People's Republic of Berkeley Considers Banning Smoking in Private Homes

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 1:04 AM GMT
    The latest nanny-state proposal from the Bezerkeley city council is to ban smoking in everyone's house, if any children live there. Commissar Jesse Arreguin is seeking to add this provision to the ordinance about to be adopted which will ban smoking in all condos and apartments. The city is also considering hiring smoking police, who would somehow enforce the ordinance. The city staff estimated it would cost $120,00 annually to pay for the enforcement of the ordinance. Doesn't sound like there would be much enforcement if they can do it for only $120,000.


    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-smoking-ban-proposed-for-single-family-4984302.php
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 1:34 AM GMT
    This makes so much sense it is so obvious. It is a danger to human health and as such needs to be heavily regulated.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Nov 16, 2013 1:35 AM GMT
    I don't smoke, I don't like in Berkley, so I don't give a fuck.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 2:21 AM GMT
    Timbales saidI don't smoke, I don't like in Berkley, so I don't give a fuck.


    Then why did you waste your time posting your comment?

    I think this is a very bad policy. I'm not even sure how they could enforce it as a warrant is still (even in California I think) required to gain entrance into someone's home.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Nov 16, 2013 2:43 AM GMT
    PrickleyHeat said
    Timbales saidI don't smoke, I don't like in Berkley, so I don't give a fuck.


    Then why did you waste your time posting your comment?

    I think this is a very bad policy. I'm not even sure how they could enforce it as a warrant is still (even in California I think) required to gain entrance into someone's home.


    for the same reasons you post topics
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3279

    Nov 16, 2013 3:37 AM GMT


    Why dont they just ban the sale of cigarettes?

    The law would be struck down pretty quickly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 2:00 PM GMT
    Despite the OP's hype, it's a non-story.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 2:23 PM GMT
    Why? It's a slippery slope towards a police state, you should have noticed this by now.

    I wonder if the same people who want to ban cigarette smoking also want to legalize marijuana.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3521

    Nov 16, 2013 2:36 PM GMT
    I agree with the if kids are present part. Smoking in a house your kids live in is abuse of the first order. Take your butt outside.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 2:59 PM GMT
    Blakes7 saidWhy? It's a slippery slope towards a police state, you should have noticed this by now.


    It's an idea from one council member, in a very small city. One of his fellow council members has already said she thinks it's a bad idea. Police state? Really?
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Nov 16, 2013 3:03 PM GMT
    Apparition saidI agree with the if kids are present part. Smoking in a house your kids live in is abuse of the first order. Take your butt outside.


    I agree with you. It's common sense not to smoke inside a building. If you want to satisfy your addiction, do it outside. That way, only you suffer from the consequences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 3:28 PM GMT
    Apparition saidI agree with the if kids are present part. Smoking in a house your kids live in is abuse of the first order. Take your butt outside.


    Will we be monitoring what they cook for their children too?

    It seems reasonable to interfere in someone's home life if, say, a child shows up at school presenting signs of physical abuse, be that outright or neglect, because society can easily & rightfully for various reasons justify protecting those who can not protect themselves.

    But what of the child who doesn't get as much love as the child inside another house? Rights to interfere? What if there's more stress in one family than another? Save the child from that? You have to draw some lines where one right interferes with another.

    This crosses the line. This is not getting inside someone's house to protect a child; this is using a child to get inside someone's house not unlike how some try to use a fetus to get their hands inside the life of a woman.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14344

    Nov 16, 2013 3:50 PM GMT
    This proposed municipal law could easily be found to violate the freedom of privacy. I think the politicians in Berkeley need to step back and really look at how draconian and unconstitutional this proposed ordinance is and what kind of potentially negative image it could have on their community.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 4:16 PM GMT
    Apparition saidI agree with the if kids are present part. Smoking in a house your kids live in is abuse of the first order. Take your butt outside.

    About time. Smokers should have no rights. They should not be allowed to breed, eat or even exist.
    Whew, that feels so much better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 4:54 PM GMT
    Apparition saidI agree with the if kids are present part. Smoking in a house your kids live in is abuse of the first order. Take your butt outside.

    I don't think that's necessarily the issue here. It has to do with multi-residential dwellings like condos. If you own a condo, should you be able to smoke within your 'owned' walls? What if that smoke/smell dissipates into hallway when you open your door and the other units can smell it? Where do you draw the line on infringing on personal rights? This is exactly the situation I have. I don't like the smell of smoke when I come home but one person on our floor smokes so you can smell it in the hallway occasionally.

    This is Berkeley we're talking about too. Known for grabbing the public's attention by their crazy ideas icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 5:08 PM GMT
    eb925guy said
    Apparition saidI agree with the if kids are present part. Smoking in a house your kids live in is abuse of the first order. Take your butt outside.

    I don't think that's necessarily the issue here. It has to do with multi-residential dwellings like condos. If you own a condo, should you be able to smoke within your 'owned' walls? What if that smoke/smell dissipates into hallway when you open your door and the other units can smell it? Where do you draw the line on infringing on personal rights? This is exactly the situation I have. I don't like the smell of smoke when I come home but one person on our floor smokes so you can smell it in the hallway occasionally.

