The City Council decided against banning smoking in multi-unit residences for concerns that they didn't consider condo owners and medical marijuana smokers when the proposed ban was conceived.
This past week, Q-line asked:
"Should the council reconsider the ban or did it go too far to begin with?"
Here are your responses:
"The council should reconsider the ban, too many people are suffering from their neighbors' tobacco smoke."
"I am a Santa Monica resident and I believe that smoking in the housing ordinance should definitely be revisited. Santa Monica is way behind the time and we really need to address this situation. Nonsmokers' health is at danger and we've been in front of City Council for years now, trying to get some release from the smoke and it's definitely time and I believe it should be revisited."
"I think what the City Council needs to come up with is a new ordinance. I think the only way we can ban smoking in multi-residences would be in new construction only and then as it's being built, it has to be re-decided before anybody moves in whether it's going to be smoking or non-smoking. To ban smoking in buildings where people are allowed to smoke right now is a little crazy I think. I don't think any smokers are going to want to live in a non-smoking building, and non-smokers are going to want to live in a smoking building. So that would be the easiest way to do it, just start at new construction."
"Absolutely the council went too far. I think they should drop the whole thing, forget about it and let people live."
"Let the council reconsider and allow smoking in the apartments with the following stipulations: have a designated smoking area, an area that is sealed tight and the smoke cannot get out and bother the non-smokers. That way people have their freedom to smoke and people have their freedom to smoke-free air, which is what everyone deserves."
"I think there should be a ban on smoking in rentals. As far as condo owners, well right there owners means you have to keep your nose out of it City Hall. Owner is owner. If you don't like it, just don't buy the condo next to a smoker. As far as medical marijuana, how ignorant are you, where have you been for 10, 15, 20 years?"
"We own our own home. We don't own other property in Santa Monica so we wouldn't really have a dog in this race. Except that we are aware that the council seldom acts on behalf of Santa Monica residents unless certain members personally benefit. So don't believe for a minute that these folks are concerned about our health. That said, condo owners are entitled to smoke in their own units. Non-smokers are entitled not to buy condo units close to units owned by smokers. Renters likewise are free to rent apartments they best think meet their needs. No one can force them to do otherwise. As for medical marijuana, it's the best available treatment at the most reasonable price for those suffering from painful chronic illnesses or from the effects of chemotherapy. The world view of the anti-smoking zealots would improve greatly if a whiff of that healing smoke happened to invade their airspace. The council should drop the whole idea of this asinine law, return the money to what we will charitably call their lobbyists, go home, and light up."
"No it did not go far enough. Smoking should be banned in apartment buildings. … And whole buildings would need to be labeled as smoke-free. Just labeling one apartment in a building of 12 won't do it as the smoke from all the other units would permeate the one non-smoking unit."
"It absolutely should be reconsidered and indeed should go further. Why should my young child have to passively smoke each cigarette our neighbors smoke in our non-smoking building? We are rent-controlled while these smoking neighbors were not. Might as well have posted a "big, yellow R" for "rent-controlled" on our front door if you go by [Councilman Kevin] McKeown's logic. Even the most advanced air purifiers miserably fail when contending with second-hand smoke because the particles of second-hand smoke are too small to be filtered effectively. We know because we've tried it and the results were obvious. We were still kissing our child goodnight and smelling smoke in her hair and pajamas and blankets — and everywhere else in our apartment. Those against the ordinance claim smoking falls within the fundamental right to privacy. But the courts have consistently rejected this argument. Very few acts by individuals are protected by the Constitution, and there is no constitutional right to smoke. Smokers in multi-unit housing should be required to smoke outside."
"My neighbor's farts stink so they should outlaw farting in apartments. I'm a vegetarian and my neighbor should not be allowed to cook burgers. Our commie City Council has no business going into private people's apartments and condos and forcing us to follow their fascist agendas. They don't believe in property rights. The city has the right to regulate smoking in the street or parks, but apartments, homes and condos should be regulated by the owners and condo associations. Condo associations and apartment owners can choose to make their property smoke free if they want. Anyone who is upset by smokers could have moved into a non-smoking building to begin with. There are plenty of non-smoking buildings already and more all the time for these complainers to move and leave the rest of us alone."
"No, the council did not go too far. Ask my son who suffers from asthma and has nowhere to go when my neighbors decide to spark up. They have a choice to pollute their lungs; my son does not!"
