San Rafael Smoking Ban, Strictest In The Nation, Goes Into Effect

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

The California city of San Rafael might be one of the more beautiful places in the country, but if you’re a smoker, it might not be the place for you.

Last week, the San Francisco suburb made active a smoking ban that officials say is the strictest in the country, prohibiting smoking cigarettes in your own home.

The ordinance specifically bans smoking in dwellings that share a wall with another unit, including apartments, duplexes and condominiums. The hope is to eliminate second-hand smoke from creeping through doors and windows, ventilation systems, floorboards and other susceptible openings. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report, secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, including 430 infants.

The San Rafael City Council unanimously approved the ban last year. “I'm not aware of any ordinance that's stronger,” said Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst at the City Manager’s office, to ABC. "It doesn't matter if it's owner-occupied or renter-occupied. We didn't want to discriminate. The distinguishing feature is the shared wall."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/san-rafael-smoking-ban_n_4326768.html

[OffWithTheirHeads]

1. One of the reasons I moved to Tucson.

California was just getting ridiculous.

[olddad56]

3. And Arizona isn't?

[JimDandy]

41. I'm sick of cigarette smoke seeping into my home from adjoining residences.

Literally get sick from it. And my complex advertised itself as non-indoor-smoking, too. They used to enforce it with notices to non-conforming smokers threatening to evict them. Now that they are trying to sell the place, they have stopped enforcing the rule. I ended up taping the gap around my door frame, covering outlets in adjoining walls and putting plastic over ceiling vent fans and joint cable access holes--all to no avail.

Building codes need to get stronger to take care of this problem. Failing that, I'm all for city-wide ordinances mandating no-smoking in multi-family units. Until then, though, other residents should stop forcing me to breath their nasty smoke that causes breathing problems for me.

[Arugula Latte]

46. I don't think it's ridiculous at all.

The non-smokers should be able to breathe in their own homes.

[Android3.14]

52. At least the jack-booted thugs won't have to breathe secondhand smoke

San Rafael can go fuck itself.

[Arugula Latte]

78. Right, because not poisoning someone's air in their own home is exactly like nazism.

[Android3.14]

87. No, but telling people what they can do in their own homes is like Nazism

Accepting encroachments on the right to be free in your own home is exactly what happened with folks like yourself when a dictator steps into power.

[Bandit]

113. Can you shoot heroin in your own home, or torture some child?

There are many things society has deemed inappropriate, even in one's own home...Your argument has no merit.

[Android3.14]

117. So your argument is, if it is harmful to yourself or to a child...

or if a society deems it inappropriate, then the state should tell a citizen whether they can use/do/consume it in your home. Whereas my opinion is that the state should just stay the hell away from my personal life and when they do step into that realm, then the state is behaving like a fascist dictatorship. My argument (as opposed to my opinion) is that a person should have the right to do anything they reasonably want to do in their own home as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. This includes drugs. As far as torturing a child, any reasonable person recognizes this is a specific situation that spans the spectrum from individual right to social responsibility primarily, because children have rights and parents also have rights when it comes to raising a child.
I understand that there are foods that cause harm. Perhaps the state should ban those? Or perhaps the state should eliminate sharp objects from homes, or in-ground pools, or bathtubs? Once they can do that, perhaps they will control whether a woman can smoke while pregnant, drink while pregnant, and then they could argue that abortion is harmful to an unborn child, and therefore woman shouldn't have that choice.
Wait-wait. Perhaps one day the state will deem that skipping prayers before a meal is "inappropriate", or that certain words are harmful or inappropriate. Under your stance, the state has a responsibility to regulate anything within a person's home, and you, of course, would welcome that. (I don't actually believe that you would welcome that. I do, however, argue that if you disagree that the state should control what people can say in their own homes, then your opening salvo is hypocritical)

Talk about an argument without merit...

[Bandit]

118. "as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others."

This is the argument in a nutshell. If your home has no attached walls where what you do can infringe upon others, then there is no problem. Smoke infringes upon others. If you allow your smoke to penetrate anothers home then you need to be stopped. PERIOD

[bunnies]

127. So outside smoking should be banned as well?

Because someone walking down the street with a smoke will likely waft in to every open window they pass. Much like the carcinogens from vehicles, or fireplaces, or charcoal grills do.

[Android3.14]

130. What about cats and those allergic to cat dander?

Does that count?
The fulcrum of the argument turns on the word "reasonable".
I have a friend who is hypersensitive to cat dander.
When his neighbor brought home a cat, he started to become so congested that he would have to leave his apartment sometimes just to get relief.
I have another friend who creates art by using a variety of welding equipment, some of which is quite smelly. Perhaps the state should go into her home and force her to stop making art.
Then of course, there is the cancer patient who uses marijuana cigarettes to deal with their symptoms. What do you tell that person?
If tobacco smoke is worthy of having strangers come into your home in order to tell you what you can and cannot do because a neighbor thinks that "smoke infringes on others", then the same is true for cats or any other item that makes people wrinkle their nose.
The interesting thing about a Democracy is that it tends to force others to become tolerant.
That's a big reason why the Republicans dislike Democracy.

[Arugula Latte]

120. What about the rights of non-smokers?

Smoke knows no boundaries. It creeps into the smallest places. I have stayed in hotels where smoking is prohibited in the rooms, but the smokers go out on the balconies. Guess what -- our room is filled with the stench of smoke in no time to the point where it is unbearable. You can't get away from it or open a window because the smoke just comes in more strongly. I can't imagine living like that not just for a couple days but day after day, year after year.

[Android3.14]

129. They can leave

One, we are talking about homes, not hotels. Two, if you don't like the smell of a person's home, then I suggest you quote exactly what you said above, and then leave. I'm sure people will admire you for your tact and tolerance.

[Arugula Latte]

132. Why should they leave? They're not the ones contaminating someone else's space and air.

[Android3.14]

137. That is a thoughtless thing to say.

So what you are saying is, if I were to go to a cat person's home, and I am allergic to cats, that the homeowner should leave?
If I were to visit someone with cancer, and they had to smoke marijuana in order to deal with the side effects of chemo, you are saying that the cancer patient should leave because they are contaminating your air?
As I said before, the nice thing about Democracy is that it encourages tolerance, which is why Republicans are always trying to turn it into fascism.
They can't stand tolerance. Can you?

