Tobacco: California City Becomes First to Ban Smoking In One's Own Home

Belmont, California, located between San Francisco and San Jose, has become the first jurisdiction in the United States to bar some homeowners from smoking in their own domiciles. While states and localities across the country have steadily imposed ever-tighter restrictions on smokers, the action taken by the Belmont city council marks the escalation of anti-smoking fervor to a new level.

On Tuesday night, the council adopted an ordinance that declares second-hand smoke to be a public nuisance and extends the city's current smoking ban to include multi-story, multi-unit residences. Belmont and some other California cities already ban smoking in multi-residence common areas, but now the ban will be extended to residences that share a common floor or ceiling with other units.

Homeowners or renters will be allowed to smoke on their own property only in single-family homes and their yards. Dwellers in multi-residence buildings will only be able to smoke in "designated outdoor" areas of their complexes.

The new Belmont apartment-smoking ban will not take effect for 14 months, so that one-year lease agreements will not be affected. But the rest of the ordinance goes into effect in 10 days. It also bans smoking in indoor or outdoor workplaces, and in parks, stadiums, sports fields, trails, and outdoor shopping areas. Smoking on streets and sidewalks will be permitted, as long as it is not at a city-sponsored event or close to prohibited areas.

City officials said enforcement of the smoking ban will be complaint-driven.

Permission to Reprint: This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!

What a bunch of Bullshit.

Is there really too many people with nothing to do other than make up new anti-smoking laws? Well I have a lot of yard work for them to do.

This is insane since when can the government control that is something legal and self induced to say one cannot do in their own domicile.

This is INSANE and some people need to get off their asses and put a stop to this craziness....

This isn't about it being

This isn't about it being "in the privacy of your own house," its about it annoying people who live next to you, who may be allergic to smoke.

this isn't about being

i'm allergic to perfume and cleaning chemicals some of which are more hazardous than second-hand smoke...should i have the right as your neighbor to deny you the right to use them in your own home??? it IS about "privacy" and this is just the beginning!

So let's extend that to

So let's extend that to everything everyone is allergic to. I want no pollen outside. I am vegetarian and can't stand the smell of bbq. Exhaust will give me lung cancer...don't drive.   This type of argument is an endless list of personal preferences. Bottom line, it is a personal lifestyle preference carried out on your property....not to be regulated by government.


Okay, honestly, what you just said is stupid, because it SHOULDN'T be legal. The governement needs to opens their eyes, and see that legalization of drugs and all tobacco products is a total load. Many people don't have the OPTION of avoiding this crap, because they have to be around it, and that is just not fair. If those of you who do support smoking want to kill yourselves, fine, do it illegally, because those of US who don't wish to die an early death, shouldn't have to deal with it!!! You freaking R-TARD!!!!!!!!!

This isn't about not having

This isn't about not having anything better to do. Nice little metaphor, but that doesn't cut it.

Believe me, this is just the START of government control when it comes to smoking inside and outside of ones home. Ones own stupidity is ones own problem, but by smoking around others who don't want to deal with that, they make it OTHER peoples' problem. Many people do not have the choice to avoid tobacco products. Kids don't have the option of getting away from second-hand smoke. What are they supposed to do? Those whose parents don't give a damn whether or not their smoking affects their kids, can't do anything about it. So it's about damn time, that someone spoke out, and started making things HAPPEN. So you can sit there, and complain all you like.

You're right, some people do need to get off their asses and stop the craziness. But the craziness that TOBACCO causes. It needs to be taken care of, tobacco use and the selling of, needs to be halted.

you die then.

Man, if you want to burn out your lungs by smoking, then go ahead. Second hand smoke also kills, especially those lil kids who barely start to live. I think this is good.

Not Bull***T!

Do Not impose your personal cancerous activity upon me and my family who are non smokers!

If you're smelling smoke from

the apartment near you, then you should be complaining to the property owners about how crappy the building is. The only apartment I lived in that I could smell tobacco smoke was also the building where the walls circulated EVERYTHING to other apartments. Trust me, me moving out had a lot more to do with the smell of foot rot, curry and fish than the tobacco.

foot rot, curry and fish...

