No Smoking

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
No Smoking

  http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Santa-Monica-City-Council-Smoking-Ban-Condos-Apartments-Home-Cigarettes-Public-Health-Consumer-Protection-Unit-162173085.html

 

Smoking Banned Inside Santa Monica Residences

The city council voted 4-2 on Tuesday to expand a smoking prohibition in the coastal city

By Lolita Lopez and Samantha Tata|  Thursday, Jul 12, 2012  |  Updated 4:14 PM PDT

 

Lolita Lopez & Hernan Vasquez

 

A 4-2 vote during Tuesday's city council meeting made Santa Monica's already restrictive smoking rules even tighter. New tenants of the coastal city will not be allowed to smoke in their residences unless they designate them smoking. Some residents say the ordinance goes too far but consumer protection groups say it's a step toward better public health. Lolita Lopez reports for the NBC4 News at 11 p.m. on July 11, 2012.

 

Smoking is already banned at beaches, parks, restaurants and near buildings in Santa Monica, but Tuesday night the city council sought to expand that prohibition and voted 4-2 to ban smoking for all new tenants of apartments and condos inside their residences – with one exception.

 

“It also requires existing residents to designate their units as smoking or non smoking and from then on it will be prohibited to smoke in a non smoking unit,” said Adam Radinksy, head of the Consumer Protection Unit in Santa Monica.

 

The coastal city’s smoking bans date back almost two decades and Radinsky – along with other supporters of the ban – say the measures are in the interest of public health.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So let me get this straight, you can't smoke outside, you can't smoke "near buildings" and now you can't smoke inside your apartment... so much for all the people who told me "well you can do whatever you want in your own home" when I first flipped out about all the bans on smoking in bars and such. Apparently only the rich get to smoke in their homes now and I imagine it is only a matter of time before that is banned as well.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Reading it, it sounds to me

Reading it, it sounds to me like almost every hotel I have stayed at in the last 20 years or so.  Some rooms are designated non-smoking, others are smoking.  So you can ask for and get a non-smoking room if you are not fond of or are allergic to second hand smoke.  So now apartment complexes have designated smoking and non-smoking apartments.  It doesn't say anything about free-standing houses. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: 

Beyond Saving wrote:

  http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Santa-Monica-City-Council-Smoking-Ban-Condos-Apartments-Home-Cigarettes-Public-Health-Consumer-Protection-Unit-162173085.html

 

 

Smoking Banned Inside Santa Monica Residences

The city council voted 4-2 on Tuesday to expand a smoking prohibition in the coastal city

By Lolita Lopez and Samantha Tata|  Thursday, Jul 12, 2012  |  Updated 4:14 PM PDT

 

Lolita Lopez & Hernan Vasquez

 

A 4-2 vote during Tuesday's city council meeting made Santa Monica's already restrictive smoking rules even tighter. New tenants of the coastal city will not be allowed to smoke in their residences unless they designate them smoking. Some residents say the ordinance goes too far but consumer protection groups say it's a step toward better public health. Lolita Lopez reports for the NBC4 News at 11 p.m. on July 11, 2012.

 

Smoking is already banned at beaches, parks, restaurants and near buildings in Santa Monica, but Tuesday night the city council sought to expand that prohibition and voted 4-2 to ban smoking for all new tenants of apartments and condos inside their residences – with one exception.

 

“It also requires existing residents to designate their units as smoking or non smoking and from then on it will be prohibited to smoke in a non smoking unit,” said Adam Radinksy, head of the Consumer Protection Unit in Santa Monica.

 

The coastal city’s smoking bans date back almost two decades and Radinsky – along with other supporters of the ban – say the measures are in the interest of public health.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So let me get this straight, you can't smoke outside, you can't smoke "near buildings" and now you can't smoke inside your apartment... so much for all the people who told me "well you can do whatever you want in your own home" when I first flipped out about all the bans on smoking in bars and such. Apparently only the rich get to smoke in their homes now and I imagine it is only a matter of time before that is banned as well.  

 

 

Ok please tell me, because the way this reads, IS NOT A BAN, but a request of the home owner to make a declaration. And as CJ pointed out already hotels do this with specific rooms.

NOW I don't completely agree with all smoking regulations. If you have plenty of ventilation and separately designated rooms ESPECIALLY in a business, and outright ban to me is absurd. And outdoor smoking bans I think happen mostly because of littering, so the crime should be about the littering not the smoking. Although because non-smokers do enter the same doors as smokers, there should be some distance between an outdoor smoking area and the doors. I may have the right to smoke, but I do not have the right to blow smoke in someone's face.

But if what the story says is true, once you declare the dwelling non-smoking, then sell it, the new owner cannot reverse that? Now that would be the only part I would object to.

