Belmont, Calif., a quiet Silicon Valley city that is now home to perhaps the nation’s strictest antismoking law, effectively outlawing lighting up in all apartment buildings.The problem may be traced to the fact that some of these apartments are poorly constructed. Smoke can seep through vents or other apertures from one private residence into another. Assuming the complainers aren't just being intolerant and exaggerating the problem, it's understandable that this kind of thing might be hard for them to accept. I personally wouldn't want to smell the smoke of my neighbors.
On the other hand, do we want the government telling us what we can or cannot do in the privacy of our own homes? Is this too much meddling in our private lives?
Public health advocates are closely watching to see what happens with Belmont, seeing it as a new front in their national battle against tobacco, one that seeks to place limits on smoking in buildings where tenants share walls, ceilings and — by their logic — air. Not surprisingly, habitually health-conscious California has been ahead of the curve on the issue, with several other cities passing bans on smoking in most units in privately owned apartment buildings, but none has gone as far as Belmont, which prohibits smoking in any apartment that shares a floor or ceiling with another, including condominiums.
Although I find it difficult to disagree with the idea of "health advocates" looking out for our best interest, it worries me that State and Federal government can, under certain circumstances, ban and prohibit things. Is this the price we pay in order to live in the society of our fellows? Is the motorcycle helmet law or the seat belt law an intrusion? How about cleaning up after your dog? Is this extreme smoking ban just another guideline to enable us to live better together, or is it an unwanted government intrusion.
What's your opinion?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem disagreeing with "health advocates" looking out for my health. It's my life, shouldn't I be able to live it as I wish for the most part?
I've talked many times about the "nanny state government" this is a great example of it. Second Hand Smoke might be a problem or it might not, so let's go on little evidence and tell people they have NO RIGHT TO USE THEIR PROPERTY AS THEY WISH.
Consider that some areas are also banning smoking in a person's backyard because the smoke "can escape" off his/her property and "might" effect neighbors.
That is what the nanny state is doing, removing property rights. Even to the ultimate property, your own body. Combine this with bans on what people can and can not eat, like the transfat, and you have a government intruding into every aspect of our lives.
Helmet laws and seat belt laws should be unconstitutional, they unnecessarily encroach on the right to choose. Isn't it funny that women have a right to do what they want with their bodies in regards to abortion, but not helmets and seat belts?
When I worked 3rd shift for many years, I did a little research. Do you know the #1 cause of industrial accidents and a factor in many other accidents? Lack of sleep.
If we don't stop the nanny state, soon we will find cameras in our bedrooms making sure we get a "healthy night's sleep" of 8 hours or more. Government mandated of course.
Just for the sake of Irony, Have you looked at life-expectancy ratings for homosexual men?
ReplyDeleteIf this is what we're looking for, maybe that's somthing else to ban....
I've had a bike accident where wearing a helmet made the crucial difference between death and/or brain damage and walking away with a few good scrapes.
ReplyDeleteHelmet laws might be in same category as requiring a car to have working brakes in good condition...common sense, but unfortunately someting that needs to be enforced.
Smoking? It's a social disease, a way of life that left alone... might just disappear in a few generations.
We all know the consequences. I have no problem with the warning on a package. Cigarette advertising does not exist any more. There are no more ads that claim that "9 out of 10 doctors say that Camels won't affect an athletes wind"....
The unfortunate effect of making laws about behaviour is that the behaviour acquires a cachet of attraction that it wouldn't have normally.
It is like the "head scarf" laws for islamic girls in French schools.
The custom was becoming less and less common as the Islamic population of France became more acculturated, but the conservatives in France made it an issue in 2001 and to stir up the xenophobic base, they found it convenient to pass a law against girls wearing veils in school.
Of course, this sparked an entire years worth of controversy and suddenly scarfs and veils became a la mode....Girls began to find new and attractive ways to skirt the issue and a new generation of islamic women found in the veil a symbol of protest and assertion of identity.
Myself, I haven't smoked in 25 years, but I find it sad that I can't smell black tobacco in a cafe anymore.
In fact I think many cafe's are closing because people would rather stay home and smoke rather than go to a cafe and not smoke.
It hasn't sseemed to affect cigarette sales here in France at all.
How about the freedom to live our lives free of unneeded government intrusion?
ReplyDeleteWhere do we get to draw the line on what is a social concern or not?
As Weer'd stated, the cost of health care for homosexual men are greater then for heterosexual men, does that mean we can regulate that activity?
