California Town Bans Smoking in Your Own Home.

[Bocefish]

I can see a landlord/owner restricting their units to non-smokers only, but to tell a condo-owner they can't smoke in their own home is way over the line. More liberal lunacy trying to control every aspect of a person's life. I hope they get their asses sued.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/californ ... d=20955196

The town of San Rafael, Calif., has passed a ban on smoking that city officials have called the most stringent in the nation. The new ordinance makes it illegal for residents to smoke in their own homes if they share a wall with another dwelling.

The ban applies to owners and renters alike, and it covers condominiums, co-ops, apartments and any multi-family residence containing three or more units.

Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst at the San Rafael City Manager's office, helped craft the ban, which took effect Nov.14. "We based it on a county ordinance," she told ABC News, "but we modified it, and ended up making it the strictest. I'm not aware of any ordinance that's stronger."

The provisions that make San Rafael's rule unique, said Woodbury, include the prohibition on smoking in dwellings that share a wall, including owner-occupied condos, duplexes and multi-family units. "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."

As justification for the rule, she cited studies showing that secondhand smoke seeped through ventilating ducts and walls, even through cracks. "It depends on a building's construction," she said, "but it does affect the unit next door, with the negative health impacts due to smoke."

The ordinance cites such studies, plus a 2011 study by UCLA that found that California property owners paid up to $18 million a year to clean apartments vacated by tenants who'd smoked.

Asked if there was opposition to the ordinance, Woodbury said there was hardly any. "We have a very low percentage of smokers in the county," she said, referring to Marin.

George Koodray, New Jersey state coordinator for Citizens Freedom Alliance and the Smoker's Club, called San Rafael's rule and ones like it "mischievous." Years ago, he said, when restrictions on smoking were first introduced, "the spirit of the legislation was supposedly to protect people who did not want to be exposed to smoke." Today, he said, the motivating spirit had changed: People disapprove of the habit, and wish to restrict it whether or not it affects them directly. Bans like San Rafael's, he believes, are far removed from being a sincere effort to bring about a health benefit.

"I don't believe it's rooted in science," said Koodray, who is president of the Metropolitan Society, a group of New Jersey cigar smokers. "Someone smoking in a sealed apartment endangers the health of others in the building? The science for that is spurious at best."

Steve Stanek, a research fellow at the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which he calls a free market-oriented public policy group, views the San Rafael ban as part of a wider trend: a proliferation of rules of all kinds.

"I don't like cigarettes, and I've never taken a puff," he said. "My sympathies aren't with smokers because I am one, it's because of the huge growth in laws and punishments and government restricting people more and more." Illinois' criminal code was 72 pages long in 1965, he said; today it's more than 1,300 pages long. "The encroachment of government is astonishing," he said.

A look around the U.S. finds towns and cities busily regulating anything and everything:

Plastic bags will be banned in Los Angeles after the first of the year. They're already banned in San Jose, Calif.

Austin, Texas, bans both plastic and paper bags from grocery stores.

San Francisco tried to ban fast-food meals that came with toys.

Forest Park, Ga., in 2011 made it illegal to breastfeed in public a child older than 2. After public protest, the ban was lifted.

Cocoa, Fla., makes it illegal to wear baggy pants on city streets.

Palo Alto, Calif., makes it illegal to live in your car.

And under Section 63-19-2430 of the South Carolina code, it's illegal for a minor under the age of 18 to play a pinball machine.

 

[Rose]

If their home connects to another, I can absolutely understand the ban. The last place I lived in just reeked of smoke but we're non smokers and hate the smell. Our neighbors chain smoked all day long and it came straight through our vents. I couldn't stand it, it made it nearly impossible to breathe in my bathroom and often made me dizzy during the pregnancy if I had to go in there.

Maybe that makes me a bitch, but I don't want your stank in my home and making my stuff smell bad.

 

[SexySteph]

Yeah, if it shares a wall I understand, honestly. It's not like people that live in their own house are banned, it's people that live in condos and duplexes etc that would be banned. And let's be real in 2011 only 19.0% of all adults smoked, why should the other 81% that may or may not share a wall with them have to be subjected to the smell?