This post is too funny. Lucky for me I only smell it in the common lobby of my apt.
Fact: As a smoker you SUCK as a person. You see you must SUCK to take in all that sludge in the smoke. So if you're a smoker you simply SUCK as a person. If you insist that others suck it in around you then you are just......well I can't think of a worse label then you just suck as a human being. So if you're a smoker we non-smokers would appreciate it if you go back to sucking your thumb instead. Doing so will also serve to keep you from disturbing the peace with your incessant whining.
This issue is much simpler than having to cite all the overwhelming scientific proof about the dangers of smoking. Besides if you're a smoker you are drug-addicted to nicotine and therefore a common-sense conversation about the dangers of smoking is unlikely to happen with you. Here is the simplicity of the issue. When you have to fart do you let is loose in a crowd of people or in an elevator? Usually not because the social consequences (embarrassment, reputation, knick-name assignment etc..) of having a scarlet-letter "F" placed on your chest is too costly. Imagine letting one rip in the middle of a work presentation or during a teaching in your religious gathering. These are the same peer pressures pushing our politicians to enact smoking bans. We wouldn't actually need these laws enacted just like we don't need anti-farting laws. But smokers are drug-addicted to nicotine and therefore will do pretty much anything to get their "fix", including the equivalent of farting in a crowded elevator.

Someone has 'suck' on the

Someone has 'suck' on the mind.

Speaking of annoying smells.

Why are all the anti-smokers out there limiting themselves by not advocating for those of us who are constantly being assaulted by all the foul smells your average apartment dweller is subjected to. The smell of fish cooking makes me gag, sometimes I even vomit. What ever happened to equal protection under the law? Those of you who find the smell of tobacco are gaining tons of protections to keep your sensitive noses from being brutalized. When will those of us, who can think of many smells which we find obnoxious, and are subjected to on a far greater basis, be protected from those evil perfume wearers/curry or fish cookers/people who don't shower often enough when its hot out?


So if tobacco smokers vaporize their tobacco instead of smoking it ... may they then enjoy their legal nicotine in their own homes?

Or ... will they all be forced to chew tobacco instead.


I'm so sorry my smell gets in your nose. But ur perfume smells like a 'French' whores. Why don't you crawl back into the hole you crawled out of and let the living live their life! What are you? A Bull-dyke??? P.S. You are also a "Anti-Constitutionalist", which means you are an enemy of the U.S. Wanna argue about it? Bitch.

Banning tobacco

Banning alcohol and drugs isn't working. Why does San Jose think that banning tobacco will work? By the way, I'm a non smoker.


They had more individual fredeom than 2007 America has. Think about it.


Someone needs to measure just how far away one should be away from second hand smoke before it disapates and becomes harmless. I really don't believe that your neighbor will have any ill effects from it. Its all a bunch of bullshit. I mean whats next? Are we going to have to register at the DMV that we need to get a smog cert. because
we are smokers.

Smokers are the new Blacks.

Everyone needs someone to hate. I guess, now that it isn't acceptable to hate people based on ethnicity, they had to find someone else. Check out some blog comments on things related to smokers. The anti-smoker crowed sound like a bunch of hate filled a** holes.

Where are Penn and Teller when you need them this is Bullshit

This ordinance will be struck down in a court of law. This is so unconstitutional I can't even believe....whoops yes I can believe that asshole politicians would think this would stand. New York has banned trans fats. WTF people what ever happen to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

The end may not justify the means

As far as I'm concerned I should not have to be subjected to the risk of lung cancer because someone has a bad habit. Living in a close-unit dwelling is made more difficult by having smokers right next door. Regardless of what a smoker may do to hide the smell, it is still there and it is more dangerous to those who aren't smoking than the smoker themself. Perfume's are not hazardous to someone's health, although they may irritate your nose; no actual health risk exists. Some household products can be hazardous if not used in the directed manner. Many suggest to use in a well ventilated room. Household cleaners, unlike smoking, has safe conditions in which to use. Our society has deemed the use of non-prescription, narcotic drugs, hallucagens, downers etc... as illegal. If we can legally deem that those drugs are illegal then why can we not say that smoking is to be illegal. The U.S. Constitution doesn't protect the rights of smokers. Although I do pose some concern in regards to how far can our government go to limit what we may and may not do in private, the issue with smoking is that it is never in private. The smoke effects numerous other people in the vicinity. Most smokers are ignorant in thinking they are only hurting themselves, when infact their second hand smoke is deadly to those within the spread of the smoke. Personally, I would have no issue with smokers if they only killed themselves with their filthy habit, but their habit preys on anybody within reach. I defy anyone to prove me wrong in regards to the Consitution, the effects of second hand smoke with valid and dateable facts, other wise, kindly be quiet and submit to your own ignorance.