[Arugula Latte]

138. You are intolerant of people who just want to be able to breathe freely in their own homes.

It shouldn't be too much to ask.

[Android3.14]

139. My tolerance isn't the question

You can breathe freely in your own home. Go crazy and add fresh oxygen and cinnamon, or St. Bernard farts if it fits your fancy.
I tolerate much that I personally find distasteful, including smoke and persons with ill considered opinions regarding liberty.
I am intolerant, however, of a government that tells people what they can and cannot do in their own homes.

[truthisfreedom]

2. Not strict enough. Ban smoking within 100 ft of any business.

Ban all indoor smoking. Tax cigarettes $100/ pack. I hate smokers. I hate cigarettes. They wreck my personal enjoyment of life.

[pipoman]

4. After we ban trucks and cars maybe..

I will sit in a car with 5 chain smokers, you can sit in a car with the exhaust of a single car pumping in the cabin, we'll see which is more toxic and deadly, eh?

[JDPriestly]

15. Do you have statistics to back up your claim?

Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1

More than 440,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
173,940 deaths annually among women (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/

There were 53,524 motor-vehicle deaths in 1979, compared with a projected 33,975 this year [2011], according to the data compiled by Bloomberg.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

And if you are worried about traffic deaths here is a troubling prediction:

While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

Cigarettes or guns: take your pick. Both tend to be more deadly than cars.

[pipoman]

17. I don't need stats to

know that I would pick a 2 week drive with a bus load of chain smokers over sitting in a car for an hour with the exhaust piped into the cabin. I contend that the exhaust of a single car is far more poisonous than 100 people smoking cigarettes..Were any of your links about vehicle emissions? Looks like they are about car accidents? Who said anything about car accidents?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

24. Pump the cabin full of water for an hour.

Same result.

I guess that means water is poison too.

[pipoman]

30. LOL

I hope this was satire...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. Come to think of it. Water is more poisonous because it will kill you in three minutes.

Car exhaust will take a half hour or so.

A car full of jello will also kill faster.

[pipoman]

35. Not following how any of this

pertains to air pollution..since that is what this thread is about and all..

[Hassin Bin Sober]

43. you were the one to steer the conversation down this....

..... Silly path.

The conversation WAS about the substance that kills a half million people yearly in the US due to cigarette smoking and chronic exposure to cigarette smoke.

Why you want to discuss acute carbon monoxide provisioning in a conversation about chronic cigarette smoke exposure is beyond me.

I was hoping to point out the major flaw in your logic that a substance is more poisonous if it can kill you within minutes of acute exposure.

[azurnoir]

75. about those stats

my mother who had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer died a few years ago she was having breakfast with a friend and suddenly collapsed in what appeared to be stroke or some sort of cerebral accident, she died a couple of days later having never regained consciousness but the cause of death on official papers -COPD, why because she had smoked 10 years earlier btw she was never diagnosed with COPD, what I was told was than in cases of people dying with no official autopsy being done and any history of smoking the catch all all cause of death was -COPD and if I wanted some else I could pay for an autopsy
But this has led me to question just how many of the listed smoking deaths are under similar circumstances?

I'm certainly not saying smoking isn't harmful but are the stats being inflated?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

119. That's very interesting ...

I'm glad you brought that up.

My condolences about your mother.

[JDPriestly]

116. Here are the stats that I found on estimated deaths from auto pollution.

According to new research from MIT, in 2005 air pollution accounted for a staggering 200,000 premature deaths in the United States, more than 58,000 of which can be attributed to vehicle emissions. Air pollution-related mortality shortened the average victim’s lifespan by 12 years, the study estimates.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/

There are more deaths from auto emissions.

What the article did not analyze was how many of the individuals whose deaths were attributed to auto emissions also smoked.

In this day of ubiquitous auto emissions that an individual cannot single-handedly avoid, considering the statistics, only a fool would smoke.

Smokers, you can't avoid auto emissions, but you can avoid tobacco smoke. See your doctor to get help quitting your addiction to tobacco. For your own sake and that of your family.

Just last weekend, a friend of mine who has insisted on smoking and argued that it isn't really cigarettes that cause cancer announced that she has breast cancer. I don't think that smoking caused her cancer. At least the statistics don't show that. But I think that the smoking did not help prevent her cancer. Smoking and alcohol are both incompatible with a really healthy lifestyle. Both addictions/habits weaken your body. They also take a lot of your focus and time away from healthier things you could be doing.

If you don't smoke, don't start.

When I was a teenager, all my friends smoked. I wanted to sing and knew that smoking would hurt my voice, so I did not smoke. Now the older I get that happier I am that I never started. Don't start smoking. It is a waste of money, time and can ruin your health. What do you get out of it? Nothing.

Your smoking will help the CEOs of the tobacco companies. They will profit from your poverty and poor health. If I smoked, I would be very poor. I simply could not afford that addiction. Most people have better things to do with their money than to buy cigarettes, cigars and other forms of tobacco.

Also, don't live in big urban areas. That's where the auto and other pollution is at its worst. Especially avoid living near a freeway.

[.99center]

23. Whoa, does he really need statistics to prove

That pumping exhaust from a car into a closed off cabin of a car would be more dangerous then second hand smoke?
His point was air pollution, which mainly comes from vehicles causes more harm then second hand smoke. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829.html So add your 34k direct traffic deaths with 200k deaths from second hand driving and we end up with.....holy shit, why are the most smog infested places so obsessed about second hand smoke while everyone's dieing from air pollution. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/who-air-pollution-causes-cancer-poses-bigger-threat-than-second-hand-smoke. Hopefully well get passed this manufactured rage against the lower middle class and the poor in this country, im sure you already know that they make up the largest percentage of smokers, and fight against real scums in this country. Until then, this "liberal" forum will continue on trying to decide who's worse, poor people who smoke, homeless poor people who drink, or women that have abortions.

