California Renters May Be Forced to Go Smoke-free

[The Straight Story]

California Renters May Be Forced to Go Smoke-free
Written by Marcey Brightwell, Reporter


Lighting up in apartment units could become a thing of the past. Proposed legislation would make it easier for landlords to ban smoking in California rental units by clarifying state law.

Senate Bill 1598 is still in draft form, but backers say it will help protect renters from the dangers of secondhand smoke, which can infiltrate shared ventilation systems and outdoor common areas.

Opponents worry the measure will violate civil rights and allow landlords to discriminate against low-income and minority tenants.

A growing number of apartment complexes are already going smoke-free. The Vintage at Natomas Field complex prohibits tenants from smoking in their units or around the complex grounds. They are allowed to light up in secluded smoking areas.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=39105

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Hang on.

:popcorn:

Okay, Go. This oughta be good.

[TahitiNut]

2. !

:smoke: :popcorn: :smoke:

[robinlynne]

6. aw shit. I'm too angry to write anything.

So I may not be allowed to rent an apartment any longer?

[Midlodemocrat]

11. Well, for what it is worth.

I rented an apartment just after a smoker moved out and it was horrific. The cabinets had a greasy, nicotine film on them and the carpets were disgusting and the entire place needed to be painted.

The landlord did all of that, and I'm sure it wasn't cheap.

I understand what you are saying, but smoking does take a toll on your physical surroundings, not just your body.

[MrCoffee]

13. Then leave it up to the landlord to decide if smoking will be allowed

The state's carte blanche banning of smoking in rental properties is going way too far.

[Midlodemocrat]

15. Oh, I agree. There are other laws in place already

in some states regarding allowing children or pets in units. It's actually kind of a no brainer.

[petronius]

42. There's nothing in the article or the bill suggesting that the state is

intending to ban smoking in rental properties. Apparently, it is already up to the landlords to do so (or not)...

[michreject]

84. I would triple the insurance rates

for apts. that rent to smokers. Can you say fire hazard?

[dana_b]

27. I live in Belmont, CA

The first city in the nation to pass this absurd law. I'm not a smoker, but it's ridiculous. Evidently one grumpy old guy kept complaining about some neighbor whose smoke came through his (the grumpy old guy)window. He brought it to the city council and they eventually decided to "put Belmont on the map" as the first city in the country to ban smoking anywhere (even in your own car) except a single family home. Now anyone in my apartment building who smokes must put them out I believe by May 1st. All because of one grumpy old man. We stupid every day citizens (who don't but SHOULD go to the council meetings)didn't even realise that this was happening until we heard it on the news.

[Jankyn]

29. If that "grumpy old guy"...

...had asthma, COPD, or any other respiratory illness, the smoking was not only making him sick, it was hastening his death.

Look, for most people, second-hand smoke may be an annoyance. For some of us, it's a serious matter. And when it's coming from next door, how do you get away from it? Move? Tried that. I live in Sacramento, and non-smoking apartments are as rare as hen's teeth--unless you're old enough to qualify for senior housing (I've still got to wait a half-dozen years for that--and by then, I may be on oxygen).

We've added additional sealing around the doors and windows. We can't use either the front porch or the deck. And smoke still seeps in through the ventilation system, which means that on bad days, I'm confined to the outside bedroom with an air purifier. What fun.

The worst part is that the smoking neighbors--the only smokers in the building, BTW--are really sweet people. I like them a lot, although I've never been able to have a long conversation with them because, invariably, they have to light a cigarette.

And look, it's not just the cigarette smoke. There's the problem with wood smoke from fireplaces. And the general bad air quality.

Air pollution is an issue for everybody. But it's killing some of us faster than others.

For the record: two smoking parents, asthma since childhood, first hospitalization for pneumonia at age six. I'm 48 now and have such severe asthma that I can't even go outside on "spare the air" days. Leaving CA is not an option until retirement (some of us need the bennies--and in my case, without health insurance, I'm screwed).

Jankyn

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Trust me I understand

The problem is that we basically have two sides discussing rights

Smokers don't really get it that smoking is not only killing them but killing others.

And non-smokers at times don't want to give an inch

Now as a non-smoker with bad asthma, I wish every smoker staid as far as they could from me as possible, and that includes my father.


But it really does come down to... smoking truly is killing some of us faster than others...

Best wishes by the way.