Grow a brain

and then do something like, I don't know, read the reports that supposedly show that second hand smoke causes cancer. You know why? The EPA study was a fraud and a federal judge threw out the findings. The WHO report, the largest study ever done, showed that there isn't shit for an increased risk to non-smokers LIVING with smokers. So you can either do some reading and learn that you're wrong or buy into the same types of crap the Government used against MJ.

as far as im concerned i

as far as im concerned i should not be subjected to your beliefs or opinions as law.

You have provided NO evidence that second hand smoke cause cancer, yet there are MANY studies that show alcohol is more dangerous by far than most illicit drugs(you can follow the links to such studies right from this site).

So don't act like making a law against smokers is supposed to protect you, the government doesnt pass such laws to protect people, they pas them to CONTROL people. wake up!

and the fact that you think because the feds passed an unconstituional ban on some drugs that this means its ok is just ridiculous. You title your post that the ends might not justify the means and then argue that they do is insane. The ends NEVER justify the means. Just following orders(or laws) NEVER absolves one of the guilt they incurred by following immoral orders or laws. and how exactly can one debate your assertions that second hand smoke is deadly when you provide not one refference to back up your claims?

I intensly dislike organized religion, and history is chock full of evidence supporting the known fact that organized religions cause war, suffering and help to maintain an imballance of wealth between rich and poor. Zealots in our own country do much harm and violate rights of our own citizens(gay bashing, discrimination, abortion terror, it goes on and on) so is it ok to ban organized religion? Obviously the constitution means nothng to those who pass prohibition laws(as the constitution doesnt grant congress the power to ban any commodity, only regulate the trade thereof and tax it), so why not just ban religion. Then, how about free speech? Many people have no choice but to be subjected to hearing swear words that offend their sensibilities and scar their tiny little minds, causing who knows what serious problems later in life, not to mention exposure to 'dabgerous' ideas like homosexuality, true patriotism(not blind jingoism) and drug 'glorification', so what else should we ban?

and don't forget, one day they will ban something YOU enjoy, or can't so without. what then? will you meekly submit? if so u deserve what you get. if you protest, then you are a hipocrite, only caring about the laws that affect your interests.

Evidentiary support

There is plenty of evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer---it's almost more dangerous then smoking then damn things ourselves!!! People subjected to second hand smoke have about twice as high the cotinine levels than those who aren't around smoke, which CAUSES CANCER. Do more research people. Second hand smoke kills, and there are studies that show that.

Even if one day they banned something I, or anyone else enjoy, there would obviously be a good reason. But no, we wouldn't submit, we'd keep fighting, but if it's a fight we lost, at least we know we tried. In the end it may be for the best as it is. Fighting for what we believe in is all good and well, but if what we believe hurts other people, is that really something to be fighting for?

No, there's headlines that show

that SHS causes cancer. To bad the studies that generated them don't show the same. As far as cotinine. Its in food.
Guess you're the one that needs to do some research.


It is a horrendous burden to society and particularly costly to the individuals who use it. I see nothing good come from it, huge loss of life and perhaps more importantly a ton of chronic medical problems. It affects substantially the top 4 causes of death in the country.
The 4th leading cause of death in this country, chronic lung disease. I see the holes in the lungs as the alveoli gradually break down over time to form larger wholes all over the lung that can be seen on CT and their admissions over and over and over again because they smoked. I'd say almost all of those with chronic lung disease-well over 90% in my estimation are there because of smoking and would not be there if they didn't smoke. I note that it smokers that typically have the small vessel disease all over their brains when they get older-that is small infarcts all over the place-they to me are clearly much more likely to be looney as time goes on. I can't believe they hand out cigarettes at psych facilities so that the vast majority pick up the habit-no wonder they are crazy-we're just making them worse. I see the lung cancer, the bladder cancer, the kidney cancer--I just start to assume that they're probably going to turn out to be smokers when I see start to interview them now. The people I see with vascular issues are so often smokers-I say the significant majority of patients with major vessel plugging are either smokers or diabetics and particularly if they are diabetics who smoke or had smoked for some time. I believe most of the people who I've seen had their feet chopped off because of peripheral vascular disease had this done because they were diabetics who smoke or smoked for a long time (the diabetics who smoke tend to be much younger when this happens comparatively I'd say). Here are some other statistics from an article I read a few weeks ago-see below link. As I remain in medicine longer the more I become opposed to smoking because it is not a small increase in health risk. It is a HUGE HUGE destruction to the body. AS A PHYSICIAN I SAY IT SHOULD BE BANNED across the board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Smokers know the risk..