[JDPriestly]

25. Poor people who smoke die just as young as rich people who smoke.

That smoking is addictive and that it causes more deaths than car crashes is proven.

Cars produce a great deal of pollution. But so does burning coal and oil for heating and industrial purposes. Pollution is caused by industrial uses and heating as much if not more than by cars.

We should have solar energy especially here in the Southwest. If our nation spent as much money on solar energy as it spends on tobacco, we could make some headway.

It is not a matter of poverty. The poor make up the highest percentage of our population, but rich people and middle-class people also smoke when they should know better.

[progree]

39. Smoking rates much higher for the less educated and for the poor

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/

By Education

45.3% of adults with a GED diploma
34.6% of adults with 9–11 years of education
23.8% of adults with a high school diploma
9.3% of adults with an undergraduate college degree
5.0% of adults with a postgraduate college degree

By Poverty Status

29.0% of adults who live below the poverty level
17.9% of adults who live at or above the poverty level

========================================
I just bring this up because I find it interesting, frustrating, and tragic. I have a close friend who is a GED diploma holder who smokes and frankly can't afford to do so (not that much above the poverty line).

[JDPriestly]

44. It is interesting and tragic.

Someone should do a sociological study on it to learn why it is.

It used to be that middle-class people smoked a lot -- professionals. I don't think it is purely a matter of information and education and therefore understanding of the risks. I think it is also a matter of opportunity and the social cost to middle-class people that smoking entails. Frankly, in California a lot of people, especially educated people, disapprove of smokers. It is possible that to better educated and wealthier people, smoking seems to be a sign of either ignorance or lack of respect for oneself, a sign that the smoker does not really value his life or his social status. That could explain why middle class and wealthy people smoke less than poor people.

Of course, it could also be the influence that advertising has on certain people as well as where ads are placed. Perhaps poor people are targeted because cigarette companies think they are more vulnerable to the ads. i don't know. Someone should study this if they already haven't.

[JDPriestly]

115. By the way, California which is the state in which this ordinance was passed,

has done more to curb car pollution than just about any other states.

Stop smoking. Addicts have trouble admitting to their addiction. If you are a smoker, see a doctor about your addiction. Second-hand smoke is terrible for people with asthma. But they cannot avoid your smoke if you smoke in their presence.

Californians do more than just about any other Americans to try to deal with pollution. We aren't anywhere near the reduction level we need, but we are working on it. Quitting smoking is a personal step that each smoker can take toward reducing the pollution in their own personal environment.

[bunnies]

108. Not stats but, a new study found pollution to be worse than passive smoking.

WHO agency : Air pollution causes cancer

Source: Associated Press

LONDON (AP) -- What many commuters choking on smog have long suspected has finally been scientifically validated: air pollution causes lung cancer.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer declared on Thursday that air pollution is a carcinogen, alongside known dangers such as asbestos, tobacco and ultraviolet radiation. The decision came after a consultation by an expert panel organized by IARC, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, which is based in Lyon, France.

"We consider this to be the most important environmental carcinogen, more so than passive smoking," said Kurt Straif, head of the IARC department that evaluates cancer-causing substances.

IARC had previously deemed some of the components in air pollution such as diesel fumes to be carcinogens, but this is the first time it has classified air pollution in its entirety as cancer causing.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_MED_POLLUTION_CANCER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-17-06-01-53

[JDPriestly]

114. "More so than passive smoking," but not more than smoking.

Environmental carcinogens are definitely more harmful than passive smoking -- unless you happen to be asthmatic or a child.

The problem with coal is the smoke and exhaust it produces.

People who smoke can start healing the planet by stopping their smoking.

Cars with combustion engines do contribute to pollution. Here in California we not only are reducing air pollution from tobacco smoke but also from car exhausts. Our cars have to pass smog test every year.

So far, most people have no affordable alternative to driving a car. This is especially true in the Midwest and South where they have fewer laws regarding car exhausts.

The first step to take to reducing pollution in your life is to avoid starting to smoke and if you do smoke quitting. See your doctor for help to quit smoking. They have amazing methods now that they did not have some years ago. So see your doctor. Smoking can kill. Pollution can also kill.

You could start walking to work. But before you do that, make sure you have quit smoking.

[bunnies]

123. I dont smoke.

Quit more than 5 years ago. Interesting that you assumed I did though. I also carpool as opposed to drive to work. So theres that.

Point being that air pollution is more carcinogenic than second hand (passive) smoking. Yet smokers cant even smoke inside their own homes. That's ridiculous. If a town banned cars in the name of public health, people would lose their minds. Smokers, otoh, are so much easier to target.

edit: sp

[JDPriestly]

128. What if the family next door has an asthmatic child?

Passive smoke like freeway air could be very damaging if not deadly for that child.

Further, banning smoking in apartments that adjoin other dwellings and share their air will make it easier for people to quit smoking.

Those of us who never smoked don't want to pay for the injuries that smoking causes to those who do. Lung cancer and emphysema to mention just a couple of the diseases related to smoking cost a lot of money and run up insurance and medical care costs for all of us.

[bunnies]

131. Banning smoking in apartments wont make it easier to quit smoking...

Any more than banning heroine makes it easier to stop shooting up. If that would the case, you wouldn't see smokers huddled outside in sub-zero weather or pouring rain just to have a smoke.

The kids in the apartment across the hall from us smoke and not once has their smoke ever permeated our space. We don't "share air" any more than me and the neighbor next door. Actually, every time the neighbor next fires up his grill, our apt fills with his damn charcoal smoke. How many carcinogens in that, I wonder. Maybe outdoor grilling should be banned too.

Imagine: "those of us who never had weight problems don't want to pay for the... " Or those of us who never drank booze, or those of us who don't need maternity coverage. Who the hell do they think they are driving up my insurance costs?! Banning processed food will make it easier for people to eat healthy! I only eat whole food. Why should I pay for someone elses heart attack? Right?

