Suffolk County To Attempt To Ban Smoking In Private Homes

[Shortfuze]

source: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/02...ondhand-smoke/

RIVERHEAD, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — Is one suburban county going too far trying to legislate what residents can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes?

Hoping to be the most progressive county in the state, Suffolk County is proposing a law that would snuff out secondhand smoke in apartment complexes, condominiums, and multi-family dwellings, CBS2’s Jennifer McLogan reported Wednesday.

Smoking is already banned in many public places, and near schools and office buildings, but there are no smoke-free laws for apartment buildings, condos, and two-family homes.

“Let me be clear, any legislation that there is a vote required that would have an impact on preventing the public or innocent people who have made a choice not to smoke, from being exposed to smoke, I will support that legislation,” Suffolk Legislator Dr. William Spencer said.

Spencer, who is also a medical doctor, said secondhand smoke can permeate through cracks in walls, electrical lines, plumbing, and ventilation systems.

Statistics show more than 3,000 non-smokers in New York die each year from heart disease and lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.

There are two proposed laws to reduce secondhand smoke in Suffolk County.

Legislator Sam Gonzalez is sponsoring the bill banning all smoking in apartments, condos, and multi-family homes.

When asked if the proposed legislation is going to far, Gonzalez said, “It’s not going too far. We’re heading in that direction anyway. We can’t smoke in restaurants. We can’t smoke in buildings. We can’t smoke inside the theaters. There are parks, there are beaches that you can’t smoke in. We are headed there.”

The proposed legislation has Suffolk residents buzzing.

“It’s impossible to enforce,” one person said.

“If they want to smoke in their apartment, I think it’s totally fine,” another person said.

“You should have the discretion, obviously, to smoke on your own property,” another added.

There has already been push-back, with many wondering if an apartment dweller could actually get kicked out, all in the name of good health.

“When I get the push-back from individuals that say, ‘No, you can’t stop me from smoking,’ I say ‘Why not?'” Gonzalez said.

The lawmaker added offenders could be fined up to $1,000 or even arrested, and that enforcement will be complaint driven.

Public hearings later this month are expected to be heated. Legislators said they expect amendments and modifications before the Health Committee considers the proposal.


So what do you guys think? Is this a good thing or an infringement on people's rights? I feel like this can lead to a slippery slope situation.

[Tamorlane]

Actually not as unreasonable as you think. Notice it pertains to apartments and multi unit dwellings where the smoke is entering other people's units.

Imagine you're raising your newborn baby and your neighbors carcinogenic cigarette smoke is entering their room and there's nothing you can do about it but move.

But at the same time you should be able to smoke in your own place. It's similar to pollution. It's one thing if it remains on private property but it often doesn't.

[BOZZ]

Wow

[miscinbro]

Mixed feelings on this, but very misleading title. Apartments and multi-family dwellings is like the opposite of a “private home.”

[Seatard]

apartment complexes, condominiums, and multi-family dwellings

Not unusual at all for group housing to fall under a stricter set of rules.

[HerrPeterson]

Not as bad as I thought this would be. If they tried telling folks in the suburbs they couldn’t smoke, that would be going too far.

At least in this case (condos, multi-family homes, etc) the county govt can claim a “significant interest” in prohibiting smoking.

Still, how long before they ban smoking in single-family, privately owned homes? If you have children living in the house, couldn’t they claim a “significant interest?” The logic is sound, but it feels wrong.

[Seatard]

Mixed feelings on this, but very misleading title. Apartments and multi-family dwellings is like the opposite of a “private home.”

Yeah, had to let that go.

Thread title is an obvious attempt to set up some weird side-argument.

[blazenbb]

I support it, they should take their trashy cig smoking ace outside. Other people shouldnt have to endure that disgusting habit. They are forcing people to live in their second hand smoke. You can’t avoid it. If you want to box your place, cool. Buy your own house

[Doober4]

If you live in an apartment and you don’t go outside to smoke you’re a piece of trash.

[BFast55]

Useless legislation. Most apartments and condo developments have rules like this in place.

[soaponarope1]

Shouldn't be government business. If the apartment residents don't like it have the apartment complex require smokers to either smoke at a designated area away from the buildings or off property. If they're caught smoking outside of these areas, evict them.

It's extremely easy to tell if someone is smoking in their apartment. Give neighbors a $100 credit for reporting someone who is.

Done without government.

[John L]

Actually not as unreasonable as you think. Notice it pertains to apartments and multi unit dwellings where the smoke is entering other people's units.

Imagine you're raising your newborn baby and your neighbors carcinogenic cigarette smoke is entering their room and there's nothing you can do about it but move.

But at the same time you should be able to smoke in your own place. It's similar to pollution. It's one thing if it remains on private property but it often doesn't.

Suffolk County here, I do agree with this mostly. In private, detached homes it would be a different story.

Democrats control the Suffolk legislature with a very slim majority, but they're not "progressives." Instead they're authoritarian-style Democrats who love red light cameras, speed cameras, fines and fees, etc and pander to the law enforcement unions to get their endorsements and donations so they can get the moderate and independent votes. So yeah this can definitely wind up being a slippery slope, but it could be a good thing if it ends at this.

[Tamorlane]

Still, how long before they ban smoking in single-family, privately owned homes? If you have children living in the house, couldn’t they claim a “significant interest?” The logic is sound, but it feels wrong.