Smokers know the risk.. Alcohol causes liver damage if you over-use, its addictive too. Lets get rid of that! Oh wait, we did that, and it took a constitutional amendment.. So lets start putting people in jail for another victimless crime. I say the government has no right regulating us this much. Does the state own the buildings? No.. ok, they cant regulate it. How about the condo association? They sure as hell can regulate it. What about the owner of the apartments? They could ban it or allow it. Dont like it? move to a apt that allows smoking, or no smoking. What ever happened to 'power of the people!' America is being filled with sheep, and is becoming a socialist state before our eyes. I dont even smoke.

By the way, sky-diving is dangerous, lets ban it.
motorcycles can kill you, ban them as well.
trans-fats are dangerous and can kill you.. lets ban it. (oh wait, we did)
sugar can cause diabetes.. lets ban it.
caffeine is addictive.. ban it

SHEEP all of you. Wake the heck up.

involuntary smoker

Drinking alcohol does cause liver damage, this is true.

However, you drinking until you pass out or die of liver failure has no effect on me or other people. Your second-hand smoke does.

Same for Sky Diving, Trans Fats, Sugar, Caffeine....I can avoid all of this, but I can't avoid your second hand smoke.

Why should you get force me to smoke involuntarily?

Thank goodness Illinois is now smoke free. Other states will soon follow!

apt drifting smoke

I have lived in my apt for 14 years I never had a smoker next door,my neigbors moved out and now I have 3 smokers living there, I have to open my windows to keep my apt free from the smoke smell,when I come home from work my apt stinks like smoke. I have asked the "new neigbors if they would open there windows when they smoke just to keep it from coming over here, there answer was fu#$ off!! My landlord could care less what legal options do I have, I have lived here a long time and this really stinks.

Match smokers with equal disturbance

Smokers like to think they have "a right" to smoke in their own unit, even though the smoke spills out to neighbours. Sound also spills out to the neighbours. We have the right to listen to whatever music we want to. Most tenancy agreements allocate a quiet time between 11PM and 7AM (or 8AM). If you're an early riser & affected by neighbour's smoke and they refuse to do anything about their errant smoke, then they can get a long dosage of opera at high volumes starting right at 8AM or 7AM, with speakers facing their wall, and they can deal with errant spillage of soprano arias from Madame Butterfly with their sunrise. Nice trade-off, except the smoke is a health hazard, the music isn't - so they should have little to b*tch about.

Great news about this ban! Hopefully it spreads like crazy to other jurisdictions.


When you anti-smoking a**munches can come up with one single PROVEN case of "second-hand smoke" harming someone, then we'll talk. Not just one group coming up with this "proof", but verifiable evidence, proven without a doubt by multiple testing by groups/scientists not funded by either side of the debate. You can't.

Why can't smokers have the same rights as anti-smokers? No, that'd be too simple. Let's push smokers into a cave and treat them like crap (even though they, and they alone bear one of the biggest tax burdens in any state, one that saves non-smokers millions in additional taxes every years), yeah... that's fair. That's America. Sorry smokers... you have no rights, the anti-smokers said so. What a load of crap.

California can lick my ashtray.

haha what

seriously this is stupid. why not ban cars while we're at it? those cause more problems than second hand smoke. asthma has gone up massively since the 1950s, and yet, more people smoked then!

Good going

I don't wanna live in a society when i have to move around every 50 seconds to avoid smoke in busy areas. If i wanna sit on a bench and somebody happens to be smoking next to me i'd have to move since 2nd hand smoke is much more dangerous since people dont breath the way the do from cigarettes but just simply like air...

Good job california, but i think it should by fully banned in all states, canada, and europe which happens to be years behind(smoking in every single restaurant... shame)

smokers are the SHEEP, for people with brains would not smoke!
well, only for following, otherwise sheep is much better animal then smokers :|

Someone is going to get even

I'm telling you right now this is a big mistake. Someone is going to snap and start killing those that imposed this law or maybe those that have nothing better to do but complain. Mark my words, watch and see, you can only push people so far before they fight back.

Second hand smoke is BS just like Global Warming is. Just today there is an article about how the Arctic ice is thicker than ever. No Global Warming, just busybodies sticking their 2¢ in to something they don't understand.

Just better hope you're not the one these people go off on.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <blockquote> <p> <address> <pre> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <br> <b>

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, 2015 Drug War Killings, 2016 Drug War Killings, 2017 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, Vaping, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Pill Testing, Safer Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Kratom, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psilocybin / Magic Mushrooms, Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School