[weissmam]

51. the CIG smoke

considering the current state of car exhaust tech, the cig some is about 1000 times more deadly and I am being generious

[PassingFancy]

103. I'd love to ban all of the stinky vehicles - they encroach on my freedom to breath air without stink

I'm with you there. I can't understand why vehicles over 25 years old are exempt from the idiotic emissions test in my state - those are the very vehicles that stink the worst and cause me undue hardships due to the stink - multiple chemical sensitivity is a horrible thing and smelling these horrible vehicles causes me to have something similar to an asthma attack. At least I can smoke a few puffs off of a cigarette and it will stop the coughing for me.

Also, I'm fed up with idiots who think they have to pour on tons of cologne or perfume thinking they smell sexy - all they smell like is a toxic waste dump.

[bunnies]

109. See my post #108

The WHO just did a study that proved air pollution has more cancer causing carcinogens than passive smoking. I saved the link just for such an occasion.

[pipoman]

110. It really is a no-brainer

people ingesting first hand smoke for decades, en mass, don't necessarily die from it...not to say it is good..just not quite on the same plane as say, coal emissions, car exhaust, natural gas byproduct, etc. The claims made of 2nd hand smoke remind me of the Reefer Madness claims...the push on tobacco smoke and even more obvious e-cigs, is pushed by authoritarians who believe they somehow should be able to control others..

[bunnies]

111. Ive always thought so too.

But hey, its a hell of lot easier to point the finger at others than admit that ones precious car is WORSE than those horrible smokers. . My favorite are those who claim e-cigs emit "toxic" vapors. FFS. Might as well wear a sign that says "I have no clue what Im talking about, Im just looking for an excuse to bash somebody that does something I don't."

Now we have people on here cheering the fact that the govt is telling people what they can do in their own house. Fuck that noise. Now if youll excuse me... Ive got to go play my piano really fast and freak out.

[Treant]

5. Personally, I think

we should just draw and quarter them in the public square for being annoying and all. After that, we post the severed heads in the local mall with the word "Smoker" underneath them.

That should keep people from being annoyed by somebody else's personal habit in their own private home, and of course there's no slippery slope there.

[beaglelover]

7. Must suck to be you. nt

[Nanjing to Seoul]

11. Freedom of peech wreck my personal enjoyment of life. . .especially when

someone says something i disagree with. ban all thoughts and words i don't like. ban red meat too.

hell, ban alcohol too. oops, tried that.

and i am not a smoker.

[alp227]

13. why "all indoor smoking"?

I'd prefer ban smoking where anyone who doesn't consent to breathing in filthy tobacco can breathe in the filth. Including the outdoors!

[JDPriestly]

26. If you read it carefully, it isn't all indoor smoking. It is only smoking in apartments and

dwellings with walls that adjoin those of another dwelling -- to prevent second-hand smoke from affecting neighbors. My husband used to smoke. He has asthma. This is a good law for people like him.

Professional people in California tend to smoke very little because they often work in offices and, by ordinance, must go outside to smoke.

This ordinance in San Rafael may reduce smoking there in two ways. First, some apartment-dwellers may quit smoking and, second, some will smoke less.

The problem with smoking in an apartment is especially detrimental if children live in the apartment building. Parents should not smoke in their homes with children.

[iandhr]

14. They tired prohibition with booze

It didn't work out so well.

[onehandle]

18. It's not prohibition of item. It's restriction within place.

That works Very well.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. That's what people said about the smoking ban in bars and restaurants

That has worked really well. I'd say we're near 100% compliance on that in most jurisdictions, and the bottom hasn't fallen out, and the businesses have not collapsed, and there's little to no violation of the law. So, this tired mantra that any restriction is am prohibition that's bound to fail is just silly, and ahistorical. All kinds of restrictions have worked well.

[iandhr]

107. I agree with those 100%

I don't smoke. I don't like being around those who smoke. Its nice to breath free air in a bar or a restaurant.

I guess saying you can't in your own home is a problem.

[onehandle]

20. Banning outdoor smoking is inevitable. Including the chemical spewing 'e-cigs.' nt

[Treant]

21. Quite possibly

Particularly when people lie about the chemicals in e-cigs. It's amusing.

Let's ban propylene glycol in the air. Which means you'll have to stop using toothpaste and hospitals.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Well, ok, I suppose water vapor IS two chemicals.

If you want to get technical about it.

[Treant]

58. Technically, no...

The constituents of e-cig liquid are propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine, nicotine, and flavorings--although both nicotine and flavoring are optional.

The exhale has practically no propylene glycol as it's readily absorbed. It does have a large amount of water vapor, but that's coming from the lungs of the user.

There's vegetable glycerine and the flavoring in the exhale as well.

Of course, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine are listed as GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe, the same classification water vapor gets). Both are rated for continuous exposure for operators of fog machines.

Flavorings could be the kicker, but if that's the case I want those plug-in air fresheners banned for being death machines.

[onehandle]

61. Oh, wait... The substance in e-cigs is just water?

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

No 'flavoring' or nicotine or weed or Heroin or anything?

That's very odd. What does one get from breathing water vapor in and out?

Good to know. They should stick them in the mouths of babies as they emerge from the womb.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20131017mesa-police-arrest-tempe-man-using-electronic-cigarette-smoke-heroin-abrk.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2454693/E-cigarettes-used-smoke-marijuana-public.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2402108/E-cigarettes-harmful-cigarettes-cause-cancer-claims-study.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430121/Boy-3-burned-moms-e-cigarette-explodes-setting-car-seat.html

[brett_jv]

76. Obviously it changes the equation if someone is vaping something other than e-juice ...

But as far as people using a vaporizer as designed, for e-liquid, nobody has thus far even shown it's harmful to the person VAPING, let alone bystanders, even in an enclosed area ... if you think you have something to fear from someone vaping in an apartment next to you, or sitting next to you at a bus stop ... well, put it this way ... I'd give you 100-to-1 odds in a bet that says you're wrong.

All that's in e-juice is propylene glycol (used IN ASTHMA INHALERS), vegetable glycerin, nicotine (optional), and generally food-grade flavorings.

