4 ms·

No smoking in your own home, California city orders residents

16 points by voisin 2y ago

JohnMakin 2y ago
Note that this is for apartments - smoking inside an apartment can easily spread to other units. I live next to a neighbor who smokes, and as a former smoker I don't feel I can complain that much, but there is often a persistent smell of smoke in my home.
- paulcole 2y ago
  Yeah I don't see this as that crazy. My entire apartment complex (albeit in Oregon, not California) is smoke-free and the smokers have to go out to the sidewalk to do it.
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    As you said, this works fine as a per-complex policy; it does not require government overreach, something which California is eager to do.
    - paulcole 2y ago
      But isn't that the role of governments? To decide what does require their reach?
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  It's not just apartments, also Condos and other shared buildings..so would a duplex count? As someone who doesn't smoke and hates the smell of both cigarette and weed, this is great but if someone bought a one half of a duplex and then couldn't smoke at home? Seems a bit overreach. With property prices rising, fewer people can live in single family homes.
  - rafram 2y ago
    They could go outside.
    - beaglesss 2y ago
      Or they could buy/rent a half of a duplex where both owners consent to indoor smoking.
jihadjihad 2y ago
OT, but I was at a playground with the kids over the weekend and they were playing in a section that was all sand. While we were playing it struck me that there were no cigarette butts anywhere in sight. As a kid there were cigarette butts everywhere--you'd always have to scoop around them when you were playing in the sand and they'd be littered around the edges of the grass, walkways, etc. Really made me think of how different it is today and how out of place smoking around children is.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  Right! And there was always dog poop everywhere too :( And I remember watching E.T. in the cinema when it came out and you could barely see the screen for the amount of cigarette smoke.
rafram 2y ago
Clickbait, because the law only applies "inside apartments, condos and other shared buildings where multiple families live." This law already exists in many cities and should exist everywhere. It's one thing to smoke in your own detached house, but when you share walls with others, smoking becomes harmful to others' health, too, not just your own. My downstairs neighbor smokes heavily and burns incense all day and night, and it's bad enough that I'm seriously considering moving. Sometimes I can see smoke visibly rising from the floor. This would not be a problem if the city I lived in had common-sense laws against smoking inside multi-unit buildings.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Thanks for that context. That makes a huge difference to me. I'd march in the streets for your right to do something I detest inside your own house, and protesting the extreme lengths someone would have to go to in order to enforce a ban. No smoking in a building shared with a bunch of other people? Bummer for the smokers, but yeah, my asthma agrees with you.
- dguest 2y ago
  Yeah this title is pretty terrible. The HN guidelines [1] state please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. This title smells pretty linkbait to me. Especially since "no smoking in your apartment" would have been more accurate (it also applies to homes you don't own, e.g. if you are renting). [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- themaninthedark 2y ago
  How is it clickbait? Individuals can own a unit in a condo or apartment building. >My downstairs neighbor smokes heavily and burns incense all day and night, and it's bad enough that I'm seriously considering moving. Sometimes I can see smoke visibly rising from the floor. This would not be a problem if the city I lived in had common-sense laws against smoking inside multi-unit buildings. That sucks, I wonder if your building is up to code? As someone who dislikes the smell of smokers, I like the idea of the law but I worry about allowing the reach.
ctoth 2y ago
Wouldn't the obvious solution be to make the apartments airtight, so as to avoid everything from smoke to cooking smells to whatever bothering your neighbors? Isn't second-hand (passive smoking) shown to not increase cancer[0]? Really trying to understand this "we don't like something so we will ban it for everyone!" thing. Isn't your home supposed to be sacred? Sovereign? Aren't the YIMBY people always telling me that apartments are just as good as Single Family Homes and only people who hate the planet want to live in SFH? [0]: No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805 https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805
- kstrauser 2y ago
  That article reads a lot like a press release. It also includes things like: > The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance. "Well, it could cause a 61% increase in cancer cases, but our error bars are so wide that there's really no way of knowing, so it's probably fine."
- rafram 2y ago
  Making apartments airtight has other serious disadvantages: CO2 builds up and literally makes you worse at thinking; diseases spread more easily; air quality plummets due to VOCs. Humans need fresh air. And it's not as easy to make an actually impermeable apartment as you'd think it is. Pretty much every material we build with allows some amount of air and particles to pass through. > Isn't second-hand (passive smoking) shown to not increase cancer[0]? That study takes one position on secondhand smoke and lung cancer, but lots of other studies have found that it does cause serious health problems, including but not limited to lung cancer: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html
- beaglesss 2y ago
  The obvious solution is to let people pick if they want to rent/buy in a smoking complex. Presumably if this is so popular it has democratic assent, it would create a market advantage and through the free market most everyone gets what they want. It appears what's happened is some people picked apartment complexes with no contract banning smoking, then had a sad face about their choice.
Ekaros 2y ago
I hope we soon start judging other drugs like ethanol in same way. Banning use inside homes and near buildings were people live would help lot with noise pollution.
apojomovsky 2y ago
https://archive.ph/eltxj https://archive.ph/eltxj