Should the government be allowed to review genetic screening prior to marriage or the birth of a child to determine if the costs of having that child are acceptable?
There is a line and the government continually crosses it "for our own good".
Helmet laws are a great example. Do helmets save lives, yes absolutely but we shouldn't ban them. Motorcycles have higher medical, societal costs associated with them, should we ban them or let people decide if they want to risk their lives or not?
It's about liberty and we are loosing it to those that want to coddle us in cotton and bubble wrap. No thanks, I will still smoke cigars occasionally, drink when I want to, eat fatty foods IF I CHOOSE, not the government.
+1 I've lived my life just fine without a motorcycle. I know a TON of people who've spent time in the hospital because of them (as a matter of fact I know of ONE bike-rider who HASN'T been in a hospital because of his bike) Obviously Bikes should be banned, as cars are safer.
ReplyDeleteAlso I don't know about Dot's assessment on smoking. I don't think people will ever get away from it. I can't think of a single intoxicating agent that has fallen out of existance in the world.
We still brew wine, beer, and spirits, as we have since the dawn of time. Dispite all the bans on the Marijaunna and coccain as well as opiates are still quite easy to find in today's soceity, and they are legal in many countries.
My personal drug of choice is alcohol, but dispite having quit smoking back in 2004, I still think the thought of life without nicotine would be aweful. I still enjoy about 5 cigars a year.
I didn't start smoking until I was 18, I'd watched my grandfather die of lung cancer, knew my other grandfather had died from smoking complications, and knew my great grandfather quit smoking after a heart-attack.
I knew it wasn't good for me, but I was curious and tried it. I enjoyed smoking and got hooked not because of peer-pressure or ignorance, but because I LIKED IT.
I also quit with my own free will, as do millions of others.
second-hand smoke most certainly IS a problem. whether it's a big enough problem to justify a law like this one, i can't make up my mind on; it's at least on the threshold of being justified.
ReplyDeletesecond-hand smoke most certainly DOES escape from the smokers' apartments and back yards, to interfere with their non-smoking neighbors' quiet enjoyment of their private property. if i went and pissed in my neighbor's water well (assuming he had one), i'd certainly be held liable; why then should my neighbor be allowed to pollute the very air i breathe?
here's a good simile. assume i'm walking around with a spray bottle full of cat urine, randomly squirting into the air in front of me every few minutes. if you happen to be standing in front of me, i might be considerate and spray off to one side, perhaps even taking extra care to spray downwind from you if i feel like being particularly kind; or i might be rude and spray you in the face. think i'd get away with that for very long? yet tobacco smoke is, if anything, worse than that.
but a law that intrudes to this extent on landlords' right to determine the use of their own property... it's borderline, and i'm uncertain of whether we need to go that far. perhaps something less draconian could have been worked out through the building codes.
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteThere are other mechanisms to handle such situations, how about a novel idea of talking to your neighbors? Or the person walking down the street spraying cat urine, asking them to stop?
But who knows, maybe cat urine kills bubonic plague, reduces the number of asthma attack, or provides other health benefits.
The "there_oughta_be_a_law" response is overkill. Just because something is unpleasant or un-liked doesn't mean there should be a law...or rap music would have never made it off the east coast.
Your well analogy isn't accurate because you have to trespass to pee in your neighbor's well, while the smoking is done on your own property.
I don't like the smell of cabbage cooking, can I implement a city wide ban on that?
Don't we forget the part of living in a society of going along to get along? I lived in apartments for almost 20 years, I know about smells from the neighbors, from loud music and how the law can be mis-used.
In all 20 something years, I never once had to call the cops to handle a situation. I either lived with the problem (loud music mostly) or asked the people nicely, and respectfully, to resolve the problem. Most of the time, it was sucessfully resolved.
In a society, as you've mentioned, people give up some of their rights. Isn't this one of them, the right to have it your way all the time?
how about a novel idea of talking to your neighbors? Or the person walking down the street spraying cat urine, asking them to stop?
ReplyDeleteyeah, there's a novel idea, just ask your neighbors to stop smoking. i'll tell you how that'll work out. they'll listen politely, give you a polite brush-off, and act like nothing ever happened.
why will they do that? because: (1) they're addicted to nicotine; (2) they hear "quit smoking" all the time, from people who mean a good deal more to them than any neighbor does; and (3) what's in it for them? nothing.
your average smoker cares a great deal more about their nicotine fix than about their neighbors, or else they would have long since quit already. there is no possible way a smoker can indulge their addiction in modern day society and not know non-smokers effing hate it; the very proposal of laws like this one is all the notice they need to figure that one out.
but they care more about their addiction than about good relations with society at large --- if they didn't, they would quit smoking --- so unless such a law directly impacts them, they go right on polluting the air i breathe, with impunity.