I'd bet anyone that when all is said and done, it will be scientifically proven that bystanders have absolutely nothing to fear from 2nd-hand vapor. Just because it 'resembles' smoking in some ways does NOT mean it must, by necessity, involves the same dangers. You're not BURNING TOBACCO (+ lord knows what additives from the tobacco company), there's no SMOKE, no particulates, no 2000 known carcinogens. The vapor does not 'linger' like smoke, nor does the process involve any additional vapor other than what's exhaled by the vaper (who lungs will have filtered out the majority of the nicotine), unlike cigarettes which produce some smoke that is never filtered by the smokers lungs, since they burn the whole time even when the person isn't actually inhaling.

[Treant]

83. Hence my air freshener comment

Those plug-in scented oils sometimes contain propylene glycol, so therefore they're just as "bad" as e-cigs (you shouldn't use them for other reasons, but propylene glycol isn't one of them).

For stuff like this, I listen to my doctor. Who gave me a double thumbs-up when I switched to the e-cig, and stated specifically that he didn't care if I used it for the rest of my life--all the major chemicals in it are harmless.

Propylene glycol is also used as a dilutant for many IV medications, so it's safe enough to directly inject into your bloodstream.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. When you say 'ooga booga chemicals' one should point out, everything is a chemical.

Water is comprised of two chemicals.

I don't get my fucking news from the DailyMail or Fox News when the prohibitionists are in a froth to ban anything that even remotely sounds like a cigarette.

(I do not smoke, but I see nothing wrong with eCigs, by comparison)

[onehandle]

82. 'Global warming is a hoax and carbon dioxide is harmless'

Did you write that line for Michele Bachmann?

It's just chemicals.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. What's the matter, pissed you cited Fox News in your hurry there?

You're the one scaremongering. If there's a problem, show a study that supports it, and stop using scare words for no supportable reason.

You're on weak-assed ground when all you can point to is the Daily Mail, and Fox News.

Ooga booga, chemicals. Ok, show HOW and WHY they are potentially harmful. Not all (in fact most do NOT) vaping products contain diethylene glycol.

meanwhile, the Boston University...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497603

[onehandle]

95. Gosh. So many DUers don't smoke, but know so much about it.

Tell us more about the thing you don't do.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. My father died from it.

My wife used to smoke. My brother smokes. I know plenty about it.

'so many DUers' don't link to fucking Fox News when scaremongering about XYZ subject.

[onehandle]

97. I changed the one out of four links to one of the hundreds of other sites that reported that story.

Doesn't change reality.

Hipster addicts with USB charged poison delivery devices will be regulated to behind the dumpster.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Assumes facts not in evidence.

When you have actual medical studies, not the hunches of the Daily Mail crowd, let us know.

[Comrade Grumpy]

74. In your totalitarian dreams, perhaps.

Why not just go all the way and make smoking a crime. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

I think I know you. You're the guy who has never set foot in my neighborhood bar and never will, but wants to tell us what we can and cannot do. Go away. Go far away. Farther. Keep going. That's it.

[Snowfield]

89. "chemical spewing 'e-cigs" <-------------- what a load of shite

[AtheistCrusader]

99. I looked at a bottle of vanilla extract in my pantry today. Ingredient #2: propylene glycol

OMG IT'S POISON

[penultimate]

60. All indoor smoking? Even if you own your home?

As for the tax, I'll agree with that if we can also add ridiculous taxes to thing I do not like.

[Warpy]

6. It's unenforceable

unless multi unit dwellings have balconies. Even then, somebody is going to bitch about smelling smoke from 5 units away and they'll pass another unenforceable law.

[beaglelover]

8. +1 and I don't think it will hold up in court when challenged.

Smoking is legal and an adult should be allowed to do any legal activities in their own home, even their own apartment. Enough of this nanny state shit.

[Warpy]

9. I like the bans on indoor public spaces.

Those work really well for me and a lot of other people, too, even smokers who say they enjoy the bars a lot more now that they don't go home reeking like they've been in a bar. Heated outdoor smoking areas have become alternative dating sites for smokers to meet prospective partners who smoke, something that's been true in this city and in Ireland, also.

I really hate cigarette stank. However, if it's not concentrated enough to set off my asthma, I'll cope. Smoke em if you got em, just set fire to em outside and we'll get along just fine.

[beaglelover]

10. I'm fine with those bans too.....

Just not bans in someone's own private home. That's taking things too far.

[alp227]

12. But what if the person lives in a condo or apartment

and the resident's smoke can be breathed in by every other non smoking resident?

[EX500rider]

112. I've lived in lots of apartments..

.....don't smoke, don't like the smell of smoke but I have NEVER been able to tell what or if my neighbors were smoking anything.
Especially THRU the walls....I could see some 2nd hand smoke going out and then in a window...
Just how flimsy are these walls? Do the walls go all the way to the ceiling?! (I lived in lots of houses in Costa Rica where they didn't)

[SoCalNative]

16. If you don't own the property

you are limited on what you are allowed to do at said property.

[pipoman]

19. Usually limited by the owner, not the government..

further this is about owner occupied too..

[JDPriestly]

29. Smokers are in the minority in many parts of California.

But you may be right about the law although there is a good health and safety argument for it that might trump the argumemt that adults may generally do legal activities in their homes.

[progree]

33. Smokers are probably the minority just about everywhere as the nationwide smoking rate is about 18%

18 percent of adults say they are current smokers, down from about 20 percent for the past seven years.www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57589870/?

California, according to this July 2011 report:

Last year, 11.9 percent of the state’s adults smoked,
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR11-031.aspx

[eallen]

31. I think it is a stupid law. But...

I doubt it will be overturned on the notion that "an adult should be allowed to do any legal activities in their own home." It's legal for me to target shoot and hunt. But if I fire a gun in my home, I'm likely to get charged with illegal discharge of a weapon, or some such violation.

[dixiegrrrrl]

22. The interesting aspect is ..banning the use of a legal substance.

And now they have added discrimination, in that a person who lives in a stand alone house can smoke in that house
but not in an apt.


The country is in the position of permitting the sale of a legal product that is so apparely toxic, all dangers of 2nd hand use must be eliminated.
When wil the point be reached where tobacco use is declared illegal?