16 points by voisin 2y ago

Note that this is for apartments - smoking inside an apartment can easily spread to other units. I live next to a neighbor who smokes, and as a former smoker I don't feel I can complain that much, but there is often a persistent smell of smoke in my home.

paulcole 2y ago
Yeah I don't see this as that crazy. My entire apartment complex (albeit in Oregon, not California) is smoke-free and the smokers have to go out to the sidewalk to do it.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  As you said, this works fine as a per-complex policy; it does not require government overreach, something which California is eager to do.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    But isn't that the role of governments? To decide what does require their reach?
themaninthedark 2y ago
It's not just apartments, also Condos and other shared buildings..so would a duplex count? As someone who doesn't smoke and hates the smell of both cigarette and weed, this is great but if someone bought a one half of a duplex and then couldn't smoke at home? Seems a bit overreach. With property prices rising, fewer people can live in single family homes.
- rafram 2y ago
  They could go outside.
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    Or they could buy/rent a half of a duplex where both owners consent to indoor smoking.

jihadjihad 2y ago

OT, but I was at a playground with the kids over the weekend and they were playing in a section that was all sand. While we were playing it struck me that there were no cigarette butts anywhere in sight. As a kid there were cigarette butts everywhere--you'd always have to scoop around them when you were playing in the sand and they'd be littered around the edges of the grass, walkways, etc. Really made me think of how different it is today and how out of place smoking around children is.

qingcharles 2y ago
Right! And there was always dog poop everywhere too :( And I remember watching E.T. in the cinema when it came out and you could barely see the screen for the amount of cigarette smoke.

rafram 2y ago

Clickbait, because the law only applies "inside apartments, condos and other shared buildings where multiple families live." This law already exists in many cities and should exist everywhere. It's one thing to smoke in your own detached house, but when you share walls with others, smoking becomes harmful to others' health, too, not just your own. My downstairs neighbor smokes heavily and burns incense all day and night, and it's bad enough that I'm seriously considering moving. Sometimes I can see smoke visibly rising from the floor. This would not be a problem if the city I lived in had common-sense laws against smoking inside multi-unit buildings.

kstrauser 2y ago
Thanks for that context. That makes a huge difference to me. I'd march in the streets for your right to do something I detest inside your own house, and protesting the extreme lengths someone would have to go to in order to enforce a ban. No smoking in a building shared with a bunch of other people? Bummer for the smokers, but yeah, my asthma agrees with you.
dguest 2y ago
Yeah this title is pretty terrible. The HN guidelines [1] state please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. This title smells pretty linkbait to me. Especially since "no smoking in your apartment" would have been more accurate (it also applies to homes you don't own, e.g. if you are renting). [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
themaninthedark 2y ago
How is it clickbait? Individuals can own a unit in a condo or apartment building. >My downstairs neighbor smokes heavily and burns incense all day and night, and it's bad enough that I'm seriously considering moving. Sometimes I can see smoke visibly rising from the floor. This would not be a problem if the city I lived in had common-sense laws against smoking inside multi-unit buildings. That sucks, I wonder if your building is up to code? As someone who dislikes the smell of smokers, I like the idea of the law but I worry about allowing the reach.

ctoth 2y ago

Wouldn't the obvious solution be to make the apartments airtight, so as to avoid everything from smoke to cooking smells to whatever bothering your neighbors? Isn't second-hand (passive smoking) shown to not increase cancer[0]? Really trying to understand this "we don't like something so we will ban it for everyone!" thing. Isn't your home supposed to be sacred? Sovereign? Aren't the YIMBY people always telling me that apartments are just as good as Single Family Homes and only people who hate the planet want to live in SFH? [0]: No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805 https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805

kstrauser 2y ago
That article reads a lot like a press release. It also includes things like: > The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance. "Well, it could cause a 61% increase in cancer cases, but our error bars are so wide that there's really no way of knowing, so it's probably fine."
rafram 2y ago
Making apartments airtight has other serious disadvantages: CO2 builds up and literally makes you worse at thinking; diseases spread more easily; air quality plummets due to VOCs. Humans need fresh air. And it's not as easy to make an actually impermeable apartment as you'd think it is. Pretty much every material we build with allows some amount of air and particles to pass through. > Isn't second-hand (passive smoking) shown to not increase cancer[0]? That study takes one position on secondhand smoke and lung cancer, but lots of other studies have found that it does cause serious health problems, including but not limited to lung cancer: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html
beaglesss 2y ago
The obvious solution is to let people pick if they want to rent/buy in a smoking complex. Presumably if this is so popular it has democratic assent, it would create a market advantage and through the free market most everyone gets what they want. It appears what's happened is some people picked apartment complexes with no contract banning smoking, then had a sad face about their choice.

Ekaros 2y ago

I hope we soon start judging other drugs like ethanol in same way. Banning use inside homes and near buildings were people live would help lot with noise pollution.

apojomovsky 2y ago

https://archive.ph/eltxj https://archive.ph/eltxj