 

[Red7227]

There was a smoker in my apartment for 27 years before I got it. Despite the carpet being replaced and the walls painted, the smell did not dissipate for about 6 months. Fuck them, they should have to pay for the carpet replacement and having the walls re-rendered when they move out.

 

[Bocefish]

As stated in the OP, I totally understand landlords not renting to smokers, that's their right.

But for someone who bought a $300K condo unit a couple years ago and are now being told they can't smoke in their own home, well, that is way out of line.

If you rent an apartment that smells like smoke, then it's your own fault. If you have a new chain smoking neighbor that just moved in and it's seeping into your apartment somehow, hopefully you can work it out together, along with the landlord if need be. Most smokers will try to oblige, if approached in polite manner.

The ban applies to owners and renters alike, and it covers condominiums, co-ops, apartments and any multi-family residence containing three or more units.

Why not duplexes? They share a common wall.

As justification for the rule, she cited studies showing that secondhand smoke seeped through ventilating ducts and walls, even through cracks. "It depends on a building's construction," she said, "but it does affect the unit next door, with the negative health impacts due to smoke."

I'd like to see these studies and where they were performed.

If it's a poorly constructed building with cheap, paper thin walls... then I can believe smoke could be seeping through. Otherwise, I call bullsit on that. If it's coming through vents, that can be remedied with the proper filtration. If it's just in your bathroom, then it's probably coming from the unit below, seeping up through the bathtub opening which is also due to poor construction, but can also be remedied.

I've done rehab on houses with life long smokers in them. The only paint that works to cover the odor is called KILZ and it's not all that much more than regular premium paint.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[Rose]

If it's a poorly constructed building with cheap, paper thin walls... then I can believe smoke could be seeping through. Otherwise, I call bullsit on that. If it's coming through vents, that can be remedied with the proper filtration. If it's just in your bathroom, then it's probably coming from the unit below, seeping up through the bathtub opening which is also due to poor construction, but can also be remedied.

I've done rehab on houses with life long smokers in them. The only paint that works to cover the odor is called KILZ and it's not all that much more than regular premium paint.

:twocents-02cents:

We lived in a townhouse, so we were the downstairs neighbors. We shared a drain with the smokers behind us, so we found out by having conversations with them through the sink a few times. Our building was set up like a bunch of monopoly hotels stuck side by side to make six per row and 2 per column, if that makes sense. Everyone got 2 floors and except for the ends, all units had people on 3 sides of them. It wasn't smokey when we moved in (though they did pull a bait and switch on us about which unit we were getting) and stayed smoke free until those neighbors moved in after we'd been living there for 2 years. Requests from the manager (all of their other neighbors complained to management) went completely ignored..... Some people just don't give two shits about anyone else.

The place we live now is A LOT easier to breathe in and the only smells in our home are the ones we produce: generally a pumpkin spice oil warmer, baby and food smells.

 

[Bocefish]

Life long smoker lived in this condo 25+ years. Before & after 2 coats of Kilz oil based. First image is removing the popcorn textured ceiling. Yes, that is nicotine dripping down the walls.

http://www.contractortalk.com/f26/nicot ... tos-85136/

 

[JoleneBrody]

Having a 100% non smoking (even outside) property is actually very common in condo HOA's already. The one I used to live in I had to walk out to the street to smoke and I completely understood why. Even if I smoked on my patio, my neighbors window is right there and they should be able to open their window without smelling my smoke. My Condos were very well constructed but I could still smell my neighbors pot roast if it had been simmering all day.
But let's face it, most condos are NOT well constructed and neighbors ARE effected so the only other answer would be to rebuild every condo complex and that is just ridiculous.

Smoking indoors is a HUGE fire hazard and even if health concerns were not an issue, in a condo type setting one homeowners fire will likely affect everyone in that building.

As a smoker I see zero issue with this law.
Now banning smoking in bars... that is an argument I (and most bar owners) can get behind.

 

[Jupiter551]

Heh, if I lived there I think it'd be 'California man refuses to follow inane local law', I understand the arguments but it's just like...if you can't smoke in your own home, how free are you?

Luckily I no longer smoke so whatever.