But who knows, maybe cat urine kills bubonic plague, reduces the number of asthma attack, or provides other health benefits.
yeah, JUST like tobacco smoke. suuure, bob --- now pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Your well analogy isn't accurate because you have to trespass to pee in your neighbor's well, while the smoking is done on your own property.
his well's directly on the other side of the property line, and i've got a long reach on my weiner. but it doesn't fucking matter where I am, it matters where MY POLLUTION goes. if i crapped in my yard and watched the turd predictably roll down the steep hill to land on the next lot over, i'd still be acting like a stinky jackass, and i'd still have to clean my mess the fuck up.
your average smoker cares a great deal more about their nicotine fix than about their neighbors, or else they would have long since quit already. there is no possible way a smoker can indulge their addiction in modern day society and not know non-smokers effing hate it; the very proposal of laws like this one is all the notice they need to figure that one out.
ReplyDeleteFrankly I don't think it is anyone's concern if non-smokers hate smoking or not. Just because people don't like something isn't a reason to make a law against. That is the very point of the argument; Each person has the liberty to do things and no one has a right to ban it because they don't like it.
Second hand smoke hasn't been proven, key proven, to be the problem, as you stated that needs to be against the law.
It is just more nanny state, socialistic bull. Want to run your life like you want, fine but people don't have a right to tell me how to run my life.
As far as people stopping smoking in public, I've actually had more people stop then not...key here is that I asked respectfully, politely and in a situation where it was warranted.
How much smoke really travels in appreciable amounts across walls, through the neighborhood?
And are those amounts of a health concern that requires action by the government?
Where does it stop Nomen? Helmet laws, seat belt laws, transfat bans; are the do-gooders in the world going to force me to work out every day?
How about people like Mike who are vegetarians? They are convinced that a vegetarian diet is healthier, should they be allowed to pass laws stopping the consumption of steaks?
Each person has the liberty to do things and no one has a right to ban it because they don't like it.
ReplyDeleteso if i were to park my car in your front yard every day, that's my perfect right? i mean, it's not like you're using that front yard for anything else, and the oil stains and stunted grass hasn't been conclusively proven to lower your property values or anything.
(really, there's no proof. show me the double-blind studies in peer reviewed journals to link such minor, purely aesthetical blemishes in front yards to lowered property values! all you've got is conjecture, i swear.)
tobacco smoke is conclusively linked to no end of serious health hazards. all you're doing is claiming that maybe, if the smoker exhales it and it drifts twenty feet over, it somehow magically becomes harmless and inoffensive. the utter lack of logic there quite speaks for itself, it really does.
as for where regulation stops, that's a silly question. it stops where political pressure makes it stop; political pressure exerted by people like you and me, motivated by discussions and arguments like the one we're having here. it might turn out it stops short of the proposed Californian law --- as i mentioned, i'm not convinced myself that that one doesn't go too far already --- or then again, it might not stop before tobacco is banned as crack cocaine is now; time will tell. isn't politics fun?
...besides which, tobacco smoke being a health hazard isn't the only reason to ban it. the mere fact that it's a nuisance, on a level considered intolerable, is quite enough. neighborhoods can ban heavy truck traffic through residential streets, even if the streets could bear the load, simply because the noise is insufferable. pig farms standing where they always have been must normally be tolerated, of course, but new ones opening up right inside city limits are not tolerated, because their stench --- while medically probably harmless --- is too much of a nuisance. if something severely interferes with the quiet enjoyment of my home and property, even if it's harmless, i have reasonable grounds to ask that it be stopped.
sure, it's polite to gently ask your neighbor to turn down his stereo before going all lawsuit-happy on his ass, and it might be worth trying once or twice. but if he just plain won't cooperate, you have good enough grounds to sue him for it, simply because your home is not his disco, and your right to peace and quiet on your own property is as real as his right to entertain himself on his.
i have a right to breathe clean air, just as you should have a right to smoke. the only thing we're really debating is how to go about resolving the conflicts when those two rights collide.
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteSorry but your example of parking your car in my yard isn't something I don't like, it's a violation of property rights.
I have the right to the property I paid for, YOU DON'T. Just like the well example from before.