(Oh and I do get it, nicotine addicts have a hell of a time quitting since their habit is more addictive than heroin)

[liberal4truth]

44. California is a kooky state to live in anyhow. The prices are high, the traffic is a mess....

..it's no wonder they are running TV ads promoting California as a
"nice place to live."

Who wants to live in a state where Arnold the "Governator" is the "King" ?

[Le Taz Hot]

45. We're rather fond of our kookiness,

thank you very much. It's the reason people move here in the first place -- it's called tolerance -- something you don't find in abundance in the Bible Belt. The prices are not high in the Central Valley and our "rush hours" are kind of a joke. Remember, we are a BIG state with much more to offer than just L.A. & S.F. And I have news for you, I've seen ads from virtually all states so California isn't the only state doing this.

[liberal4truth]

76. You are right. LA and the Bay Area are the only places a progressive can live in CA

the rest of the state is RED to "Purple" and getting worse towards the RED.

True, the Bay Area is place to admire greatly, but with the Republican take-over, the high energy prices, the housing market in the dumpster, its no wonder they have to run ads to get people to live there, much less stay there.

[Le Taz Hot]

85. And yet, I'm a progressive

who lives in the Central Valley and I do just fine. Stereotypes can be ugly things.

[huskerlaw]

69. I don't know where you live

but you can stay there.

[liberal4truth]

75. I lived in a RED part of the state, which is most of it, except for the Bay Area and LA....

....And its getting more RED as each year passes.

I know I lived there. :-/

BTW, I hope you folks like that new cell-phone law you are stuck with.

I know the local police forces will :-)

Its a real "money generator" for the counties, like most CA laws are.

[huskerlaw]

77. I actually do like it, as a matter of fact

and I do talk on a cell and drive. It's just much safer when you're not holding the phone.

We're also FAR from the only state with the law, so ripping on California is just immature and ignorant.

Also, if you actually knew anything about the law, you'd know that without California, the rest of the country would be pretty screwed. Why? Because California tries new laws first. And then everyone else follows. Same with how our courts interpret laws.

I'm glad you like wherever you are SO much better. I'm sure it's a veritable utopia in comparison. :sarcasm:

In closing, don't even bother trying to convince me that "most" of California is red. I know RED. I was born and raised in Nebraska. Doesn't get much more red than that. Nice try though.

[liberal4truth]

78. I can tell you have never lived in the north state past Sacramento. The dittoheads and the fundies..

..have total control over that region. Its pro-gun, anti-abortion and as x-tian as it gets, and yes I have been to many RED states. Oxy-Rush is a household name and Clinton is "evil" up in Norcal.

As far as the new cell-phone law is concerned , its already been proven that just using an earpiece to talk will not decrease the accidents that occur due to cell-phone use, but it will cost you 50 dollars for a second offence and it will allow the police probable cause to stop and search your car.

Hate to tell you this, but in many states you _still_ dont have to wear a seat-belt or a helmet on a motorcycle and you can talk as much as you like on a cellphone. And there are no red-light camera's either, like you CA citizens are stuck with. <bg>

IMHO, its all about $$$, not safety, and the insurance companies are backing this one up all the way, just like they are with the new money generating speed cameras you folks are going to be getting next year or so. :-)

California *is* going RED, but I guess you can't see that if you still live in one of the Blue Zones.

I did and I left.

Adios, CalHELLifornia !

[huskerlaw]

79. I guess you're not aware

that you're talking to a lawyer and you're in a bit over your head. Don't bother trying to educate me about CA's laws, I work with them daily.

Again, nice try.

[liberal4truth]

82. Nothing but "talk" from you, a so-called "lawyer" aka "attorney", as most professionals...

prefer to use as a moniker.

But, nonetheless, you have proven my point by totally obfuscating the issue about you having NEVER lived up in the hinterlands of No. California like I did, where it is indeed as RED as it gets.

Hey, maybe you really are a "lawyer", after all.

You did an "almost" (cough-cough) a "great job" of dodging the relevant issue, just like most
so-called "lawyers" do in court :-)

Oh well, have fun in the sun paying all those high taxes and energy bills, for the right to have "Conan the Barbarian" decide your ultimate fate !!! <vbg>.

[huskerlaw]

86. Oh please...

I didn't respond to your comment about northern California because I find it ridiculous. You're trying to assert that "most" of California is "red" by claiming that people who live out in the bumblesticks are Republicans. Two problems with your assertion:

1) When talking about the people who make up a state, "most" is usually defined by the percentage of people, not the amount of land they take up. Clearly "most" Californians don't live in the bumblesticks, or they wouldn't BE bumblesticks. The multiple millions of people who make up California's metropolitan areas are well known for being extremely liberal. Therefore MOST Californians are liberal, not "red".