 

[Bocefish]

Smoking indoors is a HUGE fire hazard and even if health concerns were not an issue, in a condo type setting one homeowners fire will likely affect everyone in that building.

The way some women cook is also a HUGE fire hazard.

Having a 100% non smoking (even outside) property is actually very common in condo HOA's already.

Yes, but it's one thing when buyers know that going in... it's a totally different issue trying to tell people they can no longer smoke in their own home after they've been doing so for years.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Heh, if I lived there I think it'd be 'California man refuses to follow inane local law', I understand the arguments but it's just like...if you can't smoke in your own home, how free are you?

Luckily I no longer smoke so whatever.

Lol well, land of the free you know...

Smoking indoors is a HUGE fire hazard and even if health concerns were not an issue, in a condo type setting one homeowners fire will likely affect everyone in that building.

This is what I was thinking. The smell can be awful, but smell aside, if a house on a row of terraced houses catches fire it can easily spread along the houses. I mean yes things like candles can light fires, but people don't tend to walk around with candles and are usually more wary with them and generally people don't light them as much as a smoker might smoke. In a case where a child might be asleep next door, is it really worth the risk? And this is before the whole harmful chemicals thing.

Not only this but if there were fires, then obviously it takes the fire brigade to put it out, potentially risking their lives and maybe stopping them from putting out another fire. It costs money to run these operations. Though I think it'd be an outrage in the Uk if this happened. I like smoking, but I don't want it in my home personally. I don't see why it's such a big deal if you want to smoke to simply go outside, my boyfriend's a smoker and he goes outside rather than smoking in our home.

I don't know, I like having the option to smoke inside a house, but personally I'd never want to do it consistently or live in a house where someone's smoking a lot.

 

[Bocefish]

Heh, if I lived there I think it'd be 'California man refuses to follow inane local law', I understand the arguments but it's just like...if you can't smoke in your own home, how free are you?

Luckily I no longer smoke so whatever.

Lol well, land of the free you know...

California is also known as the land of fruits, nuts and flakes for a reason. If they could, the liberal politicians there would love to control every aspect of your life while they do as they please.

if a house on a row of terraced houses catches fire it can easily spread along the houses. I mean yes things like candles can light fires, but people don't tend to walk around with candles and are usually more wary with them and generally people don't light them as much as a smoker might smoke. In a case where a child might be asleep next door, is it really worth the risk? And this is before the whole harmful chemicals thing.

Not only this but if there were fires, then obviously it takes the fire brigade to put it out, potentially risking their lives and maybe stopping them from putting out another fire. It costs money to run these operations. Though I think it'd be an outrage in the Uk if this happened. I like smoking, but I don't want it in my home personally. I don't see why it's such a big deal if you want to smoke to simply go outside, my boyfriend's a smoker and he goes outside rather than smoking in our home.

I don't know, I like having the option to smoke inside a house, but personally I'd never want to do it consistently or live in a house where someone's smoking a lot.

OK, I'm throwing the

flag on all this fire risk paranoia from cigarette smoking. First of all, cigarettes are now FSC rated which means they won't remain lit if unattended. I can attest to that as the damn things go out all the time even IF attended. People have been smoking for decades and the long-term trend in smoking-material fires has been down by 73% from 1980 to 2011, helped by the decline in smoking, but also the effect of standards and regulations that have made mattresses and upholstered furniture more resistant to cigarette ignition.

Secondly, any multi-unit living complex built after 1991 is required to have a fire suppression sprinkler system in addition to smoke detection devices.

FSCigs, fire safe material requirements, along with smoke detectors and built-in fire suppression systems have reduced any serious fire damage done due to ONE unattended cigarette immensely.

It still remains a slight risk, but so does crossing the street. The average responsible condo owner is NOT your typical junkie or drunk that irresponsibly risks passing out with a lit cigarette.

If somebody tried to tell me that I can no longer do something that is entirely legal inside my own home, that I've been doing for years... I'd tell 'em to fuck off in no uncertain terms.

