Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

California Cities Vote on Smoking Ban in Apartments

By Andrew Gumbel, The Independent UK. Posted October 5, 2007.


Why the new measures have even some anti-smoking activists alarmed.
Advertisement

Two California cities are pushing anti-smoking legislation to previously unseen limits by banning tenants from lighting up inside apartment buildings.

Leading the way is Belmont, south of San Francisco, which threatened at one stage to ban smoking anywhere within city limits. Instead, Belmont city council contented itself with a ban on smoking in any building where residents share a common floor or ceiling. It is also banning all smoking within 20ft of a doorway, a common area, and areas used by children. A final vote on the new rules is expected next week, with implementation in November.

In southern California, Calabasas, a suburban community in the hills above Malibu, is going even further. The city council was preparing for a vote last night that would expand anti-smoking laws to encompass apartment buildings.

The proposal would exempt smokers already living in a place where they have a habit of lighting up, but would apply to them when they moved.

Intriguingly, it also exempts long-standing homeowners -- it only applies to renters and property owners in newly built condominium buildings.

Calabasas has taken to calling itself Clean Air Calabasas, a Smoke-Free City. In March, it approved an ordinance banning smoking "everywhere in the city except as otherwise provided".

Smokers in the town can light up in shopping centre car parks and other outdoor areas "in which no non-smoker is present." That means pavements, streets, bus stops and parks are off-limits, except perhaps in the dead of night.

The new measures have enraged libertarians and provoked a handful of death threats against the council members who sponsored them. They have raised eyebrows even among anti-smoking activists, who say that outdoor tobacco bans just push the habit inside people's homes, where children can be exposed to the fumes.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: california, smoking, apartments, calabasas, belmont

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
B4 some rightie blames the "Liberal Nanny State"
Posted by: Crazy H on Oct 5, 2007 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd just like to point out that the righties have been dictating what people are allowed to smoke in their own homes for some time now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can see the justification...
Posted by: kewpie on Oct 9, 2007 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a nonsmoker who has lived in apartment buildings I wish that my city had included that provision in the city wide smoke ban. The number one cause for house fires is cigerettes.

Most apartment buildings have poor ventilation and as a nonsmoker, I have become a second hand smoker many times over due to my neighbor's "habit." Once a fire was started by my neighbor who fell asleep with a cigerette in her
hand (she may have been drunk as well).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I can see the justification... Posted by: blitzmesser
Upset
Posted by: Sickofit on Oct 9, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this kind of ban is insane. It is probably also unconstitutional. You cannot say that you don't like seeing overweight people--so you are banning doughnuts in apartment buildings.

By the way, why do homeowners still get to keep those rights--because they pay property taxes and thus have more rights? Ever heard of the term "second class citizens?" If these people really care about my health, they would be banning car exhaust and other forms of pollution. As it is, they sound like little powerless people--fascists in training...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Upset Posted by: bcgirl125
murphy
Posted by: botticelli on Oct 9, 2007 2:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would hope all of the amtismoking people would exert as much energy in getting the corporations to clean up the air, land and water pollution they cause each and everyday across the whole planet. Passing the silly laws these people
are soooo concerned with and letting the real POLLUTERS go
is senseless. Agrifarms are huge polluters with their pig and cattle farms because of the natural defecation of animals. The use of antibiotics in these animals seeps into our water and soil causing illnesses we are not even aware of.

Peace and walk in beauty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]