2) While I have not lived in NorCal, I have BEEN there. Yes, there are some lunatic Republicans up there, but they're not the vast majority. The majority of California's republicans are the fiscal type. Ever been to Orange County? More Republicans there than in NorCal (again with the concentration of people issue), and they're not raging lunatic fundies. They're rich and they want to keep their money. Two completely different types of Republicans.

As for the bullshit you spewed about whether or not I'm a lawyer, well...you're new. You don't know shit about me. Many other people here do, and you just made yourself look like a fool.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

54. Sounds like you had a lazy landlord

They are supposed to clean the place..

[Mountainman]

14. No you just have to not smoke in one. Rent ok smoke not ok get it?

[scatman]

19. Yea me too

[Auggie]

51. Welcome Sactman

From one Tribe fan to another

[dysfunctional press]

28. there's still 49 other states where you can.

nt.

[Quantess]

80. Sounds like you'll have to step outside for a smoke

and dirty up the **sparkling clean** Los Angeles air!
:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

3. Explosive!

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Pass some of it, okay

:popcorn:

[Midlodemocrat]

7. Sure. Would you like something to drink as well?

:beer:

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Sure, I'll take some coffee

:donut:

[MrCoffee]

4. I'm gonna need a smoke by the time this one is done.

[Dr. Strange]

39. Please don't...

I'll be renting this thread after you.

[robinlynne]

8. Well, I can't afford to buy a home, and if I'm not allowed to rent, I can

choose between leaving California and going homeless?

[TahitiNut]

12. Well, that's how 'enlightened' folks deal with lepers.

:evilgrin:

[lukasahero]

50. You're allowed to rent. You're not allowed to smoke IN the rented apt

Geez, I was a smoker and I don't see the problem with this. I never did and would never smoke in my home - the smell is disgusting and never comes out of the walls, fabrics...

I live in Massachusetts where it's 10 degrees in the winter and smoke outside. You live in California - it's hardly a hardship to have to go outside to smoke.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

55. Here is the problem

1) The state does not own the apartment buildings
2) Smoking is legal
3) This is invading the private lives of both smokers and rental property owners..

[lukasahero]

59. That's not what the poster I was replying to was complaining about eom

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

63. Sure it is..

Basically you are saying smoking is a terrible affliction that effects those around you (much like Hansen's disease) and unless you can present yourself at the temple clean you'll be forced from your home (unless you're wealthy and own your own home).. Its straight out Leviticus..

[lukasahero]

64. Yeah, that's exactly what I - a smoker - was saying. Whatever. eom

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

61. Sure it is..

Delete, reply to the wrong person

[alphafemale]

62. When I did smoke, I also rarely smoked indoors.

Not just the smell, but it is disgusting what that slimy film will do to walls furniture and everything.

I did over the years smoke indoors sometimes.

When it would be really nasty outside I would stand under the stove and blow into the stove filter.

Sometimes smokers seem as oblivious to the filth and stink as people who have 75 cats in their house.

I was never under any illusions as to how nasty it was. I knew I had an addiction.
I tried not to make anyone else suffer because of that.

[shanti]

81. thank you!

i'm not a smoker, but any smoking guest goes outside to do so. i won't allow my house to smell like an ashtray.

[krabigirl]

66. Rent a townhome or a house. They are owned by private landlords.

Of course, if you're single, this doesn't make sense. But it makes sense for our family as we wait for home prices to drop.

[DJ13]

10. Slowly but surely

[MindPilot]

16. looks to me what they really need to do is change building codes

to require better ventilation systems that aren't shared and can't be infiltrated. What if a neighbor has a contagious disease or cooks with something I'm allergic to?

[skypilot]

21. "...cooks with something I'm allergic to."

That's a good point. And a scary one. I've never thought of that. I know that if someone is allergic to seafood, for example, that just the steam coming off of a seafood dish can be dangerous.

[Winterblues]

17. Non smoking, no pets, no children

Seems like these have been around for quite some time. Don't see what the problem unless it is forcing land lords to require smoke free rentals.

[Le Taz Hot]

46. The "no children" rule went out a LONG

time ago. The exception is Senior Living communities, otherwise, they can't discriminate against people with children.

[madinmaryland]

18. Ahhh. Nothing like a good smoking thread to break up the monotony

of GD:PP!!1!!