:twocents-02cents:

YMMV

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Maybe things are different in California, but in the Uk unattended cigarettes will most definitely stay lit and burn down. Though handmade rollies will go out. And maybe in this particular town it's full of detached condos and only new buildings, I don't know, again, the Uk is different, most houses have been around for longer than 20 years. One of my friends bought a house that an elderly person used to live in and the ceilings were actually flammable, apparently older ceilings used to be made of this stuff, and though I'm pretty sure it's not allowed now, I'm sure there are many who haven't changed it. I definitely have never lived anywhere with an inbuilt sprinkler system.

Maybe the law should be conditional on the building's ventilation system and fire safety? I think also maybe smoking in houses where children live or are present should be illegal. Second hand smoke really is a big deal, but also something that many parents ignore around their own children.

 

[Bocefish]

Maybe the law should be conditional on the building's ventilation system and fire safety?

How would you inform tenants of said law?

 

[mutantdonut]

I understand the outrage of not being to do whatever you please in your own home. But if they do show hard evidence of 2nd hand smoke seeping through the walls and into neighboring homes, how would argue against it? You can always say "well i paid good money for this home, i should whatever the hell i want."

As a person who resides in California, i remember the outrage of banning indoor smoking in restaurants. I was really young back then. Now i'm a smoker myself. Several years ago, i had neighbors who's kids suffered from asthma, and i made sure to smoke far away from their windows as a thing of courtesy. And that's what this law boils down to is courtesy and respect for others.

 

[Jupiter551]

Whether you agree with this law or not - how the hell would anyone ever enforce it?

Furthermore as California is a MMJ state, and I don't know but I presume there are strictures against smoking MJ in public even if you have a card, basically forces you to smoke (that) in your own home if you're going to smoke it at all.

It's just a huge mess frankly.

I was in LA in 1997 when they had first brought out laws against smoking in bars and even that felt EXTREMELY weird. That's nothing compared to banning it in one's own home.

 

[Remykins]

I'm all for any law that keeps harmful air away from people who should have the ability to not breathe it in. I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and when I lived in apartments and townhouses, I struggled to breathe DAILY because of neighboring smokers. No one is asking people not to smoke, just to be respectful of those around you who don't want second hand smoke to be a part of their daily routine. :twocents-02cents:

 

[Jupiter551]

I'm all for any law that keeps harmful air away from people who should have the ability to not breathe it in. I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and when I lived in apartments and townhouses, I struggled to breathe DAILY because of neighboring smokers. No one is asking people not to smoke, just to be respectful of those around you who don't want second hand smoke to be a part of their daily routine. :twocents-02cents:

absolutely, but I would have thought people smoking on balconies is actually worse than them smoking inside, as far as neighbours go. Now that I quit smoking I can distinctly smell when my neighbour below me lights up on his balcony but as I only smell that twice a week I presume when he smokes inside I don't notice.

As an ex-smoker, I can tell you smokers don't want to force their smoke down anyone's throat, they pretty much just want somewhere to exist in a world that gets more and more hostile toward them every single day. Smokers pay in taxes and duties for not only the health problems that smoke causes, they also subsidize a hell of a lot of other things.

Honestly, I think the day the last cigarette goes out and the governments of the world stop picking smokers pockets, they're going to wonder where all that money went.

Smokers can't win. You get blamed for second hand smoke, AND you pay in real dollars as a penalty AND it's bad for your health and may/will kill you AND you have your nose rubbed in it daily that smoking is wrong and you're a bad person for smoking BUT it's still perfectly legal.

They need to make up their minds: either it's legal and stop trying to make smokers feel morally corrupt OR make it illegal to smoke, on the grounds of all the shit they trot out as justification for taxes and education and anti-smoking stuff.

They just want it both ways. They want smokers to pay enormous taxes AND feel like shit. No wonder they're so threatened by e-cigarettes.

I cant even sell e-cig components on ebay, because it's a 'questionable area of legality' apparently. Fuckin' jesus.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Smokers can't win. You get blamed for second hand smoke, AND you pay in real dollars as a penalty AND it's bad for your health and may/will kill you AND you have your nose rubbed in it daily that smoking is wrong and you're a bad person for smoking BUT it's still perfectly legal.

They need to make up their minds: either it's legal and stop trying to make smokers feel morally corrupt OR make it illegal to smoke, on the grounds of all the shit they trot out as justification for taxes and education and anti-smoking stuff.