FWIW, I have been nicotine free since 1988.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

32. There is plenty of precedent regulating legal substances.

If I decide to build.a paint spray booth in my condo I assume the complaints from my neighbors would cause a visit from the local and state authorities. Paint is legal but there have been tons of regulations put in place in the last 20 years.

This smoking in condos is a timely subject for me as I just had to meet with my neighbor regarding her freaking out about the new neighbors below her who apparently have been having smoking parties in their home.

I'm on the condo board so I guess it may be something we have to get involved with as a board if the parties can't work it out. I would prefer my role as board president remain as head grounds keeper and fix it guy.

This is a 100 year old 6 flat with no insulation or sealing between floors. Everything travels between floors.

This kind of.a worst case scenario come true. To date, the few smokers that lived in the building since I've been here all smoked outside. I mean, who wants to stink up their own house? Not to mention someone else's house.

Hopefully it will just result in a "oh I didn't know that" kind of thing and will be resolved.

But what if the people say fuck you it's my house?

To add fuel to the fire the complainant has a 16 month old baby. She was out of town last weekend and came home to a house that reeked of cigarette smoke. The downstairs neighbors had a multi-day house warming and apparently allow others to smoke in their condo.

[JDPriestly]

37. They are not banning the use of a legal substance.

They are merely restricting where they can use it. Besides there is no constitutional right to smoke.

[Warpy]

42. It's regulated, not banned

For instance in Boston, you could drink alcohol in a bar or in your home. "Open display" on the street was prohibited, so you'd see winos drinking out of paper bags.

I think a lot of landlords will eventually stop renting to smokers because of the increased wear and tear on the property and the increased risk of fire, causing insurance to go up. Some buildings out there are already smoke free. Smokers will have to chew or use e cigs to get their nicotine.

[PassingFancy]

105. They are even trying to ban people from smoking on their front porch or in their yards

if some other putz 2 doors down can smell the cigarettes (in some cities). To that I say - then quit mowing your lawn as the smell of new mown grass is a horrible thing for many of us as well as quit cooking stinky stuff that invades my privacy 2 doors down.

[LTG]

49. Balconies won't help

Balconies are specifically included in the banned areas under the code.

[Deep13]

27. "...but if you’re a smoker, it might not be the place for you."

Sounds like exactly the place for smokers. It will probably save them all from a slow, lingering death. This isn't about intruding on the rights of smokers. This is about not allowing corporations to continue to victimize them.

[YOHABLO]

28. You know the worst place to go in and out of is Walmart and grocery stores.

Especially Walmart ... the employees are always squatting down in front of the store puffing away and I come strolling in and get a nice good chestful of cigarette smoke, .. and of course I don't smoke, and yes, I am ashamed I shop at Walmart .. but the prices are cheaper in my area .. But this occurs in front of all big box stores and grocery stores .. I really get sick of it .. but what can I do? Perhaps you think San Rafael's restriction is too stringent .. well I say too bad. People who smoke rarely acknowledge non-smokers rights. They need to get a life.

[JDPriestly]

38. Smoking is an addiction, and the failure to acknowledge the damage inflicted by an addiction

is called "denial."

Addiction Denial is defined two different ways by most experts in the substance abuse field. Discerning the differences between the two is paramount in working effectively with people in treatment. For illustration purposes lets call the two types of denial Type A and Type B.

Type A denial is when a person sees, understands, and knows that they have a definite problem. When confronted about the problem they flat out deny it, knowing that it is true. This type of denial is outright dishonesty or lying.

Type B denial is when a person is either partially or totally blind to a problem that they have. Through a hundred forms of self-deception, rationalization, justification and excuse making, a person can actually believe that they do not have a problem, when everyone around them sees this it is obvious. This type of denial comes from being honestly dishonest or by blindness. The type of denial we will deal with in this test is Type B, honestly being dishonest.

http://azureacres.crchealth.com/recovery-addictions-articles/stages-of-denial/

[SnakeEyes]

140. I admit I'm a smoker

I admit I am addicted. Don't hide it from anyone. Understand the damage it causes.

I smoke because it makes me feel good. I enjoy smoking. So I willingly have no plans to quit.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. To say nothing of the formaldehyde emanating from the clothes, furniture and other

cheap shit they sell inside.

[pothos]

36. does not mention whether medical marijuana is exempt

i checked the ordinance report and the story, and it doesnt mention whether those with medical marijuana cards will still be allowed to smoke. seems like a pretty big oversight.

[Deep13]

48. Modern codified laws usually have a definitional section.

I would be surprised is it does not define smoking as use of tobacco products.

[LTG]

50. Not exempted

In fact, the definitions given for "smoke" and "smoking" in the city ordinance/code would include smoking of just about any substance, including marijuana. So, without amendment, smoking medical marijuana is prohibited in the same way as tobacco.

[mimi85]

40. The cost alone

would make me quit. I heard that a pack costs something like $5+ now. Yikes, when I quit in 1986 it was $1.25 which I thought was outrageous. Dating myself here, but I remember my mom giving me a quarter to go buy her a pack of smokes. Kents, if I recall. My dad was a Winston guy. Ha, I remember him busting me smoking while walking home from high school and he just said it wasn't "ladylike." He said the same thing with an ultra conservative black dress I had. Damn, I had a bday last week and I really feel ancient now!

I'm not getting into this convo - I see both sides. I only know that just smelling smoke on someone makes me almost nauseous.

[darkangel218]

45. People can still smoke outside if they want to.

Smoking indoors , especially apartment buildings, should be banned everywhere imo.

[KentuckyMark]

53. Ban Assholes as well

If they ban assholes if that city, the assholes would have to move out and then only the smokers would be left.

[HockeyMom]

54. How did we ever survive childhood in the 50?

Our parents smoked inside our apartment all around us. We should have been dead years ago, according to the Health Police, from all that second hand smoke. Holidays? Oh, no. Whole bunch of relatives all smoking inside, without even a window open????