Apartments are a different story. Depending on how they are built the smoke can get through the vent system, and the smell alone can bother your neighbor. I don't care if it is smoking or noise. Just because you pay rent, does not mean you get to disturb your neighbor with your habits.

So this is not an all or nothing for me. I might have written it differently, but I don't disagree with all of it.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

  http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Santa-Monica-City-Council-Smoking-Ban-Condos-Apartments-Home-Cigarettes-Public-Health-Consumer-Protection-Unit-162173085.html

 

 

Smoking Banned Inside Santa Monica Residences

The city council voted 4-2 on Tuesday to expand a smoking prohibition in the coastal city

By Lolita Lopez and Samantha Tata|  Thursday, Jul 12, 2012  |  Updated 4:14 PM PDT

 

Lolita Lopez & Hernan Vasquez

 

A 4-2 vote during Tuesday's city council meeting made Santa Monica's already restrictive smoking rules even tighter. New tenants of the coastal city will not be allowed to smoke in their residences unless they designate them smoking. Some residents say the ordinance goes too far but consumer protection groups say it's a step toward better public health. Lolita Lopez reports for the NBC4 News at 11 p.m. on July 11, 2012.

 

Smoking is already banned at beaches, parks, restaurants and near buildings in Santa Monica, but Tuesday night the city council sought to expand that prohibition and voted 4-2 to ban smoking for all new tenants of apartments and condos inside their residences – with one exception.

 

“It also requires existing residents to designate their units as smoking or non smoking and from then on it will be prohibited to smoke in a non smoking unit,” said Adam Radinksy, head of the Consumer Protection Unit in Santa Monica.

 

The coastal city’s smoking bans date back almost two decades and Radinsky – along with other supporters of the ban – say the measures are in the interest of public health.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So let me get this straight, you can't smoke outside, you can't smoke "near buildings" and now you can't smoke inside your apartment... so much for all the people who told me "well you can do whatever you want in your own home" when I first flipped out about all the bans on smoking in bars and such. Apparently only the rich get to smoke in their homes now and I imagine it is only a matter of time before that is banned as well.  

 

 

Ok please tell me, because the way this reads, IS NOT A BAN, but a request of the home owner to make a declaration. And as CJ pointed out already hotels do this with specific rooms.

No, it is a ban they just are allowing current tenants who already smoke in their apartments to be grandfathered in. As soon as that tenant moves, the apartment becomes non-smoking forever. They probably did that because it would be very unpopular to go around telling people they can no longer smoke and create a huge uprising. But now, most people will continue to live their lives and not notice anything different until they try to move and find that wherever they move to smoking is illegal. 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/santa-monica-ban-smoking-in-apartments.html 

this article explains it a little better than the initial one I posted. So yes, poor people (people who can't afford to buy a house) will no longer be able to smoke as soon as they move. I am not sure if renewing your lease would count you as a "new" tenant or not, I am guessing probably not so I suppose you could theoretically continue to smoke if you never move for the rest of your life. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

NOW I don't completely agree with all smoking regulations. If you have plenty of ventilation and separately designated rooms ESPECIALLY in a business, and outright ban to me is absurd. And outdoor smoking bans I think happen mostly because of littering, so the crime should be about the littering not the smoking. Although because non-smokers do enter the same doors as smokers, there should be some distance between an outdoor smoking area and the doors. I may have the right to smoke, but I do not have the right to blow smoke in someone's face.

I have no problem with smoking bans anywhere on public property. Public sidewalks, public parks, public buildings (by public I mean government owned not just open to the public) etc. If a city decides they don't want smoking on government property, they own the property that is their right. If an apartment owner or business owner decides they want to ban smoking, it is their property. But if the apartment owner wants to allow smoking, that is their choice. If a business owner wants to allow smoking that is their choice.  The government has no business telling people they cannot smoke in their apartment when the apartment owner has no problem with it. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

But if what the story says is true, once you declare the dwelling non-smoking, then sell it, the new owner cannot reverse that? Now that would be the only part I would object to.

Apartments are a different story. Depending on how they are built the smoke can get through the vent system, and the smell alone can bother your neighbor. I don't care if it is smoking or noise. Just because you pay rent, does not mean you get to disturb your neighbor with your habits.

So this is not an all or nothing for me. I might have written it differently, but I don't disagree with all of it.