It's interesting hearing about stuff like this. I've never heard of a situation in the UK where smokers feel they're being made feel morally corrupt for smoking (other than a few occasional people). We've got smoking banned in indoor establishments now, and though everyone complained about it before it happened, most smokers and non smokers agree it's nice not having bars so smokey and actually going outside for a cigarette really isn't a big deal. I've heard it's a bigger deal in America, I'm not sure about other places. I mean sure there are people who disapprove, but it's not something that's a big deal. But then most young people smoke, and most adults have smoked at points in their lives.

I don't think in the UK smokers even come close to paying off how much the NHS spends on smokers just because there's a high tax on tobacco. Cancer treatments are really expensive. Though I do smoke (though only when I've been drinking so I wouldn't say I'm a smoker), I'm not going to pretend it's a big deal and that smokers do society a big favour by smoking because they pay high tax on cigarettes. If people feel that society is making them feel guilty enough for smoking, then maybe they just shouldn't smoke. I know it's addictive and everything, and I do enjoy smoking, but it is that person's risk, and second hand smoke does effect other people, to the point that my friends father actually died because he was living with someone who smoked a lot for just a year, and came out of it ill with loads of respiratory problems, sadly he eventually died from the cancer it caused. Is it really fair to inflict that onto someone else?

As for outdoor smoking, though you might be able to smell the smoke, it's the harmful fumes that come from smoking rather than the smoke smell itself that is dangerous. If it's outdoors then though you might smell it, the smoke disperses much more quickly, whilst if someone were living next to you smoking a lot and it were leaking into your house then you'd be getting lots of harmful fumes entering and lingering around your home on a daily basis.

Neighbours smoking isn't something I've ever had issues with, though I have had issues with flatmates smoking and don't like sleeping in an area where someone has smoked. I'm not sure if I'm for or against this law, but though I can understand smokers points of views, I also think that smoking is a dirty habit, it's not essential to live, it's really bad for you and those around you, so if you do want to continue then there should be certain rules.
I would imagine that in this situation if you were smoking in your own home and it weren't causing a problem then it could go undetected, but the point of the law is that if it is effecting other people then they can actually have the law on their side to stop the person. Some smokers are selfish and really don't give a crap if second hand smoke is causing the neighbours problems, some do care and will be as considerate as possible, it all depends on the person. So I don't think the law is such a major deal.

 

[Bocefish]

Now some California fucktards want to ban smoking in single family detached houses too. It never ends.

Berkeley, where residents take pride in exercising their personal freedoms and resisting government intrusion, is the site these days of a much different kind of movement - one to ban cigarette smoking from single-family homes.

A City Council member says a proposal to ban cigarette smoking in apartments and condos, where smoke can waft through ventilation systems, is not tough enough or fair. Councilman Jesse Arreguin says his fellow council members should consider expanding the proposed ban to include single-family homes where children, seniors or lodgers are present.

Cigarette smoking is already prohibited in Berkeley's commercial districts, parks and bus stops, and within 25 feet of any building open to the public, and the council plans to extend the ban to all apartments, condominiums and other multiunit buildings where secondhand smoke can spread.

But if Berkeley is really serious about protecting nonsmokers, it should ban smoking in the specified single-family homes as well, Arreguin argues in a proposal to toughen the proposed law.

Councilwoman Susan Wengraf, who supports the planned ban on smoking in multiunit dwellings, said prohibiting smoking in single-family homes might be going too far.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/B ... 984302.php

 

[Jupiter551]

Smokers can't win. You get blamed for second hand smoke, AND you pay in real dollars as a penalty AND it's bad for your health and may/will kill you AND you have your nose rubbed in it daily that smoking is wrong and you're a bad person for smoking BUT it's still perfectly legal.

They need to make up their minds: either it's legal and stop trying to make smokers feel morally corrupt OR make it illegal to smoke, on the grounds of all the shit they trot out as justification for taxes and education and anti-smoking stuff.

