Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Take It Outside...Your Own Home

1

That's idiotic. How do they enforce it? I can just see the SWAT teams knocking down the door and storming into my apartment.

Posted by J.R. | October 10, 2007 2:26 PM
2

*affect

Posted by grammar police | October 10, 2007 2:28 PM
3

good. i'd like to see the nasty things outlawed entirely. ciggy butts make up a huge portion of the waste stream into waterways, where they poison wildlife.

Posted by ellarosa | October 10, 2007 2:28 PM
4

Well, at least people won't look at me askance anymore,
When they see my "Sorry, No Fags Allowed" sign on my door.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | October 10, 2007 2:31 PM
5

2) Ugh. I'll fix it. Thanks.

Posted by Bradley Steinbacher | October 10, 2007 2:31 PM
6

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it's your home and you have a right to do what you want in it, whether it's smoke or have anal sex.

On the other hand, it would be awesome if we could leave our sliding door open without dealing with the downstairs neighbor's cigarette smoke all summer long. Bonus points: we're pretty sure he smokes in the bathroom, because all our towels smell like ashtrays.

Posted by Jessica | October 10, 2007 2:31 PM
7

You win this round, Grammar police, but in the future, watch out for this guy:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/effect_an_effect.png

Posted by Chris in Tampa | October 10, 2007 2:34 PM
8

Actually, in my old apartment my bedroom window was right over my downstairs neighbor's balcony and in the summer with all the windows open their smoke would come right into my bedroom. It was annoying. They were loud and stupid too.

Posted by monkey | October 10, 2007 2:34 PM
9

I guess I'll further repress my fetish for sexy smokers. Or move to Europe.

Posted by Amelia | October 10, 2007 2:36 PM
10

i don't smoke, hate the smell, blahblahblah but COME THE FUCK ON, PEOPLE. this is beyond nanny state. THIS IS FASCISM. cigarettes may be gross, tobacco corporations may be evil incarnate, but that should not infringe on people's fundamental right to do whatever the fuck they want in the privacy of their own home - and yes, that right includes committing slow suicide.

and don't feed me the 2nd hand smoke junk science BS that has been the anti-smoking fascist's escape hatch throughout all of this. if you honestly believe you can "catch" cancer by trace amounts of cigarette smoke seeping through the cracks in your walls, you are either willfully delusional or just plain fucking stupid.

Posted by brandon | October 10, 2007 2:44 PM
11

They'll be coming for your booze next.

Posted by G. Orwell | October 10, 2007 2:52 PM
12

Not to mention your pot.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | October 10, 2007 2:57 PM
13

Sweet!

FYI, it's illegal to smoke in most places in France.

It's just that the French don't care.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 10, 2007 2:59 PM
14

I kind of hate smoking but I also think this law is kinda stupid so it's a toss up.

Posted by arduous | October 10, 2007 3:01 PM
15

Because the regulations don't affect everyone, it seems like this could be challenged on equal protection grounds.

Posted by Sam | October 10, 2007 3:07 PM
16

It's pretty hilarious that there's an ad in the sidebar advertising "sexy Halloween costumes" after all the discussion of such things here on Slog.

Posted by Gabriel | October 10, 2007 3:08 PM
17

Apartments? Okay.

Condos/Homes: No.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 10, 2007 3:09 PM
18

I'm going as Sexy Louis Pasteur!

Posted by NapoelonXIV | October 10, 2007 3:10 PM
19

bring it on!!!! one less place u asshole smokers are allowed to poison the rest of us

Posted by woohoo | October 10, 2007 3:13 PM
20

First they came for the smokes and I did nothing because I hated cigarettes, then they came for my booze and pot and I was bummed about having to be a criminal, then they implemented a State Sanctioned Diet and I crashed a fucking hi-jacked plane into Mount Rushmore because nobody gets between me and my Pizza!

Suck it, Nannystaters.

