Smoking Banned in the Home

The New York Times reports on a new smoking ban that went into effect recently in Belmont California. It actually prohibits smoking in private apartments.

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?

Drug Courts are Saving Addicts from Prison

The New York Times ran a story today about the drug courts that are not sending addicts to prison but into treatment programs instead.

In Seattle, as in drug courts across the country, the stern face of criminal justice is being redrawn, and emotions are often on the surface. Experts say drug courts have been the country’s fastest-spreading innovation in criminal justice, giving arrested addicts a chance to avoid prison by agreeing to stringent oversight and addiction treatment. Recent studies show drug courts are one of the few initiatives that reduce recidivism — on average by 8 percent to 10 percent nationally and as high as 26 percent in New York State — and save taxpayer money.

I'm always sceptical about these types of statistics, but in spite of the self-serving promotion, I think it might be true. Time spent in prison rarely contributes towards rehabilitation. Perhaps the only hope for addicts is something like this. Instead of spending time with other criminals, they would spend that time with other addicts trying to stay clean. Maybe it's all about peer pressure.

What do you think? Can addicted people ever really change? Do you think the problem with the old way is that it was not harsh enough?

Since the first drug court began work, in Miami in 1989, the idea has spread to more than 2,100 courtrooms in every state, though they still take in only a small fraction of addicted criminals. Offenders, usually caught in low-level dealing or stealing to support their addictions, volunteer for 9 to 18 months or more of intrusive supervision by a judge, including random urine testing, group therapy and mandatory sobriety meetings.

Let us know your opinion.