[blues90]

20. Is there anything left that won't be a law ?

This is as close to censorship as you can get .

I smoke and rent and if this passes I am supposed to simply figure out a way to quit . I have tried and failed many times , it's not easy .

The building I live in does not share vents or anything else .

Even many jobs won't hire you if you smoke at all , it matters not if you don't smoke near the job .

There are many things neighbors here do that irritate me like the one downstairs who washes her porch with high powered cleaner and the fumes come in our windows or she feeds out door cats which crap near my back door .

Where does this end ?

What is insane about this is there are many things that affect people in many ways and many things out there that will kill you but there are no bans on these .

[slackmaster]

60. This bill will NOT be a law even if it passes

We do have a constitutional right to privacy and a strong Castle Doctrine in this state.

[mainegreen]

22. Wait, so it doesn't *require* the landlord make building smoke free?

Just makes it easier for them to enforce that provision of the lease,if present, right?

If so, what the hell is the problem?

[The Straight Story]

36. like everything else, it is a first step

give them time - once this is in place, a statewide ban regardless of what the owner of the bar, err rental property, wants the state will tell them what is best.

[Occulus]

23. "Nobody's ever going to tell you you can't smoke in your own home."

Motherfuckers.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

26. so much for the 'non-slippery-slopers' n/t

[fed-up]

24. my neighbors have bbqs and outdoor firepits that gag me.....nt

[Robb]

31. No kidding. And my neighbor starting up his diesel truck

...and running it in his driveway for a few minutes, in the summer that about makes me pass out if I have a window open.

I'm not running to my councilmen asking for his head, though.

[cboy4]

25. And if you smoke in your apartment, and happen to be

circumcised, it's off to San Quentin!

:scared:

[Winterblues]

30. Can we still have our dogs chew up our rented apartment

How about if we shit and piss all over our rented apartment? Should the landlord have any say what-so-ever about his property?

[Jankyn]

32. Good point.

You'd think that the damage to carpet and paint, as well as the added fire risk, would be enough to make landlords ban smoking.

What we discovered, though, was that many multi-unit apartments (the big complexes that seem like they'd be nicer, since they often have pools and fitness centers) have a no-smoking policy. It's just not enforced. We looked at a number of those places, and not only could we smell smoke, we saw tenants smoking in from of the manager (and once, right in front of the no-smoking sign).

[LeftyMom]

33. It's already legal to maintain a smoke-free rental policy. Has been for years.

As for the stupid assertion that smoke-free policies are discriminatory against minorities and the poor: Most apartment complexes already forbid use of loud, bass-heavy car stereos, which are very popular with young men of color, and cars that leak oil, which are overwhelmingly owned by the poor. Provided there's a valid non-discriminatory reason for a policy, disparate impact alone does not make it discriminatory. Preserving both the condition of the unit and the health of tenants is a valid reason for a policy. The primary legal obligation of a landlord or property manager is to ensure the "quiet enjoyment" of the rented property for their customers. If permitting smoking is a barrier to this quiet enjoyment, they are not only within their rights to restrict or forbid smoking on the property, they could be liable to the tenant whose quiet enjoyment is being disturbed.

[MaryCeleste]

34. Funny part is the biggest nicotine addict is the Government.

As the amount of tobacco consumes goes down they have to raise the money from elsewhere. If they hadn't used it for non smoking related costs, that would not be happening

[alarimer]

35. Well they can smoke outdoors can't they?

I see no problem with this. It's not Alaska after all.

[krabigirl]

67. Not in some places...

[Hekate]

38. self-delete. Good luck.

[petronius]

40. I just got a letter from my landlord 'reminding' us that our complex is

entirely no-smoking. I did not consider the legality of it, but I have no reason to challenge it since we don't smoke.

It would be nice if the article discussed why that particular bill would do what the headline or the first paragraph claims, however. The linked text is just a regurgitation of facts/claims...

[Hatchling]

41. So I can buy a product legally that I can't use legally?!

They make it illegal to smoke anywhere, but they don't make the damn smokes illegal?

I want to quit smoking, but I can't. I've tried every non-smoking product there is except Chantix which my insurance won't pay for. Nothing works for me except the gum and then I only cross-addict. Maybe if there were an inpatient rehabilitaion program like there is for alcoholics and heroin addicts I would have more success. Or if they would put me on nicotine replacement like heroin addicts get methadone?