Posted by Pizza Duuuuude. | October 10, 2007 3:19 PM
21

I'm not all that crazy about smoking myself (although I do admit to occasionally cadging cigs off people when I've been drinking a bit), but seriously, if we as a society were really that worried about noxious gasses going into our lungs there are literally scores of other products - starting with carbon-monoxide spewing automobilies - that would seem to pose far greater health risks than second-hand cigarette smoke.

Yet, I don't hear anyone calling for a ban on automobile exhaust fumes, and the like.

Posted by COMTE | October 10, 2007 3:22 PM
22

Not to mention that no one will try to enforce this unless your neighbors complain, so you will depend on your neighbor's good will to not turn you in. So enforcement and reporting will be uneven and completely on a whim. Great law.

Posted by torrentprime | October 10, 2007 3:26 PM
23

I'm all for a nanny state as long as she's cute. Eat it smokers!

Posted by Sally Struthers Lawnchair | October 10, 2007 3:27 PM
24

@21 - of course we're not calling for a ban or decrease of noxious gasses spewing from automobiles ... we have RTID/ST2 to increase them.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 10, 2007 3:29 PM
25

First they came for the smokes and I did nothing because I hated cigarettes, then they came for my booze and pot and I was bummed about having to be a criminal, then they implemented a State Sanctioned Diet and I crashed a fucking hi-jacked plane into Mount Rushmore because nobody gets between me and my Pizza!

Suck it, Nannystaters.

Posted by Pizza Duuuuude. | October 10, 2007 3:32 PM
26

the only place to smoke pot is inside your apartment or 6 miles up a trail in the mountains.

this ain't right.

Posted by maxsolomon | October 10, 2007 3:33 PM
27

Ever wonder how liberals got the name of "Big Government Liberals"? Well here is a great example.

Posted by Just Me | October 10, 2007 3:49 PM
28

I've long considered myself to be virulently anti-smoking. I was all for the restaurant smoking ban. But this is stupid. Smoking is a disgusting habit, and one that will probably kill you eventually. But if you want to smoke you your own goddamned apartment, then I think you have every right to do so.

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 10, 2007 3:58 PM
29

here's the reality folks: smoking is on its way out. As long as smokers affect nonsmokers, they will continue to be pushed to the margins. If you want to avoid being burdened by the inevitable, my suggestion is to quit.

Posted by suck on this | October 10, 2007 4:09 PM
30

All this talk about the naughty smoking is making me really want a cig.

Posted by teamhanford | October 10, 2007 4:25 PM
31

173,770 new cases of lung cancer (2004)
452,327 deaths in the United States in 2004 (heart attacks and angina)

Looks like fast food, no exercise, overweight condition, trans-fats, and tons of other items are much more deadly than first-hand or second-hand smoke.

But, smoking is "bad" and therefore we can drill down and spend tons of money and bend society's rules anyway we like it to reduce a threat which is one-third of a much greater health risk.

Gotta love America - true example of a bell curve population.

Posted by chas Redmond | October 10, 2007 5:07 PM
32

The number one and number two things that kill women - heart attacks and stroke.

Risk ratio of heart attack/stroke compared to terrorism: 500,000:1

Likelihood women think they will die from terrorist attack compared to other causes 1:1.

Hmmm.

Time to realize living in FEAR does not work ... NOW.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 10, 2007 5:46 PM
33

Good God. I hate smoking with a passion, and even I can't support this. Mind you, it's rare that I've found any rental unit that even allows smoking, but that's a voluntary contractual agreement.

Posted by Gitai | October 10, 2007 5:59 PM
34

...next it'll be noisy masturbation!

Posted by ONAN ONLY | October 10, 2007 6:16 PM
35

The second hand smoke argument is so specious - growing up my sibs and I rode in the back seat of our '41 Dodge while my dad smoked like an industrial chimney. Sometimes the windows were closed. He smoked in the house throughout our childhood and teenagery. At 76, he died of colon cancer. Mom - who never smoked - is still breathing with uncluttered lungs at 94 as are the rest of us.

