 for smoking.
The version of the bill that passed out of committee last month had also applied to smoking legal cannabis. An amendment adopted by the board on Tuesday exempts marijuana from the ban. That change came at the behest of cannabis advocates who argued that the bill was a "classist" assault on apartment-dwelling medical marijuana users.
Cannabis is more expensive, and they are both renting in the same complex. Classist. dictionary.com
You could charge a premium on smoking rooms, or on non-smoking rooms, or allow the prospective tenant to sniff around, before signing any binding contracts -- in a free market economy.
When I was growing up, prettymuch any outdoor, public place smelled like cigarettes. An unfortunate with special problems would have to bring an inhaler, oxygen tank, or stay away. The polite thing to do is just ask the landlord, without any lawsuits or secret tipline?

|
Amanita86
OTD Keymaster


Registered: 09/26/12
Posts: 89,464
Loc: hades
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: durian_2008]
#27079791 - 12/09/20 01:04 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Probably a safety thing too with people fearing someone falling asleep with a butt going. Laws are so fuckin weird now days..
Gonna push people to vape, which I believe San Fran was one of the first places to pass flavor bans and all that bullshit. Sounds like a nice place.... isn’t that where the shit on the street app is for? Well played San Fran, well played..
|
Holybullshit
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/19
Posts: 1,551
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: Amanita86]
#27079942 - 12/09/20 05:58 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Looks like their motivation is air quality and thirdhand smoke. Thirdhand Smoke Affects Weight, Blood Cell Development in Mice, Short-term early exposure to thirdhand cigarette smoke increases lung cancer incidence in mice
For a long time now every single piece of furniture and carpet has been so full of toxic flame-inhibitors that people falling asleep smoking hasn't been much of a concern. This was because mid-century tobacco companies kept facing lawsuits resulting from the act, were losing a lot of money from settling or losing these suits, and instead of making modifications to their products they successfully lobbied Congress to pass regulations requiring them.
Flame-inihibitors are some of the most toxic pollutats around and include things like PFAS(the forever chemicals) which are almost entirely unregulated as pollutants, and are neither tested for nor removed from drinking water. There have also been multiple examples of PFAS contaminating well water which is used to supply diary cows, and their milk becoming contaminated with PFAS, even organic milk...efforts to require testing for them have failed due to the power of the dairy lobby, and farmers are unwilling to test for them themselves because as long as they don't "know" they are there then they are not liable.
Edited by Holybullshit (12/09/20 06:53 AM)
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,685
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: Holybullshit]
#27081303 - 12/09/20 10:16 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
My tobacco plant has overwintered, outside, 3-4 times, now, without causing any social catastrophes. This is another form of reefer madness or an insane lack of self control.
|
Holybullshit
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/19
Posts: 1,551
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: durian_2008]
#27081636 - 12/10/20 06:28 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I don't know what a tobacco plant has to do with smoke, and being outside is kind of the point.
The dangers of indoor third/second hand smoke are real, though there is meaningful debate to be had surrounding one's liberty as it pertains to its infringement on the liberty of others.
Personally I think if one were to own the apartment, not rent, and there were sufficient air barriers then I think this is an overreach, but would support requiring reporting of past tobacco use during sale to be included in full disclosure requirements.
But if the residents of San Francisco support this, who are we to argue? That's how democracy works, you get to choose what happens where you live through voting even if everyone isn't going to love the results...but it's not like your representatives are taking the same measures so you don't have much to complain about.
Edited by Holybullshit (12/10/20 06:40 AM)
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,685
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: Holybullshit]
#27082353 - 12/10/20 02:41 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I mean to say that it's another one of those flowers, which we demonize.
|
Holybullshit
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/19
Posts: 1,551
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: durian_2008]
#27083488 - 12/11/20 06:21 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
But unlike cannabis, for good reason.
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,685
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: Holybullshit]
#27083718 - 12/11/20 09:58 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Jean Nicot used it for medicinal purposes, and the natives for their religion.