Then there was the FOOD! How about a mayo sandwich on processed white bread? Who knew? No BMI, or WHR, either. My parents didn't even own a bathroom scale. Nobody ever measured our waists and hips to see if we were "at risk". How did we ever survive without these "Wellness/Preventive" tests? Don't SMOKE. Don't eat transfats. Don't drink soda. Don't do this. Don't do that. YOU WILL DIE from it.

We are a stressed out society today from worrying what they say is going to kill us NEXT. Does stress kill? lol

How in the world did anyone over 50 ever manage to survive from all the "unhealthy" things we did? We never should have made it past our 30th birthday according to the Health Police.

[diane in sf]

56. Every time I had to be in the car with my smoking mom I was nauseous

And I would get respiratory infections in winter when the house was sealed up. I'm very grateful she quit in 1965 after the surgeon general's report came out. That year I stopped getting sick every winter.

[onehandle]

57. 60,000 people die each year in the U.S. from Second Hand Smoke related deaths. (600,000 worldwide)

Hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. are gifted with life-long ailments, minor and major, that may not kill them, but doesn't make their lives a picnic either. Air pollution alone can do this to kids, but second hand smoke is far more effective.



Your are making a Sarah Palin argument. 'If it doesn't affect me, how can it exist.'

[HockeyMom]

59. How many Boomers survived their childhood?

WE should all be dead according to what they now say. And not just from smoking (the #1 pet peeve), but our terrible diets too. That is my point.

[RebelOne]

124. At 74, I am far older than a boomer.

I have been smoking since I was 16 and I am still alive. I only stopped smoking the two times I had been pregnant because cigarettes made me sick. But right after their births, that nicotine craving came back, and I went back to smoking to lose the baby weight. I do know that smoking will kill me someday, but I think it will be a while yet. When I was 44, a doctor told me that I would die soon if I didn't stop smoking. Well, that was 30 years ago and I am still here and that doctor probably isn't.

[Union Scribe]

135. Truly terrible argument.

"I'm not dead so there's no danger!"

Do you realize how pathetic that line of reasoning is? Do you honestly doubt that smoke, asbestos, lead, etc. are bad for people?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

145. I have scar tissue in my lungs, visible on an X ray.

It looks like little white dots of dandruff along the insides of the tubules.

Both my parents smoked in the 1950s and part of the 1960s. They stopped after the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans reported the link to lung cancer. I was ten when my mother finally stopped.

I have also been in and out of the hospital and ER numerous times with pneumonia, bronchitis and sinus infections, to the point of being life-threatening for seven or eight years. Got my lungs rinsed out four times in five years so I wouldn't die from drowning in my own pus in my lungs.

Went to the ER with dehydration and uncontrollable vomiting from sinus infections. Had to be hospitalized for that when I was pregnant. My Ob-gyn thought it was morning sickness. I told him it wasn't, and he finally put me in the hospital when I was six months along and only had gained five pounds. That got his attention.

And I have never smoked. Ever. Not one cigarette.

I have had to end friendships with people that smoked. When I was a kid I had a perpetually runny nose from allergies to dog hair, dust and mom smoking, in a filthy un-air conditioned house, but nobody seemed to notice except to tell me to go to the bathroom at school to blow my nose. They didn't have allergy medicines then, that I knew of.

I'm a boomer and I survived, but it was hellish long term recurrent sickness.

[HockeyMom]

63. How about Third Hand Somking?

Does that exist? That the newest heath danger. People don't have to smoke around you. Just smelling their breath, hair, and clothing can give you cancer!!!!! All of this applies to diets, testing, etc.

We are all going to die from something. Some people, inluding ME (Sara Palin), sooner rather than later. Doctors cannot make you live forever.

[onehandle]

65. Funny you should mention it. It is a thing.

The tar and chemicals in smoke and in butts have to settle somewhere.
_______________

Thirdhand smoke: What are the dangers to nonsmokers?

Thirdhand smoke is generally considered to be residual nicotine and other chemicals left on a variety of indoor surfaces by tobacco smoke. This residue is thought to react with common indoor pollutants to create a toxic mix. This toxic mix of thirdhand smoke contains cancer-causing substances, posing a potential health hazard to nonsmokers who are exposed to it, especially children.

Studies show that thirdhand smoke clings to hair, skin, clothes, furniture, drapes, walls, bedding, carpets, dust, vehicles and other surfaces, even long after smoking has stopped. Infants, children and nonsmoking adults may be at risk of tobacco-related health problems when they inhale, ingest or touch substances containing thirdhand smoke. Thirdhand smoke is a relatively new concept, and researchers are still studying its possible dangers.

Thirdhand smoke residue builds up on surfaces over time and resists normal cleaning. Thirdhand smoke can't be eliminated by airing out rooms, opening windows, using fans or air conditioners, or confining smoking to only certain areas of a home. Thirdhand smoke remains long after smoking has stopped. In contrast, secondhand smoke is the smoke and other airborne products that come from being close to burning tobacco products, such as cigarettes.

The only way to protect nonsmokers from thirdhand smoke is to create a smoke-free environment, whether that's your private home or vehicle, or in public places, such as hotels and restaurants.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/third-hand-smoke/AN01985

Additionally cigarette butts are the single most polluted item in the world, clogging waters systems and seeping chemicals into the water base.

[HockeyMom]

67. Mandatory Committment

Round up anyone who smokes, and put them in a institution. De-Contamination centers before DeTox. Look at all the Money the Health Care Industry could make from this?????? Of course, e-cigs wouldn't be allowed. Give them some PILLS.

Sounds good, right?

[beaglelover]

80. 3rd hand smoke!!! What a bunch of BS!

[Arugula Latte]

122. Just because you don't care about its effects on other people, animals and the environment

doesn't mean it's "BS."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

144. I had to wash down my paneling and cabinets in my house when I moved in.

Got lots of yucky brown stuff off the walls and cabinets and that was left over from the previous owner. She was a smoker and had a heart attack and died.

I knew about third hand smoke thirty years ago. It's gross.

[SnakeEyes]

141. That number seems to grow despite the decline in smokers.

It's always been a mystery how they come up with that figure. With it being 60k/yr, I would think I'd have heard of someone known to have died of a second hand smoking related cause.

