|
Papercut posted:Most apartment buildings already ban indoor smoking, cannabis or not. That's true and after this ordinance becomes law they can also send the cops after their tenants and use the city to nail them with a $1,000 a day fine. Most apartment use will of course continue unabated, negating the supposed public health benefits.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
i agree with the ban in principal but it seems like its largely unenforceable in practicality (and if it is enforced it will almost certainly be used to harass the poor/minorities)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:That's true and after this ordinance becomes law they can also send the cops after their tenants and use the city to nail them with a $1,000 a day fine. The cops aren't responsible for enforcement, per your own article. It's not a criminal offense. quote:If passed, San Francisco would join 63 other California cities — including Alameda, Berkeley, Santa Clara and Santa Rosa — and counties with a similar ban.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Kuvo posted:i agree with the ban in principal but it seems like its largely unenforceable in practicality (and if it is enforced it will almost certainly be used to harass the poor/minorities) Like ousting tenants because their landlord "smelled smoke" while passing by? I'm having a hard time imagining what else the law would be used for if not that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Arguments in favor: 1) gently caress smokers Arguments against: 1) gently caress landlords
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 00:46
|
|
|
Weembles posted:Like ousting tenants because their landlord "smelled smoke" while passing by? I'm having a hard time imagining what else the law would be used for if not that. In most cases these landlords can already throw you out (eventually) for smoking in violation of their own rules. But now they can also sic a public health official of some sort on you as well, and of course the recorded violation of public health policy (rather than just contract terms) is probably useful for nailing tenants at eviction hearings as well. The "good news" is that 99% of people smoking or vaping at their apartment (or on their balconies) will assuredly be able to continue to do so without any changes because they just won't get caught, which sort of undermines the supposed public health benefits of the ban.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
massive unemployment and homeless crisis, the economy is ruined, and going outside could kill you. if ever there was time to stay inside and smoke weed it's now, but nope, let's drop a $1000 fine on some dude already facing eviction for toking up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
Cruel indifference, not just a Republican pastime!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
How about SF Democrats decide to let people live their lives and focus on more important things, christ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Because people are obviously having poor health outcomes, and actually meaningfully addressing those would require proactive social policies that require income and thus taxes. Therefore, you issue penalties on people in the hopes that additional austerity will be just the shot in the arm they needed to stop being poor and sick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
It's certainly a thing to ban renters from smoking weed in their own homes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
It's so loving bleak that mainstream Democrats are mostly in the business of passing sumptuary laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
Kenning posted:Because people are obviously having poor health outcomes, and actually meaningfully addressing those would require proactive social policies that require income and thus taxes. Therefore, you issue penalties on people in the hopes that additional austerity will be just the shot in the arm they needed to stop being poor and sick. Yeah the entire notion seems to come from the Bloomberg school of thought. 1) identify a real problem 2) consider the array of possible ways to address with that problem 3) ignore any of the options with an associated fiscal cost to the state but frantically enact those that simply impose restrictions, bans, penalties, etc. 4) the problem persists because the no-cost solutions are either totally meaningless or effectively unenforceable but we at least make a bunch of people into petty criminals. It also reminds me a bit of the truancy law CA flirted with (in which we send parents of truant students to jail). Truancy is also a real problem with real (and likely costly) solutions, but we went with the free option that utilizes an existing mechanism like a crude bludgeon because then at least we can say we tried something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
So it's illegal to smoke in public areas, common areas, hallways or stairways, potentially in your own apartment or condominium with three or more units, at work, in any indoor bar/restaurant/store unless it's a smoking club or tobacco shop, or outside within fifteen feet of any doorway... How very nice of them to make it only legal for the landed gentry to smoke, I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 04:16
|
|
|
Sumptuary laws. It's feudal legislation in a modern form.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Speaking of SF the federal corruption probe continues and Harlan Kelly, the Public Utilities Commission director got arrested and resigned from his job. His wife is the City Administrator (highest ranking non elected official) and they are heavily connected to Willie Brown and Mayor London Breed so who knows where this may go next. Basically Harlan Kelly was taking bribes and steering bids towards a contractor. Their whole family took a trip to Hong Kong and China paid for by the contractor. https://missionlocal.org/2020/11/puc-boss-harlan-kelly-arested-by-feds-charged-in-bribery-scheme/ Pinche Rudo fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Dec 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