|
Holybullshit
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/19
Posts: 1,551
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: durian_2008] 1
#27083857 - 12/11/20 11:23 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Arsenic and lead also use to be used medicinally.
Nearly half a million people in the US alone die each year from tobacco use, thousands of those deaths can be attributed to second hand exposure, and lung cancer deaths account for around 25% of total cancer deaths each year.
I'm not saying it's "evil", or doesn't have it's place, I still smoke occasionally myself. But, obviously it poses serious health risks, even by second and third hand exposure. And I can understand why people wouldn't want to be exposed to it.
It's one thing to argue whether one's right to smoke tobacco themselves trumps others liberty to not be exposed to it, that's one thing, but the risks are real and to pretend they don't exist is a detachment from reality.
I agree that banning smoking from privately owned domiciles, if there are sufficient air barriers to protect your neighbors, is an overreach. Yet, especially in rented out apartments, other people will end up living there.
But I also agree with a communities right to practice democracy and make their own rules to live by.
Edited by Holybullshit (12/11/20 11:31 AM)
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,685
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: Holybullshit]
#27084407 - 12/11/20 05:36 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I don't understand the problem with leaving free choice to the informed individual.
|
Holybullshit
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/19
Posts: 1,551
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: durian_2008]
#27089910 - 12/15/20 05:57 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
How much choice do the neighbors have? How much choice for the tenant who lives in the apartment after them?
This has nothing to do with the person smoking the tobacco, it has to do with everyone around them. Whose rights are more important here? Just because an individual has the freedom to harm himself, doesn't grant him any right ot harm others in the doing so. It's not very complicated, I don't know if you are just being thick or are purposefully erecting strawmen.
And in this case, the informed individuals came together as a community and practiced their right to democracy.
Edited by Holybullshit (12/15/20 06:03 AM)
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,685
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: Holybullshit]
#27092770 - 12/16/20 06:55 PM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Holybullshit said: Whose rights are more important here?
The owner.
Although, I am not in favor of bait-and-switch.
Everyone should know the terms, in advance.
|
Holybullshit
Stranger
Registered: 01/06/19
Posts: 1,551
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: durian_2008]
#27098915 - 12/20/20 08:16 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Can you explain why their rights trump those of the people either around him or to follow? And not only the rights of other people, but the right of a community to self determination.
I imagine there are plenty of other instances where I don't think you would be so quick to agree that the owner has the right to spue toxic or noxious fumes or particles from his property to others. Or, despite ownership(let alone a leased one), doesn't have the right to coat it in toxic substances.
I think the only reason you even posit so, without hesitation(or explanation), is because of your own feelings towards tobacco.
Do you also feel this strongly about one's "right" to use lead paint? How about one's "right" to operate an organic chemistry lab, without proper ventilation, using toxic chemicals, in one's apartment?
Edited by Holybullshit (12/20/20 08:38 AM)
|
durian_2008
Cornucopian Eating an Elephant



Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 16,685
Loc: Raccoon City
|
Re: San Francisco Board of Supervisors Passes Ban on Smoking Tobacco, but Not Cannabis, in Private Apartments [Re: Holybullshit]
#27099219 - 12/20/20 11:54 AM (3 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Holybullshit said: Or, despite ownership(let alone a leased one), doesn't have the right to coat it in toxic substances.
For purposes of this discussion on collectivization, no wall coating was going to be non-toxic enough.
Quote:
Holybullshit said: Can you explain why their rights trump those of the people either around him or to follow? And not only the rights of other people, but the right of a community to self determination.
Quote:
Arnold Schwarzenegger said: My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it. People need somebody to watch over them. Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.
I personally believe that the 95% are capable of self-rule, except that external authority fulfills a psychological need.
Any random schlub might have contributed to a mortgage pool or be a formal member of the HOA, under said color of authority. He may become the voice of the mob rule of the 95%, with no more particular merit than you, except having shown agency or leverage at some critical juncture of the legal process.
|
|