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. The gum is your nicottine replacement

and try to get your doc to argue with the health company about chiantix

[Hatchling]

49. Thanks

I know the gum is a perfectly good nicotine replacement. But I can smoke for a month on $30. It would cost me $200-plus a month for gum. I can't afford it, my insurance won't cover it. Insurance covers methadone. Insurance covers antabuse. It's ironic, because many medications I take are a direct result of my smoking. The company would actually save money on me if they covered the gum.

As for the Chantix, my doctor and I have been trying for 6 months to get my insurance to cover it. They won't. I'm still looking into other avenues to get it.

My largest concern is that there isn't a real medical support system in place for smokers to quit. And this making it illegal in so many places is frustrating.

Oh, well. I will eventually inadvertanly smoke in an illegal place and they will put me in jail.

[eilen]

73. Chewing tobacco is cheaper than gum

And so far, it's not illegal to spit. But give them time.

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. It is legal for you to buy a dog, but many landlords forbid tenants to keep pets

[Le Taz Hot]

47. Some posters didn't read the article very well.

It's not MANDATORY that apartment complexes go non-smoking -- it just provides legal cover for those that choose to go that route. However, economically, I can see why landlords would choose the non-smoking option as smoking causes damage to the walls, draperies, carpets and blinds. I know this one from experience as, after I finally quit smoking after 35 years, I had to pull up my carpets and it took me DAYS to scrub down the walls, ceilings and shutters. I probably had to go over the walls 10 times before the nicotine gunk was finally gone because you really can't paint over it effectively.

[Xenotime]

52. Its a disgusting habit that should be taxed even further

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

58. Yes!

Lets take every disgusting habit that 60% of people dont like and ban it..!

Thank the Lord on high we live in a representative republic and not a pure democracy.. What about chewing tobacco? drinking? fatty foods?

I swear its like demolition man!

@ Get me a malboro.

# Yes of course. Right away. What's a malboro?

@ A cigarette. Any cigarette.

# Um, smoking is not good for you, and it has been deemed that anything not good for you is bad, hence illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat...

@ Are you shitting me? Computer - John SPartan you are fined one credit for voilation of the verbal moralities code.

# What the hell is that?

@ Bad language, chocolate, gasoline, uneducational toys and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal but so is pregnancy if you don't have a licence.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

53. Dont know how to feel about this one

"Proposed legislation would make it easier for landlords to ban smoking in California rental units by clarifying state law."

in one respect it is the landlords property and he has (1) other tenants living there and (2) he to rent it after the fact. Should a land lord be able to stop a legal behavior because it makes his investment worth less?

[slackmaster]

56. The bill is just a "statement of legislative findings" and has no force

The problem I see with it is that it's a fucking waste of legislative time.

:argh:

But that's par for the course in this state. We deserve a better Legislature.

[Snarkturian Clone]

57. Never mind. Enjoy losing your freedoms. NT

[Ordr]

65. Unbelievable.

Totalitarianism masked as progressivism topped with a nanny's knowing smile.

Soon to come:

No more wireless 802.11 networks in rental apartments. They may cause cancer.
No more cellular phone usage in rental apartments. They may cause cancer.
No more cooking with frying oil. Some release what may be carcinogens into the air and into the food as well.
No more foods that the government deems to be unhealthy. The national healthcare plan that we will have in place cannot foot the burden of obesity-related claims.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Why choose liberty when your government can choose it for you?

[The Straight Story]

68. It's all about protecting people

from terror, smoke, smog, perfume, holiday decorations, etc and so on.

[Ordr]

70. "It's all about protecting people"

Sadly, that is what it has come down to. Silly platitudes and tiny feel-good law proposals from our democratic "leaders" who aren't skilled enough to take on the real fucking issues like, oh, maybe...our current criminal administration.
Our party is done for.

[The Straight Story]

71. Indeed - smoke in a bar, get a fine - Kill thousands in an illegal war and get more money

Yeah, the world is pretty darned fucked up.

[WinkyDink]

72. Are cigarettes NOT LEGAL products? WTH?! Why not just make them ILlegal??

[Cleita]

74. Because then they will be sold on the black market

increasing criminal activity. It will also put more people in prison who are not a danger to society. Did you learn nothing from prohibition or our present dope laws? Does your granmother smoke? Do you want her to be turned into a criminal?

[liberal4truth]

83. What about the TAX angle? Tobacco makes lots of $$$ for the government and of course,......

..that is why it is still legal to sell and buy that cancerous, deadly, toxic product. x(

Its all about the dollar bill, in the end. :-(