Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No smoking in your own home, California city orders residents

thetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: No smoking in your own home, California city orders residents

#21

Post by rafram »

themaninthedark wrote: post #6
JohnMakin wrote: post #2

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.

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.

They could go outside.

Re: No smoking in your own home, California city orders residents

#22

Post by beaglesss »

rafram wrote: post #21
themaninthedark wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They could go outside.

Or they could buy/rent a half of a duplex where both owners consent to indoor smoking.

Re: No smoking in your own home, California city orders residents

#24

Post by Ferret7446 »

paulcole wrote: post #3
JohnMakin wrote: post #2

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.

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.

As you said, this works fine as a per-complex policy; it does not require government overreach, something which California is eager to do.

Re: No smoking in your own home, California city orders residents

#25

Post by themaninthedark »

rafram wrote: post #20
themaninthedark wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> How is it clickbait? Because you can still smoke "in your own home." You can't subject your neighbors to smoke in a multi-unit building. > I wonder if your building is up to code? Certainly, as of the 1920s, when it was built. I don't think that new buildings (at least those built with fire-resistant wood frames, which is the current trend) are really better at preventing smells from moving between units anyway.

Please move! It only takes one mistake by your neighbor to start a fire and you will have very little time to react.

My concern about code is because there should be a minimum fire resistance rating between floors. The fact that you can see the smoke through your floorboards when your neighbor burning incense makes me think that there is no such barrier.

Home means more than single family dwelling....

Edited to put my more important thoughts up top and my mundane reply to the thread at the bottom.

Re: No smoking in your own home, California city orders residents

#26

Post by paulcole »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #24
paulcole wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As you said, this works fine as a per-complex policy; it does not require government overreach, something which California is eager to do.

But isn't that the role of governments? To decide what does require their reach?

Re: No smoking in your own home, California city orders residents

#27

Post by rajnathani »

rafram wrote: post #5

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 ni…

I really wish that in India these smoking bans in multi-apartment units existed (and made highly enforceable).

My family and I have had a big struggle for years with a chain-smoking neighbor whose smoking from their balcony causes our entire living room to smell of cigarette smoke even if we keep 1 small window open on one entire side of the living room. Thus, it's an unfortunate tradeoff between adequate fresh air ventilation and chronic secondhand smoking exposure (and thirdhand (via likely deposits on furniture fabrics)). Fortunately, very recently we implemented a "blocker shade" protruding from our balcony perimeter (and we keep 2 other small windows on one side our living room almost always closed), which seems to have helped reduce the smoke in our apartment.

Post reply on HN