But the banning of smoking in the privacy of one's home may be moot as the ridiculous taxation of cigarettes will soon make it necessary for true tobacco fiends to start robbing old ladies in the park just to support their habit.

We're not a nation of sheep but a nation of 'fraidy cats. Jesus Christ in a Soup Dish!

Posted by KY. COL. of TRUTH | October 10, 2007 6:33 PM
36

Next week: Ban on butter in the home, because it causes heart attacks (think of the children!).

Posted by Dianna | October 10, 2007 6:52 PM
37

Ban pollution and overpopulation.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | October 10, 2007 9:00 PM
38

Noble intent, bad bad bad bad bad BAD precedent set.

Now civic government can tell you what you can and can't do in your own home. Privacy no longer exists under the law.

Nice work, Belmont. And nice work, America, not calling Belmont out on this.

Just rip up the fucking constitution.

Posted by Gomez | October 10, 2007 9:34 PM
39

Everyone can carry a gun, but nobody can have a cigarette. If you're 18-20, you can get shot in Iraq, but you can't get a shot and a chaser.

What a weird age in which we live.

Posted by Big Sven | October 10, 2007 10:17 PM
40

#38: Precedent? Where the hell have you been living? The government has been able to tell people what they can and can't do in their homes for EVER.

You can't play your music too loud past a certain hour in YOUR OWN HOME!!! People get over yourselves.

The rule of thumb is this: you can do what you want in your home as long as it doesn't prevent others from the enjoyment of their own home. If your smoke gets into my apartment, then you are preventing me from being able to enjoy my space.

That shouldn't be allowed. Just as a neighbor should not be able to play music all night long as loud as he wants to the detriment of his neighbors.

Posted by Johnny | October 11, 2007 10:26 AM
41

By that logic, BBQs should be banned as well, as well as cooking anything that someone next door might find disgusting, among other things.

The problem: how do you monitor smoking? Some people actually seal off their living spaces, close the windows and such, or the air out an open window isn't accessible to others. Do you raid people's apartments? Therein lies the problem.

Posted by Gomez | October 11, 2007 12:15 PM
42

I say green light on the raids. let the flash-bangs fly!

Posted by smoke em out | October 11, 2007 12:43 PM
43

Gomez, you must be intentionally dense. The enforcement will be brought on only where a neighbor complains. Obviously, if the smoke stays in the unit and doesn't drift over to other units, there will be no one complaining.

I am guessing you live in a house anyway, so none of this even affects you. It sucks to be in a year long lease, and have to smell cigarette smoke in your unit all day, every single day in your home.

To me, it made less sense to ban smoking in bars, as people can choose to go in them or not. In an apartment, you can't pick your neighbor. I have been in a place for over a year with no problems and then had a chain smoker move in which ultimately forced me to move to get away from the smoke.

In your mind, Gomez, is that the way things should work?

Posted by Johnny | October 11, 2007 12:51 PM
44

I smoked a pack a day, since I was a teenager until I was about 30. I've got no irrational hatred for smokers, or cigarettes; I even like the smell in the right time or place. Even when I smoked, my bedroom wasn't one of those places.

I don't think this law is fascist or even particularly over the top, (have you ever had neighbors that smoke in a old building? It's not about second hand smoke vs. cancer, it's about quality of life) but I am surprised it's being handled at the city council level. This is probably going drag them down in lawsuits for some time.

What would make more sense, is for the state to allow insurance providers to drop smoking-allowed building from homeowners liability coverage, which should be mandatory - basically making it impossible for multi-unit buildings to allow smoking on their premises.

Posted by Dougsf | October 11, 2007 1:39 PM
45

@44
yeah, so when Grandpa Joe falls asleep with a cig in his hand, burns down the whole building, and finds his ass on the wrong side of a multi-million dollar lawsuit that he can't ever dream of being able to pay for... that benefits who?

Posted by um | October 11, 2007 10:44 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).