Pinche Rudo posted:Speaking of SF the federal corruption probe continues and Harlan Kelly, the Public Utilities Commission director got arrested and resigned from his job. His wife is the City Administrator (highest ranking non elected official) and they are heavily connected to Willie Brown and Mayor London Breed so who knows where this may go next. I remain disappointed that Edwin Lee died before he could be locked up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/loisbeckett/status/1333634377683648512?s=20 we gotta start making movies again!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Arguments in favor: *guy sweating in front of two buttons* Centrist Committee posted:Cruel indifference, not just a Republican pastime! Bizarro Watt posted:How about SF Democrats decide to let people live their lives and focus on more important things, christ. "gently caress everyone else, I do what I want" is also a common Republican pastime (see: "I don't want to wear a mask"). Reaching the hand of the law into people's homes to slap them for their recreational pastimes is hardly a desirable solution, but smoking affects more people than just you even if you do it in your own home, if your own home is connected to a bunch of other peoples' homes who don't smoke. I think it's equally unreasonable to dismiss non-smokers who don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes by their neighbors. I have no judgment on this bill one way or the other, but I think "I gotta live my life!" is just as stupid and reactionary as you think stopping people from smoking is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 06:49
|
|
|
Kenning posted:It's so loving bleak that mainstream Democrats are mostly in the business of passing sumptuary laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 07:19
|
|
|
Someone show me the research on second hand vape in neighboring apartments And for that matter, second hand vape health impacts relative to second hand smoke
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 07:31
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:"gently caress everyone else, I do what I want" is also a common Republican pastime (see: "I don't want to wear a mask"). Reaching the hand of the law into people's homes to slap them for their recreational pastimes is hardly a desirable solution, but smoking affects more people than just you even if you do it in your own home, if your own home is connected to a bunch of other peoples' homes who don't smoke. I think it's equally unreasonable to dismiss non-smokers who don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes by their neighbors. I have no judgment on this bill one way or the other, but I think "I gotta live my life!" is just as stupid and reactionary as you think stopping people from smoking is. I agree, any kind of open flame around a straw man of this size is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 08:00
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:"gently caress everyone else, I do what I want" is also a common Republican pastime (see: "I don't want to wear a mask"). Reaching the hand of the law into people's homes to slap them for their recreational pastimes is hardly a desirable solution, but smoking affects more people than just you even if you do it in your own home, if your own home is connected to a bunch of other peoples' homes who don't smoke. I think it's equally unreasonable to dismiss non-smokers who don't want to be exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes by their neighbors. I have no judgment on this bill one way or the other, but I think "I gotta live my life!" is just as stupid and reactionary as you think stopping people from smoking is. Just ban it outright then. Everywhere. For everyone. If it's unhealthy enough that second-hand smoke is dangerous to someone in the next apartment (which it is), it's dangerous enough to ban the rich guy with his own SFH from exposing himself to first-hand smoke too. Ban it everywhere, allocate enforcement fines to free cessation treatments for addicts, etc etc. Or perhaps we can add an exception to allow cigar and pipe smoking in wine caves and rooftop restaurants provided they're booked for private parties and aren't open to the general public, and provided that they feature no fewer than one chandelier for every 4 guests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:*guy sweating in front of two buttons* some guys weed smoke turning into a smoke creature and crawling through the pipes and vents to strangle a child to death... too hosed up to believe to be honest. someone call the police!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 08:27
|
|
|
itt we go balls deep in infighting amongst useless "personal responsibility" poo poo instead of holding the fire to our corporate oppressors / world destroyers. don't do it bro. i know the ciggy sicko smells bad bro, i know dude, but stay on target. i promise the guy smoking some american spirits in your complex isn't going to kill you, but the big shipping boat and/or megacorp toxic waste spill, well, it certainly will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
Sundae posted:So it's illegal to smoke in public areas, common areas, hallways or stairways, potentially in your own apartment or condominium with three or more units, at work, in any indoor bar/restaurant/store unless it's a smoking club or tobacco shop, or outside within fifteen feet of any doorway... It excludes outdoor areas so if this passes, the only legal place it would be for people to smoke at my apartment is outside the kitchen doors to all of the units where we the clothes lines are or (if we can ever get covid under control) in an outdoor common separated by a fence from a restaurant's outdoor dining area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 13:23
|
|
|
Sundae posted:So it's illegal to smoke in public areas, common areas, hallways or stairways, potentially in your own apartment or condominium with three or more units, at work, in any indoor bar/restaurant/store unless it's a smoking club or tobacco shop, or outside within fifteen feet of any doorway... I'd like to see a colored overlay of a google map of a bay area neighborhood showing this. I imagine most of it would be overlayed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Rent control is a sumptuary law I would be interested in how you defend this proposition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