    This is Berkeley we're talking about too. Known for grabbing the public's attention by their crazy ideas icon_smile.gif


    The answer is quite easy. The government should require that anyone who smokes in their home purchase one air purifier machine per room and that those machines are "smart" appliances so that the government can monitor that they are in fact turned on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 5:08 PM GMT
    eb925guy said
    Apparition saidI agree with the if kids are present part. Smoking in a house your kids live in is abuse of the first order. Take your butt outside.

    I don't think that's necessarily the issue here. It has to do with multi-residential dwellings like condos. If you own a condo, should you be able to smoke within your 'owned' walls? What if that smoke/smell dissipates into hallway when you open your door and the other units can smell it? Where do you draw the line on infringing on personal rights? This is exactly the situation I have. I don't like the smell of smoke when I come home but one person on our floor smokes so you can smell it in the hallway occasionally.

    This is Berkeley we're talking about too. Known for grabbing the public's attention by their crazy ideas icon_smile.gif


    Someone correct me if I'm wrong but if I read all that right (I googled other articles so might be confusing what I read yesterday), they already had a similar law on multi family units. This was for single family (to make things fair).

    I can almost see it justified for multi which share air handling between units, but even then only if there was no filtration system for the actual smoke particles. If this is just about smell, not smoke, then that's bullshit. If the smell is bad, you move.

    Because then the law isn't about health but about aesthetics and next we'll have laws about someone cooking paella (a Colombian roommate of mine used to make this fish stew that stunk up the entire neighborhood), never mind perfumes and locker room body odor. I simply don't breathe while walking through certain parts of a department store. Problem solved.

    Now try walking past a room where someone just had anal sex: talk about odor that ought to be outlawed.
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Nov 16, 2013 5:12 PM GMT
    "Will we be monitoring what they cook for their children too?"

    Food is a necessity and we all need to eat to sustain ourselves. Smoking is not a necessity. Obesity is a problem as well but that is deflecting the issue. You can't even equate the two so I think the analogy is flawed. This thread is about smoking and sarcasm won't get you far.

    Here are reasons why smoking is not good for everyone concerned, in terms of properties and apartments.
    1. Smoking inside the home can devalue the property by up to 30%.
    2. Smoking inside homes can negatively impact a child's health.
    3. Ventilation does not adequately protect non-smokers from second hand smoke inside the home.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 5:16 PM GMT
    Paperless_Pen said"Will we be monitoring what they cook for their children too?"

    Food is a necessity and we all need to eat to sustain ourselves. Smoking is not a necessity. Obesity is a problem as well but that is deflecting the issue. You can't even equate the two so I think the analogy is flawed. This thread is about smoking and sarcasm won't get you far.

    Here are reasons why smoking is not good for everyone concerned, in terms of properties and apartments.
    1. Smoking inside the home can devalue the property by up to 30%.
    2. Smoking inside homes can negatively impact a child's health.
    3. Ventilation does not adequately protect non-smokers from second hand smoke inside the home.


    You call that thinking?

    I call it not worth the read.

    Bye.
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Nov 16, 2013 5:25 PM GMT
    http://www.robesonian.com/news/news/2865484/Public-housing-units-go-smoke-free-Jan.-1

    "According to Rick Allen, vice president and chief operating officer of Partnership Property Management, a smoking unit costs much more than a non-smoking unit does to prepare for a new tenant. And a fire caused by smoking materials can destroy large amounts of property and threaten the safety of residents, as well as employees and firefighters, he said.

    Let me google: flatulence and cancer. As far as I am aware, smelling people's farts does not give me cancer. Correct me if I am mistaken.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 5:29 PM GMT
    eb925guy saidThis is Berkeley we're talking about too. Known for grabbing the public's attention by their crazy ideas icon_smile.gif

    Yup. I worked in Berkeley for many years. This kind of stuff is their bread and butter. Sometimes their progressive ideas are good and eventually get adopted elsewhere.
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Nov 16, 2013 5:30 PM GMT
    "cooking paella (a Colombian roommate of mine used to make this fish stew that stunk up the entire neighborhood)"

    The Japanese eats fish all the time and they have the longest life expectancy. Granted they also smoke a lot too. Again, your analogy is flawed.

    As far as I am aware, smelling fish may be disgusting but it is actually healthy.

    http://preventcancer.aicr.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7333&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=dc_rc_

    I googled fish stew and cancer and surprise surprise I see it has benefits! It can help prevent cancer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 5:40 PM GMT
    Ridiculous, even though I don't like smokers but banning people smoking in their private homes sound kinda weird, what's next, they would ban them from watching porn too? icon_lol.gifSmokers just need to be responsible, go smoke outside and don't do it in front of their children. Or if they can quit and smoke one of those electronic cigarette, that's even better.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 5:44 PM GMT
    socalx10 saidRidiculous, even though I don't like smokers but banning people smoking in their private homes sound kinda weird, what's next, they would ban them from watching porn too? icon_lol.gifSmokers just need to be responsible, go smoke outside and don't do it in front of their children. Or if they can quit and smoke one of those electronic cigarette, that's even better.


    It is for the common good that the government imposes these regulations. Regulations like this are for the welfare and good of all the citizens, especially the children who don't have a voice.
  • FireDoor211

    Posts: 1030

    Nov 16, 2013 5:48 PM GMT
    Does anyone really smoke anymore? Like there's almost literally no place you can smoke these days.