You don't pay for the air, so you don't have exclusive control over it.
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteas for where regulation stops, that's a silly question. it stops where political pressure makes it stop; political pressure exerted by people like you and me, motivated by discussions and arguments like the one we're having here.
So does the Constitution, the document called the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, have nothing to say about what rights are protected, what limits the government has?
Sorry but repeating over and over again "general welfare clause" doesn't necessarily give the government the right to control abortion or cigarette smoke.
There has to be a limit to what the population can force on others or we have a "tyranny of the majority".
I am sure something that can be very popular can be voted on and passed, doesn't make it constitutional. How about I start a petition making the effective tax rate for all immigrants at 95%?
According to your earlier statements, that is acceptable to differing tax rates. I'm sure most people would support it, so is it constitutional to single out a group of people for treatment that is different from everyone else?
How is immigrant different from smokers or gun owners?
Let's face it, Guys, this all boils down to Political Correctness and socially acceptable causes.
ReplyDeleteJust like Mike joked about cars and baseball bats being banned....tho he has no problem with gun bans.
Nomen, we know where you stand on cigarette smoke. But what about OTHER smoke? I think bio diesel is going to be the alternative fuel of the future. So what if I sell my gasoline truck and trade it in for a diesel car. I love the performance and efficiency of oil-burning cars....but the exhaust DOES stink, and likely contains as many carcinogens as a cigarette or cigar.
Should those engines be banned for politeness despite their green potential?
What if one of my neighbors has a grass alergy, should I be banned from mowing my lawn because the clippings could cause them discomfort?
We talk about helmet laws, but we don't talk about motor cycle bans.
We talk about seatbelt laws, but not about auto-bans or drastic speed governors.
Hell we're talking about restricting where people smoke...but we won't talk tobacco bans!
As a demographic gay men live a shorter lifespan. (Technically it's unprotected promiscuous anal sex, sexual orientation of participants unimportant) Should we bring back those draconian Sodomy laws, and throw out all the stops to enforce them?
I think we all know the answer. This isn't a MORAL quest, this is simply a politically correct quest to instill your moral image onto others.
Not entirely unlike the churches you detest so much....
bob:
ReplyDeleteSorry but your example of parking your car in my yard isn't something I don't like, it's a violation of property rights.
yet me pissing across the property line into your well is not. amazing, these property rights of yours!
You don't pay for the air, so you don't have exclusive control over it.
nor do you; hence, you cannot reasonably assume you have any right to pollute it with smoke.
(or any other airborne pollutant, of course. like cat urine.)
So does the Constitution, the document called the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, have nothing to say about what rights are protected, what limits the government has?
of course! it's a very powerful rhetorical bludgeon for to convince people that you're right with.
occasionally --- VERY occasionally --- you might even be able to use it to get your way through the courts, if you can find a judge who's sympathetic to your point of view and who's willing to use your constitutional argument as an excuse for ruling your way.
but hey, look at how the courts are interpreting the constitution these days: weed grown in one state and given away at no charge for end-use consumption in that same state is now considered to be "in interstate commerce". i dunno about you, but that just never stops to bug me. and it always reminds me, too, that in practice the constitution means nothing more than what some robed clown says it means.
(don't get me wrong, i'd love it if the constitution had more weight in actual practice. i'd also love it if the legal doctrine that corporations are "persons" under the law was ripped out of the books and burned. but i'm not going to get my way on this, and no more are you.)
weerd:
Nomen, we know where you stand on cigarette smoke. But what about OTHER smoke?
i don't like it any better, frankly. but hey, i'm a big-government pro-regulation sort of guy, so you can guess what my usual prescription for it is...
big business: regulate them; let them suck it up. auto exhaust: regulate stricter standards, the Japanese have proven they can handle them. (Detroit? couldn't handle a booze-up in a brewery, i'm sad to say. no point crying over bankrupt corporations, though.)
diesels only smell if you buy one made in Detroit. European TDI engines don't have nearly as bad an exhaust problem, and bio diesel smells much better than regular diesel through pretty much any engine that can handle it. go ask this blogger about his diesel Audi, he seems to really like it.
and if you can't tell the difference between acts that genuinely do impact the lives of others (such as poisoning the frigging air, dammit, you'd think a biologist could figure that one out!) and legislating morality, then you need to sober up before re-reading this thread for content.