It's interesting hearing about stuff like this. I've never heard of a situation in the UK where smokers feel they're being made feel morally corrupt for smoking (other than a few occasional people). We've got smoking banned in indoor establishments now, and though everyone complained about it before it happened, most smokers and non smokers agree it's nice not having bars so smokey and actually going outside for a cigarette really isn't a big deal. I've heard it's a bigger deal in America, I'm not sure about other places. I mean sure there are people who disapprove, but it's not something that's a big deal. But then most young people smoke, and most adults have smoked at points in their lives.

I don't think in the UK smokers even come close to paying off how much the NHS spends on smokers just because there's a high tax on tobacco. Cancer treatments are really expensive. Though I do smoke (though only when I've been drinking so I wouldn't say I'm a smoker), I'm not going to pretend it's a big deal and that smokers do society a big favour by smoking because they pay high tax on cigarettes. If people feel that society is making them feel guilty enough for smoking, then maybe they just shouldn't smoke. I know it's addictive and everything, and I do enjoy smoking, but it is that person's risk, and second hand smoke does effect other people, to the point that my friends father actually died because he was living with someone who smoked a lot for just a year, and came out of it ill with loads of respiratory problems, sadly he eventually died from the cancer it caused. Is it really fair to inflict that onto someone else? .

Well, as far as taxes go - here in Australia a pack of 25 marlboros is $19.29 at a major supermarket chain, and more at petrol stations and such.

Considering that's about $17-18 of tax per DAY on a pack a day smoker, not all of which will ever require cancer treatment and all of which are presumably also paying into the general taxes that subsidise medicare (our version of your NHS), if you're claiming smokers don't even cover their own treatment, well at this rate the taxes from smoking around a pack a day is equivalent to paying around ~$6000/year - and you could find extremely comprehensive health coverage for every conceivable illness for that much. Not even the best policies cost that much.

If you don't think smokers are and have been subsidising everyone for years you're wrong I'm afraid. It's perpetrated on the suggestion that smoking is 'bad' and a choice so therefore it's perfectly okay to tax smokers into poverty.

If 'they' actually gave a fuck about a) smokers health and b) second-hand smoke, governments wouldn't throw up so many stupid regulatory roadblocks in front of e-cigarettes. They're safer, it's a fact. It can be argued, like almost anything, that longterm effects are unknown. Longterm effects of camgirls are also unknown. The simple and unarguable fact is that smoking tobacco kills and nicotine itself doesn't - not without the by-products that are burned with it in a cigarette.

In the case of e-cigs there's no moral justification for governments to attempt to apply the same outrageous taxes as they have to tobacco, so legislating for an item that reduces harm and helps people to quit (I smoked for 22 years, pack-a-day or more for 20) becomes a conflict of interest when it reduces government revenue.

Even the 'Quit' lobby has become an ever-more-prosperous little employer that relies on the tobacco industry to exist, a parasite that only exists as long as its host does.

 

[Bocefish]

I understand the outrage of not being to do whatever you please in your own home. But if they do show hard evidence of 2nd hand smoke seeping through the walls and into neighboring homes, how would argue against it? You can always say "well i paid good money for this home, i should whatever the hell i want."

As a person who resides in California, i remember the outrage of banning indoor smoking in restaurants. I was really young back then. Now i'm a smoker myself. Several years ago, i had neighbors who's kids suffered from asthma, and i made sure to smoke far away from their windows as a thing of courtesy. And that's what this law boils down to is courtesy and respect for others.

If I was shown irrefutable evidence of it seeping into adjoining units from my smoking, I would definitely either remedy how it's getting in there or stop smoking inside. It's not my intent to force my bad habit on others, but I would definitely require irrefutable proof.

IIRC, there is also a fire code that requires smoke from fires be restricted to whatever unit the fire originated in. I may have to look more into that.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

With tax and cigarettes, in the UK they're not taxed quite so much even though the tax has risen dramatically in the last few years, doubling the price of cigarettes. But the amount the government earns from smoking and gives back seem to be pretty close. I just did a bit of research on the statistics and it currently seems a reasonable amount of tax for how much smokers cost.

I do agree with e-cigarettes, though I think there should be more research put into them. Though they're clearly better than regular cigarettes, it's not entirely clear if they will have other negative effects, I guess that'll come with people using them over time. I still don't like the idea of something being sold to people as healthy when it might not be at all.