But I'm not the expert tho

[beaglelover]

79. +1 that's why I don't buy into all this nanny state bullshit!

I'm a college educated adult and I choose to smoke. I enjoy it. When I'm out in public I'm aware of where I can and cannot smoke and abide by the rules. But you are not going to tell me I cannot smoke inside my own home. No way! Get a life!

[SnakeEyes]

142. Your home is not entirely your home

when you share walls and ventilation systems. As has been shown with public smoking bans among other laws, when others are affected it's the government's right to dictate what one cannot do.

[HockeyMom]

90. Don't light a candle in the house

and blow it out. SMOKE! Cancer! Don't use the fireplace. SMOKE! Cancer! Don't clean the OVEN! SMOKE! Cancer! I hear those too from my former smoker husband. Yet, he never stops EATING JUNK food, and SITTING watching TV, but he is deathly afraid of getting cancer from totally STUPID things. See what you anti (FORMER) smoking people are creating?

[Arugula Latte]

121. Lame.

There WERE thousands of deaths and sicknesses and accidents. For example, despite your rosy scenario, many children died flying through the windshield because there were no seatbelts. Many died because they had a bike accident and hit their unhelmeted heads. Many adults are living with the effects of growing up in houses and cars filled with smoke, and many are not here because they died early deaths due to lung cancer or the like. I hate this "we did XY and Z back in the day and we all survived" bullshit bragging that goes around in nostalgic emails. It's so arrogant and disrespectful to the people who did NOT survive.

[valerief]

62. Over the years, people stopped smoking not because of illness or the price of

cigarettes. They stopped because more places banned it.

I think it's fantastic.

[HockeyMom]

85. Nope, just like Prohibition

where there is a will, there is a way. That comment sound's like Bloomie's mindset. People just go outside of restaurants, offices, etc., to smoke, even walking (or getting in cars) far from buildings.

Ban them. Why don't you people, already? That would cause a black market, loss of profits, and taxes. Not going to happen any more than banning booze worked.

[former9thward]

64. There is no science behind this. None.

Not one single study, even those with agendas, that shows this (smoking in your homed with a shared wall is a health issue. None.

[onehandle]

66. Impeach The U.S. Surgeon General!

He's oppressing us all with that liberal invention called 'science.'

[former9thward]

68. Please link to a study.

Where a person smoking in a home causes health problems with someone next door. There is none on the Surgeon General's website. No science behind this law at all. But being anti-science is ok when you have an agenda, right?

[onehandle]

69. Try reading the article. There's a link there.

Move your own damn cursor.

[former9thward]

70. Maybe you should read the article.

The link to the "study" is no study at all. It is generalized comments about secondhand smoke. Most complaints about secondhand smoke and health effects have come from people in close proximity with smokers at work or in their home. None are about someone in another home. There is no study linked which would be a basis for this particular law.

[beaglelover]

81. There is no study. This is all manufactured nanny state BS!

[cstanleytech]

104. Hey onehandle, that report is pretty big though so it would help support you

if you could link to the section that specifically addresses the issue of exposure for those who live in condos and or apartments from other units because I couldnt even find that section and I did try, thanks.

[bunnies]

126. Of course theres no study.

Unless your "shared wall" is a screen the logic makes no sense whatsoever. Smokers are easy targets though. Grab your pitchfork, but leave your torch at home, we wouldn't want all that smoke in the air!

[valerief]

134. But it can get people to stop smoking, and you know what they get with that?

More money and more years!

[RoccoR5955]

71. Perhaps we should just make smoking a crime

punishable by death.

[Brother Buzz]

72. In the laid back California town of sunny San Rafael Lived a girl named Pearly Sweetcake...

you probably knew her well....

[on point]

73. As a non smoker, I still find this to be excessive over reach I can't support

[NutmegYankee]

84. I don't think this will work out well

If you Own a row house, which often doesn't have any kind of association, and there isn't a listed restriction on the deed that allows this kind of law, it's unenforceable. You have an inherent right to engage in legal activities within your own home. And smoking tobacco isn't illegal. I understand laws on businesses - that's part of the regulation of commerce stated in every state constitution. But within one's own home?

Are police going to start raiding homes with SWAT gear?

[JimDandy]

101. If the walls are not shared (independent) then this won't apply. n/t

[Titonwan]

88. I will not only smoke in my house

I will smoke in my yard, on the sidewalk and in my car. As a matter of fact I'm gonna stick 15 pounds of tobacco in the exhaust pipe and let my car smoke too.
Cali has gone cray cray.

[Egnever]

106. From the city that brought you 420!

My how times have changed since Jerry hung out there.

[salimbag]

94. Outdoor smoking banned

In Hawaii county, smoking is banned in all county parks. People are generally respectful about this, and it is enforced by local police. The beaches and picnic areas are no longer covered with cigarette butts. Also illegal to smoke in an automobile with small children. Aloha

[cstanleytech]

102. Setting aside the common pro and anti smoking arguments whats everyones thoughts on what SCOTUS will

likely say in the end assuming it is heard by them?
After all the ban effects people who have been legally smoking in their homes for years but now its banning it which does tend to put a burden on them so will scotus probably throw the law out or uphold it?

[unrepentant progress]

125. They implemented this with public housing in Fort Wayne

Beginning Tuesday, January 1, smoking is no longer allowed on public housing properties. This comes after the Fort Wayne Public Housing Authority Board of Commissioners approved a smoke-free housing policy in November.

Residents in all Housing Authority buildings have been notified. They must sign lease addendums, stating that all residents and visitors won't smoke inside apartments, public areas, and within 20-feet of buildings.

Anyone who doesn't comply will be in violation of their public housing lease.

http://www.wane.com/news/local/smoke-free-public-housing-takes-effect

[snooper2]

133. Damn this thread is getting long, I need to step outside

for a smoke

[Douglas Carpenter]

136. GOOD! At least now there is a way to kick the marijuana smokers out of town - good reddens to them!!

[SnakeEyes]

143. Finished the entire thread

Time to go smoke.