...now that weerd has me thinking about government regulations on a different level... really, all i'm doing here is insisting that economical externalities be integrated to prevent tragedies of the commons. why is it a bunch of conservatives can't see the obvious economical sense in that?
Weer'd said, "Just like Mike joked about cars and baseball bats being banned....tho he has no problem with gun bans."
ReplyDeleteBut, I repeat, I do have a problem with gun bans, a big problem. I hate government interference almost as much as Bob and Tom do. Yet, I think something needs to be done about the availability of guns.
But this post is about smoking laws, and I must say, Nomen makes a lot of sense to me, again. If he'd just give up those silly guns, I declare, he'd be just about the perfect commenter.
"I think something needs to be done..."
ReplyDeleteThis prefix if wielded without data and a strongly prospective outlook is hands down one of the most dangerous aspects of modern society.
I'm not a total libertarian who believes that the Government should only deliver the mail and keep a national guard (and the punchline goes "And you're not so sure about the national guard!")
I do believe that there is a time when the individual should relinquish some personal control to the government for the greater good. I just stand that giving such things up should be done with the greatest of caution, and assured and extremely positive results.
The government should NOT be in the business of splitting hairs. Can we agree that second hand cigarette smoke is harmful? Of Course. Can we agree if the harm avoided by the passing of this law is worse than other common environmental factors...like breathing auto exhaust, or walking in the sun without proper sunscreen?
We can't. I bring up ridiculous bans like Bob's ban on cars and baseball bats, or an enforced sunscreen law.
Hell, I only got about 4 hours of sleep last night, maybe I should be arrested when I attempt to drive to work because I didn't get my full 8-hour beauty sleep (never mind that my body operates best on 7 hours a night with the occasional two-hour nap on the weekends when time permits.)
Yes, those bans are ridiculous, but what's the big difference between this law and those other ones?
More Grist for the Mill from wcbstv.com
ReplyDeleteMayor Bloomberg Declares War On ... Salt
Hizzoner Calls On U.S. Manufacturers To Reduce Salt Content Until It Results In A 50 Percent Cut In 10 Years
Citizens Revolt, Claim NYC Is Turning Into Nanny State
Reporting
Marcia Kramer
NEW YORK (CBS) ―
Singer Jimmy Buffett will never find his "lost shaker of salt" in New York City or any other place in the country if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way. The mayor is waging a war on salt and he wants food manufacturers and restaurants to join his army … or else.
It's ironic that the war on salt began on the very day the city was spreading tons of it on the streets to fight a snow storm, but in Bloomberg's view there is good salt … and bad salt.
City officials said that people don't realize the salt content of the things they buy in the supermarket. For example, potato chips you would think are the saltiest thing in the store but they have only 180 milligrams per serving. Turkey meatballs, on the other hand, have 660 milligrams per serving. Marble cake has 300 per serving and chicken noodle soup has nearly 1,400 milligrams of salt per serving.
The city's plan is to get food manufacturers in the United States to agree to gradually start reducing salt content until it reaches a 50 percent cut in 10 years.
"Salt, when its high in the diet, increases the blood pressure and high blood pressure is a major factor for heart disease and stroke," said Dr. Sonia Angell of NYC's Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Program.
This is just Mayor Bloomberg's latest health initiative, following on the heels of a smoking ban, a ban on trans fats and forcing restaurants to post the calorie contents.
But many New Yorkers peppered the mayor with boos for his latest idea.
"I don't think they should do that," a woman in Manhattan named "Nora" told CBS 2 HD. "Because I like salt in my food."
"I don't think it's that big a deal to look on the label, check the packaging and make the decision for yourself rather than have Bloomberg or whoever mandate what it is people should or shouldn't eat," said Paul Hope of Upper West Side.
"Nanny state. We don't need any more nanny state people can take care of themselves. We don't need the government to take care of us," said Patrick Keenan of Hell's Kitchen.
The city says it doesn't want to eliminate salt in food, just go back to the levels found during the 1970s.
Thomas Frieden, the city's health commissioner, said he wants manufacturers and restaurants to join the war on salt voluntarily. If they don't, the city could pass legislation making it the law.
How voluntary is something if the choice is do it now or do it when we pass a law?
Are they going to outlaw salt shakers at restaurants? How about at grocery stores....after all they know how much salt we should be using...rationing perhaps?
Are we going to see mandatory registration of salt shakers? Serialization and background checks on packages of salt sold at stores?
Maybe they will limit where salt can be sold....or is it going to be one package of salt per month?
After all, who needs to buy more then 12 packages of salt a year?