When I lived in apartments kids always bothered me. The are noisy, obnoxious and rude things. Should we pass an ordnance against kids living in apartments? If you are particularly concerned about being around smoke or kids or dogs, whatever you can go through the effort to find a place that caters to your desires. Many apartment complexes are 100% smoke free, some are 100% kid free, some are 100% animal free, some only allow 65+ folks, some only allow rich people. Businesses cater to demand and there is a pretty big demand of people who want non-smoking (larger than us smokers) even before the smoking bans in Ohio there were many more restaurants that were non-smoking than those that allowed smoking, and most that allowed smoking only allowed it in designated areas. If you don't like an apartment because it allows smokers or the only room they have available is room next to someone who smokes a lot, go to a different apartment. Why should the rest of us change our lives simply because someone doesn't like our habits?

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Note to self: Don't ever

Note to self: Don't ever visit this location.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I dislike many consumer

I dislike many consumer protection groups, not because they can stop company's from horribly abusing customers, but because some of them seem to went to tell people what they can and can't put in their bodies.

If it is not harmful to others in the way it is being used, even if it is harmful to the person using it, why does it matter if someone does it? If they are informed of the risks than it is no-one's business if they use it. I don't understand.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
When I was a "Super", I also

When I was a "Super", I also supervised the 'turns' (re-newing/refreshing apts to get ready for new rental).

I think the apt complex owner should be able to have designated units, or even buildings if multiple, should they choose to. But I doubt you will hear many owners raise too much of a fuss over this. Most will likely welcome it.

When 'turning an apt, one of the most difficult and costly things to try to get rid of is the smell of smoke.  The worst is curry, which is next to impossible to remove 100%. Some units will almost gag you to walk into. Cat-piss is actually easier.

Both stick like tar to everything, including the heating/a.c. ducts. ( And yes we did have complaints about smoke coming from duct systems from neighboring smokers. It was actually just  from joining exhaust ducts in bathrooms)

So the saving of restoration costs will likely be most welcome by owners.

I even had meetings with the coorporate management over the division and designation of separate buildings for these issues.

Our complex had 16 buildings with 48 units each=768 units.

The Indian folks were always trying to get apts next to other Indians and there was always plenty of them on the waiting list for new apts, but to designate whole buildings would be politically incorrect and considered racist even if all parties involved were happy. It would have saved us a ton of work and money, but of course that one got thrown out right away.

Smokers were in no short supply either, so why not have one or more smoking buildings? Well like I said we always had a waiting list and these apts were in high demand.  Some had new jobs in the area and were desperate to get in. So if they were on the waiting list and all that was available in the near future was in a smoking building, they would likely take it. 

Now this is silly, but people were always trying to sue the company over the stupidest shit. It wasn't far-fetched at all to see someone claiming they had no choice(were forced) to live in a smoking building and filing suit.

Now you may say that there is no way they would have a case, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't make it to court. I had to go to court as witness twice in my first year over non-sense and the company even had to pay me my wages to sit in a courthouse all day.

Our company had 68,000 apts all over the U.S.  If they have any in Santa Monica, you won't be hearing them complain.

I used to be a smoker and I still think the bar-owner deal is bogus.  We have a very nice tavern down the road and the owner is a non-smoker, but he wanted to keep smoking available in his place. He never did like the smoke so he had a proper ventilation system in place. Now that I don't smoke, I know how the smell can stick to your clothes, hair, and lungs. But you could spend all day in his place and have none of that. But the law says he can't now regardless.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
There's a major employer

There's a major employer here that has about 1200 local workers in a town of around 60,000 that has a no tobacco policy to work for them.  They even test people for nicotine and will fire them if they test positive.

Crap, I remember when McDonalds had little foil ashtrays.   You guys remember that?   Crazy to imagine now.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Snus

Ever heard of 'Snus' ?    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_snus  VERY important here is the difference between Swedish (and Norwegian) snus and it's American imitations. The difference is night and day in quality.

I have been using tobacco most of my life.  I just like it. ALMOST all of it.  I have chewed or smoked just about everything. 

Well I still like to chew tobacco. I loved it even as a kid.  Call it nasty, stupid, whatever. It is what it is. But you would never know I had snus in my mouth.

Cigarettes are by far the worse for you.  I put them down right before they started the public indoor bans here in Illinois.

Well if you just can't quit them no matter what and are racing out of your workplace to get your fix, snus may just help you in some cases.

The best I can describe this stuff is an all around mix of dip, chew, and snuff.  If you've tried any or all of those and just didn't like it because of their down-sides, don't be so quick to dismiss SWEDISH snus.

Unlike traditional American chew/dip, it doesn't have a residue that requires spitting- one big reason many don't use it. It's also available in pouches so it doesn't go all over your mouth.

There are many articles (even a 60 minutes special) that are like everything else- mixed opinions, biased statements(facts), and political and big-business agendas.

