• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Richmond, CA Bans Smoking in Apartments

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Keep at 'em senseamp. Nobody has the right to do something that is known to harm someone else. The statistical evidence of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke is irrefutable.

I find it ludicrous that there is a state law that protects me from second-hand smoke when I go into any public building, but it does not extend to (nor is there a separate law that covers) my place of residence. Every state law covering smoking in or near public buildings should also outlaw, or have a sister law that outlaws, smoking inside apartments and within 25 feet (or whatever the public law stipulates) of anyone else's windows or doors. If you want to smoke, go stand out by your car, somewhere away from the building. I have no problem with that. If your smoke does waft over to my window, I can close it. Having noxious chemicals come *through your walls* is not something anybody should have to put up with. There is no way to escape that. I can guarantee you there is no apartment building in existence where the units are airtight from one another. If you smoke inside you are forcing your neighbors to smoke with you. That is blatant disregard for the well-being of others.
 
Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg
Keep at 'em senseamp. Nobody has the right to do something that is known to harm someone else. The statistical evidence of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke is irrefutable.

I find it ludicrous that there is a state law that protects me from second-hand smoke when I go into any public building, but it does not extend to (nor is there a separate law that covers) my place of residence. Every state law covering smoking in or near public buildings should also outlaw, or have a sister law that outlaws, smoking inside apartments and within 25 feet (or whatever the public law stipulates) of anyone else's windows or doors. If you want to smoke, go stand out by your car, somewhere away from the building. I have no problem with that. If your smoke does waft over to my window, I can close it. Having noxious chemicals come *through your walls* is not something anybody should have to put up with. There is no way to escape that. I can guarantee you there is no apartment building in existence where the units are airtight from one another. If you smoke inside you are forcing your neighbors to smoke with you. That is blatant disregard for the well-being of others.

What kind of dumps are you living in where smoke comes through the walls? I've lived in triplexes built in the 1930s, apts built in the early 70s, and a subdivided house where the oldest section was built in 1820. All have had smokers, and I never had smoke in my apt.
 
Wet-walls, any shared venting space, the holes they drill for wiring, even. Just cause you don't smell it doesn't mean it isn't coming in. Aren't top floor apartments generally warmer than bottom floor? Even in the winter? Why do you think that is?
 
Originally posted by: LokutusofBorg
Wet-walls, any shared venting space, the holes they drill for wiring, even. Just cause you don't smell it doesn't mean it isn't coming in. Aren't top floor apartments generally warmer than bottom floor? Even in the winter? Why do you think that is?

You should worry more about the outgassing from your petrochemical items, than smoke you can't see or smell ;^)
 
Ummm...good?

The City Council approved an ordinance this month that will ban lighting up in all multiunit housing by Jan. 1, 2011. Officials say smoking in multiunit housing exposes people to secondhand smoke, which can travel between apartments.
I can attest to this. Smokers are inconsiderate pricks.
 
No, I could smell it. We lived in a place where it came through the walls really bad. Normal apartments, built in the 80s. I knew it was a smoking community, and for 2 years we shut our windows (with a muttered curse) and lived with it just fine. Most people are smart enough to smoke outside (smoking inside is *much* worse on the smoker, not to mention anyone that lives with them). But then we had a couple move in on the ground floor who smoked inside. Our apartment started filling with smoke. It was horrible. I bought spray foam and filled every nook and cranny I could find, and I searched hard. The freakin smoke *still* came in, it would leak out of the seams in the fiberglass shower walls.

I used to smoke. I don't begrudge people wanting to smoke. But being irresponsible with the well-being of others is inexcusable. The laws should absolutely cover this.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Ummm...good?

The City Council approved an ordinance this month that will ban lighting up in all multiunit housing by Jan. 1, 2011. Officials say smoking in multiunit housing exposes people to secondhand smoke, which can travel between apartments.
I can attest to this. Smokers are inconsiderate pricks.

Exactly. This isn't all about 'destroying freedoms'. Many non-new apartment and condo buildings have woefully inadequate ventilation systems that allow smoke to travel between units. It can be literally like living with a smoker.

And a chain smoker in the building (particularly an adjoining unit) can make life at home absolutely miserable (and smokers aren't always a fan of others' smoke infiltrating their unit either.)
 
RICHMOND

Man killed, 2 injured after gunmen fire into garage

A 63-year-old man was killed and two others were injured Sunday morning after a group of armed men chased a man into a garage and opened fire, Richmond police said.

