Dear Editor – Culver City Smoking Ban

Light-bulb-0003-300x198Dear Editor –

This whole “ban smoking in multi-family housing” is ridiculous. First, it is not up to the City to regulate personal habits that are legal. If a property owner says “I am going to allow smoking in my building” – disclosure, in writing, to new tenants is all there needs to be for them to make an informed decision. For condominium homeowners, they already have a governing body called the HOA, to determine when and where someone can smoke in the condos and complex. And, when you are purchasing a condo, you are given the CC&RS to read prior to purchasing. They would have these rules.

Nor, is it up to the City Council to make a legal habit illegal. As we all know, the war on drugs is a failure; and this venture will be not only a failure, but can become a lawsuit regarding constitutional rights and discrimination.

As a former smoker I know that quitting smoking is difficult and stressful. Some people simply cannot and do not want to quit smoking. That is their right. Smoking itself is not illegal. It is unhealthy but not illegal.

It is the right of property owners to determine if they want their properties, whether single family residences or multi-family residences to be smoking or non-smoking facilities and it is up to them to enforce the same through Leases and Tenant Rules.

I am also concerned about the definition of smoking. Many people have medical marijuana prescriptions for medical reasons. Are they not allowed to take their “prescription” at home because the government is trying to regulate their lives? Is that not a violation of the law to keep someone from taking their doctor prescribed medication because they don’t like it?

In reading about the social-economic status of smokers versus non-smokers www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0260.pdf It seems to me that this is a form of discrimination against the poorest of our citizens. The report says:

• In the past, the highest income Americans smoked at levels even greater than the poorest; now they smoke at barely half the rate of those with the lowest income.

• 27.9 percent of adults who are below the poverty level smoke, compared to 17 percent of adults who are at or above the poverty level.

• Among adults under age 65, 30 percent of Medicaid enrollees and 30 percent of uninsured

individuals smoke, compared to 15 percent with private insurance coverage.

• 24.7 percent of adults who do not graduate from high school smoke, compared to just 9.1 percent of those with a college education and 5.9 percent of those with a graduate degree.

• Smoking among non-college bound high school seniors more than twice that of college bound

high school seniors (28.9% vs. 13%, respectively).

Before the Council decides to enact this law, I would suggest to them that they consider the ramifications, from bringing “ big brother” into people’s homes, to discrimination against the poor in our community. Please consider the broader ramifications before enacting a law that will surely get the city sued.

Laura Stuart

Editor’s Note – The Culver City City Council heard a discussion of banning smoking in multi-unit housing at the last council meeting on August 11,2014  and will continue discussion at a future meeting.

www.culvercitysymphony.org

3 Comments

  1. Schuman’s Expert Witnesses Testify in Secondhand Smoke Trial

    The plaintiff’s expert witnesses spoke up on day three of David Schuman’s case against his housing cooperative, Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI), for its failure to prohibit the nuisance created by his townhome neighbors, the Popovics’, secondhand smoke.

    Courtroom and Plaintiff’s Townhome Register Similar Carcinogen Levels

    But, an incident from Repace’s testimony Thursday came back into play Friday during cross examination. Goecke pointed out that on Thursday, while demonstrating the carcinogen monitor, Repace had measured the concentration of carcinogens in the court room — which is in a smoke-free building — and the amount he recorded there was similar to what Repace had reported recording in Schuman’s townhome in July of 2011.

    greenbelt.patch.com/articles/schumans-expert-witnesses-testify-in-secondhand-smoke-trial

    As you can see even in a smokefree courtroom the same so called levels were read in Schumans own Kitchen in his house! The so called scientist was none other than a fellow prohibitionist and JUNK SCIENTIST,Tornado Repace!

    Talk about being laughed out of court……………….btw these prohibitionists create whats called ”risk assesment studies” Purely fictional and nothing more than statistical magic to create fear and bigotry against smokers!

  2. Your right to smoke ends where my right to breath clean air begins. If you don’t like it, quit smoking.

  3. @ Editor, I’m with you 100%.
    John, great additional information.

    Arjen, You’re an IDIOT! You have no idea what the society showed us many years ago. I smoked for years, and until I wanted I smoked. When I, and ONLY I, decided to stop, I did, however I DO have Prescription and WILL NOT STOP SMOKING UNTIL MY DOCTOR SAYS, and for sure NOT IDIOTS LIKE YOU.
    Your right to breath ENDS, where MY right to smoke BEGINS!! HOW’s THAT FOR AN ANSWER THEN? Do you like it??? REMEMBER: a road goes both ways! You are thinking of a good compromise? Have the HOA’s or CITY to change smokers to higher units and/or maybe, which much easier, keep your window closed for few minutes until when your neighbor satisfies him/her self.

    Did you pay for your condo? I did, 30+ years ago, I’ve NEVER smoked inside my unit, however CAN’T say the same of my balcony, WHICH, was included(and still is) as MY PROPERTY! I PAID FOR,WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO?

    NON SENSE LAW!

    As they all say, if you are: bothered, concerned or annoyed, YOU ARE FREE TO MOVE!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*