 

[jblackbean2]

The E-Cigs are not Healthy..

Just Healthier than smoking Fags as the E-Cigs are pure nicotine with no mixed in things with it.

Still bad for you but not as bad

Beany

 

[Jupiter551]

The E-Cigs are not Healthy..

Just Healthier than smoking Fags as the E-Cigs are pure nicotine with no mixed in things with it.

Still bad for you but not as bad

Beany

Thank god such irrefutable evidence has been put forth.

Nicotine, at reasonable levels, has no known permanent side-effects.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

The E-Cigs are not Healthy..

Just Healthier than smoking Fags as the E-Cigs are pure nicotine with no mixed in things with it.

Still bad for you but not as bad

Beany

Thank god such irrefutable evidence has been put forth.

Nicotine, at reasonable levels, has no known permanent side-effects.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/electr ... es/AN02025
Actually they found harmful cancer causing chemicals in two top brands.

 

[SexySteph]

The E-Cigs are not Healthy..

Just Healthier than smoking Fags as the E-Cigs are pure nicotine with no mixed in things with it.

Still bad for you but not as bad

Beany

They're not pure nicotine... If you ever shopped for one you'd see that you can buy liquids with different nicotine levels. Pure nicotine is toxic.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

The E-Cigs are not Healthy..

Just Healthier than smoking Fags as the E-Cigs are pure nicotine with no mixed in things with it.

Still bad for you but not as bad

Beany

Thank god such irrefutable evidence has been put forth.

Nicotine, at reasonable levels, has no known permanent side-effects.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/electr ... es/AN02025
Actually they found harmful cancer causing chemicals in two top brands.

This is the problem Jupiter, there is pretty much no evidence saying they're either healthy or unhealthy. It does seem that they're better than regular cigarettes, but it's really only the manufacturers who are raving about them being healthy, no one really knows all that much about them.

One of the issues with electronic cigarettes is though I think some people do use them to quit, people I know who use them tend to smoke more continuously than they would with regular cigarettes. With regular cigarettes they'd have one then wait a while to have another, with e-cigarettes they'll have a few drags every 5 minutes. I'm not sure if this makes much difference, but if they are indeed found to not be as good for you as manufacturers would lead us to believe then it'd mean you're probably inhaling considerably more than you would usually.

 

[bodisha]

First it was the bars & restaurants, then the work place, then planes, then publicly owned property like parks, then 15 feet in front of buildings, then 25 feet in front of buildings... This anti-smoking Nazism is out of hand if someone can't even smoke in the privacy of their own home any more. The act of smoking is legal, but it's illegal to smoke anywhere? how is this a free country for smokers?

All these laws aren't being passed by politicians looking out for the interest of their non-smoking constituents, but rather the lobbyists of insurance companies are getting them passed for the best interest of the health insurance companies. Insurance companies paying out on medical claims over smoking related health issues is really the driving force behind this.

It's obviously getting worst and worst for smokers, as we are on the short list of groups it's acceptable to bully and harass on a regular basis. Being a smoker ranks up there with child molester, drunk driver, and white supremacist racist with how despised we are. I read a couple years ago that cigarettes are one of the items that companies are having added to be tested for in a drug test. If someone tests positive for cigarettes, employment is being denied simply to keep health insurance costs lower.

The long term issue with this is now a precedence has been set with insurance companies effectively get smoking criminalized... food and weight are next on deck to be pursued by the same insurance companies. Look at trans fat being removed from restaurants, and snacks like chips... New York city attempted to ban super sized cola's... soda's and sweets are being banned from schools... and some companies are already refusing to higher fat people. It's not a huge leap in my mind before sugar, caffeine, and fats are included in drug tests and it's illegal to give children under a certain age sugary treats.

It's only a matter of time before someones doing the thinking for everyone, including the nazi anti-smokers, and them telling what's in their best interest... Personally, the government I pay taxes too can go fuck themselves if they think I'm following some dumb law telling me I can't smoke in my own home

 

[IsabellaSnow]

how is this a free country for smokers?