Police responded to reports of gunfire in central Richmond about 3:40 a.m. and transported all three to the hospital. The 63-year-old, whose name is being withheld pending family notification, was pronounced dead; two others were in stable condition Sunday. Lt. Manjit Sappal said 20 to 30 rounds were fired.

The shooting is Richmond's 25th homicide of the year and the fifth in the past seven days.

In an unrelated incident, three men were shot in north Richmond just after noon Sunday, the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office reported.

The three, all between 19 and 21 years old, were standing in front of the Rancho Market and Deli at Market Avenue and Fifth Street when they were hit in their lower torsos during an apparent drive-by shooting, Sgt. Tim Hall said.

Hall said the victims, who will survive, were somewhat uncooperative. Authorities do not have suspect descriptions, and do not know whether it was related to the earlier killing, Hall said. http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_12823680
 
I don't think the city should be making laws that ban smoking in an apartment. That said, I think a smoker should be able to be held financially responsible should the second hand smoke cause health problems for his neighbors. Similar to a company that improperly stores chemicals that find their way into neighboring lots/buildings and causes (health) problems.
 
A company is not legally allowed to knowingly leak dangerous chemicals into the environment until its sued by someone. There are laws that require that precautions be taken to prevent such leaks in the first place.
 
Originally posted by: her209
That said, I think a smoker should be able to be held financially responsible should the second hand smoke cause health problems for his neighbors.
But realistically, is a smoker living in an apartment going to be able to cover the health care bills of anyone (even themselves)?

Besides, preventative measures are better than trying to sue your douchebag neighbor to cover your upper respiratory hospital bills.
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
I see no reason why smoking should be banned. Instead, they should tax tobacco at unreasonable levels. That way, smokers can remain poor and live in poor people areas while more educated people can enjoy their neighborhoods without the toxic poisoning their bodies.


reason 1
reason 2
reason 3
reason 4


Those look like 4 good reasons to me.
 
Originally posted by: dum
Originally posted by: Hacp
I see no reason why smoking should be banned. Instead, they should tax tobacco at unreasonable levels. That way, smokers can remain poor and live in poor people areas while more educated people can enjoy their neighborhoods without the toxic poisoning their bodies.


reason 1
reason 2
reason 3
reason 4


Those look like 4 good reasons to me.

Those are clear cut reasons to ban cooking in apartments if I ever saw any.
 
There are many inherent risks around us each day and we choose to accept them because they benefit us. Now just because you dont like some of these things doesnt mean they should be banned or where would we draw the line?

I could argue buses should be banned because they emit nasty black smoke, impeed traffic, are funded by tax dollars....and I dont ride them.

Everyone enjoys the fruits of the habit, but some are hypocritical to whine about it.

Anyone who says they had actual smoke seep through the walls of their apartment...is full of shit.
 
Originally posted by: bctbct
There are many inherent risks around us each day and we choose to accept them because they benefit us. Now just because you dont like some of these things doesnt mean they should be banned or where would we draw the line?

I could argue buses should be banned because they emit nasty black smoke, impeed traffic, are funded by tax dollars....and I dont ride them.

Everyone enjoys the fruits of the habit, but some are hypocritical to whine about it.

Anyone who says they had actual smoke seep through the walls of their apartment...is full of shit.

Yep, they are either exaggerating big time or outright lying in an effort to support their assinine position.
 
Originally posted by: bctbct
Anyone who says they had actual smoke seep through the walls of their apartment...is full of shit.
Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Yep, they are either exaggerating big time or outright lying in an effort to support their assinine position.
You can shove the accusations of lying where the sun don't shine, and cap it off with a burning cigarette.
 
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Ummm...good?

The City Council approved an ordinance this month that will ban lighting up in all multiunit housing by Jan. 1, 2011. Officials say smoking in multiunit housing exposes people to secondhand smoke, which can travel between apartments.
I can attest to this. Smokers are inconsiderate pricks.

So are you, but there hasn't been a jpeyton ban yet.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Ummm...good?

The City Council approved an ordinance this month that will ban lighting up in all multiunit housing by Jan. 1, 2011. Officials say smoking in multiunit housing exposes people to secondhand smoke, which can travel between apartments.
I can attest to this. Smokers are inconsiderate pricks.

So are you, but there hasn't been a jpeyton ban yet.
It's much easier to find the votes for a smoking ban. That also gives you some perspective on how lowly smoking is viewed by our society these days.
 
Back
Top