We shall go on to the end, we shall smoke in France, we shall smoke on the seas and oceans, we shall smoke with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our ciggies, whatever the cost may be, we shall smoke on the beaches, we shall smoke on the landing grounds, we shall smoke in the fields and in the streets, we shall smoke in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, these ciggies or large cigars were restricted and banned, then our people beyond the seas, buying and vaping by the street, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Just ban it outright then. Everywhere. For everyone. If it's unhealthy enough that second-hand smoke is dangerous to someone in the next apartment (which it is), it's dangerous enough to ban the rich guy with his own SFH from exposing himself to first-hand smoke too. Ban it everywhere, allocate enforcement fines to free cessation treatments for addicts, etc etc. Or perhaps we can add an exception to allow cigar and pipe smoking in wine caves and rooftop restaurants provided they're booked for private parties and aren't open to the general public, and provided that they feature no fewer than one chandelier for every 4 guests. Yeah it's this. A ban on smoking in apartments that is enforced by a fine is essentially only a smoking ban for the poor. If you want to ban smoking then just ban loving smoking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah it's this. A ban on smoking in apartments that is enforced by a fine is essentially only a smoking ban for the poor. If you want to ban smoking then just ban loving smoking. A ban on smoking would also be decried as a smoking ban for the poor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:A ban on smoking would also be decried as a smoking ban for the poor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:A ban on smoking would also be decried as a smoking ban for the poor. Depends on how it's done. A ban that is enforced by a fine? Yeah absolutely. A ban that's more focused on holding the tobacco industry and businesses that sell their products responsible for not selling in the city and providing free and easy access to addiction-ending resources and products? I think there are ways to handle it that place less of a burden on the poor but those ways cost money and would piss off the corporate overloards. As things stand though what they're trying to implement is a worthless half measure that is going to result in little to no actual public health benefit but will slap $1000 fines on a lot of people who cannot afford that expense. I guess you could also make the argument that any type of ban, no matter how progressive in implementation, will result in people smuggling poo poo in and that's easier to do when you've got time and money, but that more strikes at the heart of our society being organized in such a way that everything is harder when you're poor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Everyone has an air filter now that we are smoked out 1-2 months of the year, checkmate libs  I'm pretty sure I've done more damage to my lungs from leaving my windows open during smokey days than when my neighbors smoke in front of my building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
Generally speaking vice bans are deeply illiberal and a bad idea. I highly doubt that the people who are in favor of various propositions for banning smoking are also in favor of illegal cannabis, illegal prostitution, prohibition of alcohol, etc. A population-wide reduction in tobacco consumption would probably be a good thing overall. An actual path towards achieving that would be broad investments in healthcare, education (not just anti-smoking education, but education overall), and basic social supports, such as stable housing and nutrition and higher wages. Tobacco use is correlated with stress and anxiety, and investing in reducing how overwhelmingly stressful and exhausting it is to live in America would absolutely have the effect of reducing smoking levels, especially if it was paired with a system of supports for people looking to stop or reduce smoking for health reasons. However, that's all expensive, and more importantly relies on the idea that government is actually capable of intervening positively in people's lives, which since the 90s the average American elected official has absolutely denied, Democrats included. So instead they pass prohibitions to try and instill some sort of moral fiber in working people to help them resist vice. It's absolute bullshit, and is the pinnacle of neoliberal elite managerialism shot through with smug protestant austerity. It's loving despicable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Yeah I guess I should clarify: I'm not arguing for a smoking ban. I'm saying that it is clear that's what the city wants, but they're too chickenshit to do it so they're just going to slap fines on people for the most common smoking venue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:We shall go on to the end, we shall smoke in France, What, no modified Aces High lyrics? Lazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:woah, maybe we shouldn't ban people from using drugs in the safety of their own homes after all? Vaping, absolutely not, at least based on what we know right now. Smoking kills you completely dead and there is no safe way to do it. It's a bad, bad way to take drugs. Congobongo posted:Everyone has an air filter now that we are smoked out 1-2 months of the year, checkmate libs I wonder if someone could argue in court that PG&E is violating the smoking ban Cup Runneth Over fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I wonder if someone could argue in court that PG&E is violating the smoking ban How many legal and illegal cannabis grows do each major fire torch? brb putting a plan to PG&E to hotbox the entire north Bay Area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Kenning posted:I would be interested in how you defend this proposition. The purported benefit is to reduce conspicuous consumption (or at least solve the prisoner's dilemma). In practice, a lot of support for these laws were to keep certain classes out of privilege forever, such as by prohibiting non-noble rich people from joining the fancy-clothes party. Putting a spending cap on rents, but still allowing a privileged class to buy property outright, sounds an awful lot like sumptuary laws to me. I'm more interested in why you think sumptuary laws are making a comeback among "mainstream Democrats", unless you just meant to criticize them as being vaguely medieval in their politics
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2020 20:34
|
|