My biggest fear with chewing tobacco has been oral cancer. Well, of the many articles and studies I've read there appears TO ME to be no (un-biased)credible evidence to show that Swedish snus causes oral cancer.  The only conclusive studies I have found say that it can be linked to pancreatic cancer and blood pressure -mainly from nicotine (as nicotine gum or patch would)  BUT I SUGGEST DOING YOUR OWN THOROUGH STUDY BEFORE TRYING SNUS.

What makes it so different is it's steam pasteurized and not fire-cured or fermented which is said to produce carcinogens in the manufacturing process.

Also, in Sweden it is regulated by their food and drug admin. so unlike american products, it's simple ingredients are listed on the can.  And it is said to be made in the highest processing standards.

I'm not suggesting anyone should just go try it, or that you should use it to try and quit smoking.

But if you are going nuts and even having trouble going to events where smoking is prohibited, or traditional chew was never a feasible option, or you don't wanna have to spit your chaw, etc,  Swedish snus just may get you thru.

 So for the desperate addict (or chew lover) here's a short introduction to trying snus.    http://www.zimbio.com/Tobacco+smoking/articles/46/Snus+FAQ+Folks+New+Swedish+Snus

p.s.  I've read no less than 14 articles from both sides of the tobacco controversy, so if you are just bored and looking to argue about anything you can find,- don't bother unless anyone else interested inquires on the subject.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:Ever heard

tonyjeffers wrote:

Ever heard of 'Snus' ?    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_snus  VERY important here is the difference between Swedish (and Norwegian) snus and it's American imitations. The difference is night and day in quality.say that it can be linked to pancreatic cancer and blood pressure -mainly from nicotine (as nicotine gum or patch would)  BUT I SUGGEST DOING YOUR OWN THOROUGH STUDY BEFORE TRYING SNUS.

I've seen the Snus stuff in stores over the past few years but didn't really know much about it.

I'm a smoker (trying to quit) and my dad has used chewing tobacco forever, so I'm not so deadset against it as some.

I'd prefer not to be a tobacco spitter though.  Gross.

Is there a brand of Snus that is widely available in the US that you would recommend?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:tonyjeffers

Watcher wrote:

tonyjeffers wrote:

Ever heard of 'Snus' ?    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_snus  VERY important here is the difference between Swedish (and Norwegian) snus and it's American imitations. The difference is night and day in quality.say that it can be linked to pancreatic cancer and blood pressure -mainly from nicotine (as nicotine gum or patch would)  BUT I SUGGEST DOING YOUR OWN THOROUGH STUDY BEFORE TRYING SNUS.

I've seen the Snus stuff in stores over the past few years but didn't really know much about it.

I'm a smoker (trying to quit) and my dad has used chewing tobacco forever, so I'm not so deadset against it as some.

I'd prefer not to be a tobacco spitter though.  Gross.

Is there a brand of Snus that is widely available in the US that you would recommend?

I haven't tried many.  General is the biggest in Sweden, possibly the world, and seemingly the most readily available here in US. I found it right down the road at the discount smoke shop, but they keep it in a tiny fridge behind the counter.

General  Original Portion.  would be about the closest you might come to Copenhagen original.  But they also make a mint (sold right next to it) in "white portion"

If you wanna go online to try varieties that last link has other links like Buysnus.com  and General Snus has their own site.

Snus is quite different than regular chew, especially the way it comes.  'portion' means in a pouch as opposed to loose. I never liked pouches with american tobacco but you really need them with snuss. And you can move it all around your mouth.

 'white portion' (dry) and regular(moist).  White doesn't necessarily mean the pouch is white. It means dry and slower delivery, but it doesn't pack a good punch. With moist you may wanna spit several times til it tones down or you get used to it.

I would recommend sampling General Original Portion and General White Portion Mint to give you an idea. And just to make sure you don't turn green only swallow occasionally at first and don''t use on an empty stomach.

It's also cheaper.  $3.50 a can here in central illinois.  and you get 24 pouches a can. 

It's also available with super high nicotine for the hardcore or just the quick fixer.

So for a nicotine fix you definitely want the moist.

Honestly I think this could really help people quit smoking and tobacco altogether IF they wanted to. I used to chew a whole can of copenhagen a day and I've only had 2 pouches of snus today. I think it's cuz it doesn't have the chemical additives that keep you addicted as much as american products.  Many even share the opinion that American cos have even been clever enough to make shitty snus so people never try the Swedish and thus never consider it an alternative to smoking.

Case in point- I used to smoke 2 packs of marlboro reds a day. Then I tried a Dutch Drum brand tobacco(roll your own). It was so much better quality, didn't hack thru the night. and didnt crave it nearly as much. Later I noticed a difference in it's taste and side-effects and came to find out an American company had made an imitation of it with the same exact package, except for where it was made.

 edit: p.s  there are the same warning labels on the can but there are articles that explain why too.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia