The Nanny State Strikes Again.

[otterinbham 0]

Hey, I don't smoke. If you do smoke, I think you're an idiot. But....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-1...ns_N.htm?csp=34

Lawmakers in two California cities are discussing unprecedented legislation this month that would widen a growing voluntary movement by landlords and resident associations to ban smoking inside apartments and condos.

Next Tuesday, the City Council of Belmont is scheduled to cast a final vote on an ordinance that would ban smoking in apartments and condos. The measure, which won initial approval last week, could trigger fines and evictions if neighbors complain and smokers don't heed repeated warnings.

YOUR VIEW: What do you think of the Calif. proposals? If you smoke, where do you light up?

TENANTS TANGLE: Neighbors take sides on tobacco

In Calabasas on Wednesday, the City Council discussed a proposal that would expand its anti-smoking law to bar lighting up inside existing apartments and most new condos. The council agreed to request changes to the measure that would exempt all condos and set aside a certain percentage of apartments for smokers, says city spokesman Michael Hafken. It is slated to consider the revised proposal next month.

The legislative push, which has triggered death threats against council members in both cities, is a controversial part of a mostly voluntary effort to prod landlords and condo associations to adopt smoke-free policies.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: California | City Council | Paul Sakuma | Calabasas | Barry Groveman

Health officials in about 30 states promote the health and economic benefits, including reduced fire risk and lower cleanup costs for multiunit housing, says Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, a Michigan group funded partly by the state.

Tens of thousands of apartments and condos have gone smoke-free in the past five years, management companies and health activists say. Last month, Guardian Management began phasing in a smoke-free policy at 8,000 of its rental units, mostly in Oregon and Washington.

"We've proven the voluntary approach can work very well," Bergman says. He doesn't think legislative bans will work because of a "my home is my castle" philosophy.

"The time has come. The evils of smoking have been known for decades," says Barry Groveman, a Calabasas councilman who co-wrote the proposal.

Still, he knows he's struck a nerve. "I've gotten threats like you wouldn't believe," Groveman says.

"Fresh air should be breathed by everybody," Belmont Mayor Coralin Feierbach says. She cites a 2006 surgeon general's report that says no level of secondhand smoke is risk-free.

Critics say the bans violate civil and personal property rights. "You should be able to do as you wish in your own home," says Michon Coleman of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors.

Belmont's ordinance is "way over the top," because a smoker can be evicted simply for lighting up, says Warren Lieberman, one of two council members who oppose it.

Such criticism prompted Oakland last month to remove a ban on smoking in new apartments and condos from an ordinance that barred lighting up in public places.

Feierbach says she never intended to create a stir, but she expects other cities to follow Belmont. "We really broke ground," she says.

[quietfan 233]

What's next...legislation to kick you out of your own home if you don't exercise enough, or don't eat healthy, or drink too much to satisfy Big Brother's definitiion of "healthy living"?

True, smoking is crazy and deadly, and smoking affects bystanders more than eating habits, but I really believe obesity and generally poor dietary habits are the biggest threat to this nation's health. Will this be the legislative target of the future?

[autiger4life 3]

The only thing I could say is that the value of a condo or apartment may go down if a smoker had lived there. That is often times true for a vehicle so I could understand them wanting this. It is probably something the landlord has wanted for a while but knew if they did it they would lose a lot of business. However, with the legislation they really won't lose business so it works perfectly.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I could see it as a requirement in a place you don't own such as an apartment or house you rent. The landlord should be able to have such requirements so that when you leave, he/she isn't stuck with extra expenses to get the place ready for another tenant because your cigarette smoke has permeated every porous surfuce, the carpet and so on and has to be replaced.

That said, focusing on it as a public health issue is stupid to me. People have the right to not take care of themselves if they want to be stupid. But I do think a landlord renting out apartments should be able to dictate this from an economic standpoint just as they can require that you're not allowed to have a dog or cat. I've heard of places that won't allow waterbeds. It's about the maintenence of their property and minimizing the number of things that will cause them to have to replace things like carpet and fixtures prematurely.

[autiger4life 3]

That said, focusing on it as a public health issue is stupid to me. People have the right to not take care of themselves if they want to be stupid. But I do think a landlord renting out apartments should be able to dictate this from an economic standpoint just as they can require that you're not allowed to have a dog or cat. I've heard of places that won't allow waterbeds. It's about the maintenence of their property and minimizing the number of things that will cause them to have to replace things like carpet and fixtures prematurely.

The only reason that I would disagree is with the part about people have the right to take care of themselves. The only reason that I would disagree is because a lot of these people have health care paid for by the government in some form. This is the old, "can we require people to wear a seatbelt" Well when we have public hospitals where the government picks up some of the cost then I can see the argument that yes we can require people to be safe and healthy.

[Auburn85 432]

hell, why not just ban the sale of cigs.

[Tigermike 3,055]

hell, why not just ban the sale of cigs.

They are getting too much tax $$$$$$$$

[quietfan 233]

hell, why not just ban the sale of cigs.

Why not....we've had so much success in stamping out recreational drug use (and alcohol sales in the 1920's) through prohibition and criminalization.

[Auburn85 432]

very hypocritcal of them. They'll talk how bad they are, pump money into programs to get people to quit, but they still sell them, collect taxes from the sale of them.

now i've heard that the current warning label on cigs "isn't effective enough"

so they'll make the warning label bigger? yeah, that ought to do it.