How is any country really a free country? You can say the US is a free country until you're blue in the face, and in many ways people are free to do what they like, but none of us are free in the sense that people make out they are. We all have to conform to society and follow the rules. These rules tend to make sense and be in people's best interests. Some are in the best interests of the country as a whole rather than individuals, and some just don't seem to make much sense full stop. Either way, saying you're "free" and using that word doesn't mean it's true. Although it's a different meaning of the word it's like people using it as a marketing tool, for example "myFREEcams" isn't actually free, there are some free aspects of it, but it doesn't mean it actually is free. America using the "free" word to make everyone feel like they're free and make themselves feel better about life and their country when really they have to conform to their countries laws and regulations (some which are very restricting) as everyone else does.

To be perfectly honest though, I think humans as a race in many ways are too stupid to be truly "free". We need rules and regulations to stop ourselves hurting ourselves and those around us. We crave leadership even when we fight against it. These smoking laws, though sure you could say they're stopping us being free to do something, they are also in place to try and protect us from doing something that's killing/harming ourselves and others around us. It's not like they're going out there to try and inconvenience our lives, it's that not everyone can be trusted with the responsibility of "freedom" so they're having to put laws in place to stop people abusing it, as apparently there are many buildings where second hand smoke is coming through walls into other people's apartments. It's not because of people hating smokers, it's because there are enough smokers who are being ridiculously inconsiderate of those around them.

Being a smoker ranks up there with child molester, drunk driver, and white supremacist racist with how despised we are.

This statement just isn't true. If it is where you live then you live in one fucked up neighbourhood and I advise you move. Not really cool to be around people who think that smoking, child molesting and racism are on the same level. Even though you're clearly exaggerating comparing these things is ridiculous and is making light of some really serious situations.

As for the unhealthy foods thing. I actually agree with those things. We are designed to find high calorie foods particularly appealing. We also crave things like salt and find the chemicals added to some of these foods highly addictive. In nature we'd rarely have access to these things, but in recent life all we have to do is go to the local shop and there you go, tons of chocolate bars and other high calorie foods. And if you want you can also go to places like mcdonalds and have ridiculously unhealthy food made for you quickly. It's giving us what our bodies have trained us to want, but that we cannot handle in these quantities and concentrations.

Weight is a really serious thing, though many people become overweight, very few people want to become overweight. We become overweight because it's available to us and it's easy. We become overweight because when we eat out food is packed with calories and we're constantly having the options of more food thrust at us. If you're hungry and you see fast food advertised it can be very difficult to resist. Your brain and body just wants food and sees easy gratification. Limiting this and taking some of these really unhealthy foods away, though it's a shame for those who don't abuse it and only eat those foods now and then, it also could help a lot of people's lives. Trying to diet/eat healthily can actually be really difficult if you aren't cooking proper meals for yourself every night. Just going to shops and super markets, especially at this time of year there are giant boxes of chocolates and other "treats" at every corner.

Though I believe it's nice for children to have treats, as a child I also never had sweets/chocolate/biscuits or fizzy drinks in the house. Me and my brother would once a week get 50p to spend and we'd buy sweets. The only time I was allowed fizzy drinks were special occasions and when we ate out. I was a very healthy child. When I moved to the city I was also older, it meant I could buy more chocolatey sweetie things from the local shop. I gained weight and actually became intolerant to chocolate over time because I ate too much of it. Treats are nice, but they are not necessary. There should be no reason for a child to be overweight unless they have some sort of physical problem, when they're a child the parents should have full control of what they're eating. Not having sweets etc in schools only helps parents stay in control of their children's health.

As much as I am a glutton for unhealthy foods, I love smoking, I love drinking and I have no problem with drug users, these things are no joke. They are serious and they are seriously effecting people's lives every year. I know that we want to do all these things and that we enjoy doing them, but they also aren't good for us. Though I believe it's good to be able to do these things that aren't good for us every now and then, many people struggle dramatically from keeping the "every now and then" from the "every day occurrence". These laws that the governments cook up are believe it or not, supposed to be for our own good *shock horror*. If any of you think you truly deserve freedom then take responsibility for your actions and look out for others and not just yourselves.