Where i'm from, you cannot smoke in the car with a child, regardless of whether the windows are rolled down or not. And that's exactly how it should be. Because cigarette smoke is dangerous enough that the rights of the child should supercede the rights of the person to smoke within their domain.

[Tamorlane]

they're not "progressives." Instead they're authoritarian-style Democrats who love red light cameras, speed cameras, fines and fees, etc and pander to the law enforcement unions to get their endorsements and donations

fuk i do not like red light cameras. I'm pretty sure a study found they are causing more fender benders and accidents in general because people are slamming on the brakes to avoid getting flagged by the cameras.

[acrawlingchaos]

LOL Democrats waging war on poor folk. Can't afford a house? Fukoff!

[jackamo2887]

I would support a bill that states you can break your lease early if you move in and realize your neighbor smokes and it all comes into your apartment.

That is annoying as **** and has happened to me.

[miscinbro]

LOL Democrats waging war on poor folk. Can't afford a house? Fukoff!

Or, you know, just go outside like a normal person in 2020.

[Retoaded]

I would support a bill that states you can break your lease early if you move in and realize your neighbor smokes and it all comes into your apartment.

That is annoying as **** and has happened to me.

Of course. An individual situation where you have smoke coming into your apartment is absolutely an issue. But you don't take the crazy liberal reaction of banning anything and everything to solve that isolated situation.

[Seatard]

Of course. An individual situation where you have smoke coming into your apartment is absolutely an issue. But you don't take the crazy liberal reaction of banning anything and everything to solve that isolated situation.

They aren't attempting to ban anything and everything, they are addressing the situation of smoke coming into your apartment.

[Retoaded]

They aren't attempting to ban anything and everything, they are addressing the situation of smoke coming into your apartment.

Are they not banning smoking in every single multifamily/apartment unit? Maybe I didn't read that correctly.

[Seatard]

fuk i do not like red light cameras. I'm pretty sure a study found they are causing more fender benders and accidents in general because people are slamming on the brakes to avoid getting flagged by the cameras.

The issue we had locally with the cameras was manipulating the timing of the lights and cameras to maximize profits.

I'd be okay with automatic ticketing at every intersection if it was intended as a deterrent and not simply to fuk over as many people as possible. Gubernet gonna gubernet.

[Seatard]

Are they not banning smoking in every single multifamily/apartment unit? Maybe I didn't read that correctly.

Yeah, banning smoking in apartments to stop smoke from infiltrating apartments.

That's a pretty targeted action and far from banning anything and everything.

They could handle it in far more extreme ways, by banning sales of cigarettes or updating building codes for example.

[Cleveland33]

Where i'm from, you cannot smoke in the car with a child, regardless of whether the windows are rolled down or not. And that's exactly how it should be. Because cigarette smoke is dangerous enough that the rights of the child should supercede the rights of the person to smoke within their domain.

That's the same argument Pro-Lifers use for abortion.

[BOZZ]

Where i'm from, you cannot smoke in the car with a child, regardless of whether the windows are rolled down or not. And that's exactly how it should be. Because cigarette smoke is dangerous enough that the rights of the child should supercede the rights of the person to smoke within their domain.

] Can i assume you find abortion sickening then since you're all about the right of the child??

[Retoaded]

Yeah, banning smoking in apartments to stop smoke from infiltrating apartments.

That's a pretty targeted action and far from banning anything and everything.

They could handle it in far more extreme ways, by banning sales of cigarettes or updating building codes for example.

Sorry - I guess that is the rub in the difference of opinions - in my opinion BANNING SMOKING in EVERY SINGLE UNIT is extreme. And this is coming from someone who automatically thinks you're trash if you're smoking indoors lol.

[Retoaded]

] Can i assume you find abortion sickening then since you're all about the right of the child??

Nah dawg its just a clump of cells until the clock strike that magical time and then poof its a child.

[Tamorlane]

That's the same argument Pro-Lifers use for abortion.

It's also the argument for when religious parents refuse emergency life-saving blood transfusions for their child. Where i'm from at least, the government basically says 'fuk your religious beliefs', takes temporary custody of the child and administers the emergency care and saves the child's life. The parents may cry and sue over it, but that child gets to grow up now.

Can i assume you find abortion sickening then since you're all about the right of the child??

Yes that's correct. I am against abortion for that specific reasoning. However, at the same time it doesn't seem right to have government policy forcing women to bear a child. It's a sticky situation and one I usually wouldn't touch with a 10-ft pole. I just don't have abortions myself and would discourage them and any culture or rhetoric that makes it seem like it's no big deal.

[knightofday]

Actually not as unreasonable as you think. Notice it pertains to apartments and multi unit dwellings where the smoke is entering other people's units.

Imagine you're raising your newborn baby and your neighbors carcinogenic cigarette smoke is entering their room and there's nothing you can do about it but move.

But at the same time you should be able to smoke in your own place. It's similar to pollution. It's one thing if it remains on private property but it often doesn't.

ahahahahahahaaha you communists really do not know when to stfu

[sfgiants13]

If you live in an apartment and you don’t go outside to smoke you’re a piece of trash.

This. About a month before I moved out of my last apartment a smoker moved in next to me. The smell of my apartment was unbearable and I'm someone who can tolerate smoke to a decent extent.

[acrawlingchaos]

Or, you know, just go outside like a normal person in 2020.

Don't mind me.. I think it's great. Alienate poor people and limit their rights because they can't afford a house. Can't see what could possibly go wrong.

It's not like business already self regulate this. Better put it into law and completely take away the rights of a business owner.