I suport the stronger ordinance. My wife has asthma and allergies and she s at risk of secondhand smoke almost every time we walk down a public sidewalk as well as around our apartment complex. Public health needs to trump other factors and lots of people with significant breathing problems will benefit from this ordinance.

Oh, that would be lovely. People smoking in their own homes is fine with me, as long as the exhale doesn't come into my home! There is no escape from that. Thanks for the opportunity to vote: YES, let's have a strong Smoking Ordinance, please!

Jon ,
there is a siver lining , they are all comiting suicide by smoking , my Father {higher education than normal} nor his Doctors at the time , believed smoking was not a problem even after removing one lung to smoke cancer , he actually had cigarettes in the hospital after surgery , that's how ignorant they were or oblivious to reality . Like safety belt and helmet sometimes we need to protect peoples against themselves .
Needless to say I have never touched one not even the Holly joint {lol}

I sent my comments to the council. Here are links to info about second- and third-hand smoke on babies in utero and children:
http://www.srnt.org/resources/public/kids.cfm

http://www.aap.org/richmondcenter/

http://www.kidslivesmokefree.org/pdf/tobacco_smoke_exposure.pdf

http://www.parenting.com/article/on-call-babies-and-third-hand-smoke

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/241755/cigarette_smoke_affects_children_even.html?cat=5

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/child-rearing-and-development/bringing-baby-home/how-smoking-harms-babies/how

Extreme elements in the ordinance give it a distasteful flavor overall, making its motivation more suspect than it needs to be, but the most controversial aspect, of course, is in the differential treatment of residents who rent rather than own their apartments. There's no physical or moral or justifiable reason to make this distinction other than the stronger legal rights ascribed to property owners, and the city admits this, that they're overstepping individual rights of existing occupants in the case of the landed class, but are not forced to acknowledge equal rights for any others. A change in this kind of class thinking is sweeping the country and should be reexamined here in Alameda, where the majority of residents are renters (2010 census).

I would support the proposal in the main with the caveat that all apartment and condo homes are subject to grandfathered rights until the unit changes hands. Otherwise the city is issuing de facto eviction notices to people who don't enjoy the protection of wealth.

To Jon Spangler: your wife is at risk far more from auto emissions as you walk down the sidewalk than she will ever be from cigarette smoke. If you disagree, how about an experiment. I will sit in a garage with 50 smokers (smoking) for 2 hours and you sit in a closed garage with your car engine running for 2 hours. Which of us will live to talk about it? This ordinance is bad for so many reasons--least of which is the bad science and moral self righteousness upon which it is based.

My father smoked, like most of his friends in the Manhattan Project. He smoked at the dining room table, in the living room, in the den. My mother never smoked. My brother never smoked. My mother is the healthiest 92-year-old you've ever seen. My brother is retired from the forest service, healthy as an ox. Second-hand smoke obviously never had any effect on anyone in my family. Are we that abnormal? Face it -- smoke in the air from tobacco is nothing compared to what comes out of the exhaust pipes of all these cars on the Island.

I rent, have lived in the same house since 1996. There are two other units in the house. I enjoy a cigar when I write my columns and my books. (And I have won national awards). The other tenants also smoke. So does the landlord. I read the complete proposal, and from what I gather I will either have to buy a house or leave Alameda. I was sports editor of the Times-Star for a long time. I love Alameda. It sounds to me like the city is ready to evict me for smoking. For what? I have never bothered anyone with my smoke.

When the city invades the privacy of the home, when the city tells me what I can or cannot do inside my home, that is a very slippery slope. I do not smoke in public places, or where it may inconvenience anyone else. I do not have the money to buy a house. What am I to do if this law passes? Become homeless? This is a very bad law.

I am a non-smoker who hates the smell, and lately have started to get asthmatic responses to it. But I don't like the multi-unit housing ban. This targets poor people unfairly. While their lives would be immeasurably improved if they quit, nicotine is extremely addictive. Add to that the pressures of being poor and it is unreasonable to expect quitting as option to ease this burdensome regulation.

When my neighbor smokes next door, I can smell it. Why doesn't this regulation require him to stop? Oh, because we are land owners in detached houses, apparently we are above this law.

Oppressing the poor because we can and it makes us feel good is not good, American, behavior. Sorry.

I have a booth at the Alameda Point Antiques and Collectibles Faire every few months, and I hate the fact that so many people walk around smoking at that event when there are so many young children there. I'm currently pregnant, and last time I sold at the Point, the two men in the booth behind me chain smoked all day long, which made me dizzy and nauseous. It would be great if this ordinance would pass, because then all the non-smokers, including little kids, pregnant women, and asthmatics, would be protected from the nasty habits of others at this public outdoor event.

This is a Very good thing....apart from stopping people doing what they want to do in their own homes and also the part about not only banning tobacco products but e-cigarettes (Which are HARMLESS)

Just my 2 Cents

Yes... please ... stop smoking .. PLEASE! It is difficult to quit, yes, but the rest of us shouldn't have to pay with our health!

Yes! I support the smoking ordinance but I feel it needs to include condos. I have great difficulty fathoming the concept that a great majority of Alamedans are non-smokers and yet the single-digit percentage of smoking Alamedans are allowed to pollute the air that every living being has to breathe in. Had the effects of first-hand, second-hand and third-hand smoking on people been changed from gradual to fast-forward, I bet the smoking ordinance would have been adopted a lot more quickly.

To the point, this is not an anti-smoking ordinance, it's a pro-clean air and better living conditions ordinance, that is for the common good. It will also save us money through better health, lower cleaning and renovation costs, and increase the income of business.

If a smoker wants to continue their habit there is nothing in these ordinances to ban them doing so, as long as they do it so that it does not affect the rest of us.

There are no good arguments against it.

Clean air = YES
Smoking ban in public spaces = YES
Smoking ban in someone's own home = are you kidding me?

I'm with Cathy when it comes to how "detrimental" second hand smoking really is vs. other air quality issues we deal with every day. There are many many many ways to help air quality (may I add, chopping down wonderful trees is not one of them). The air quality on Park street just depleted 10 fold.

But let's point fingers at the smoker. Yes, why don't we just put them aside and make them the issue of our City's next focus. Lame. City Hall can just keep their noses out of my neighbors home and out of mine for that matter.

The ordinance has some qualities that I love, at the same time, it sounds like it's about to be very badly written...and violates people's choices and privacy.

our council passed the ordinance...added condo's without public comment....I want to pay property taxes (including measure A school tax) as a renter and not a home owner...can I just pack up and move....NO. If I live next door to a single family home that the owner smokes and it comes into my house..I am out of luck....our council just passed double standards......

slerwj

So...it's illegal to smoke in Alameda, but the products are sold legally. Another double standards. Just make it illegal to manufacture and sell cigarettes. Don't band-aid the problem, take away the rights or create another set of rules that are gray.

I think the restriction to *new* units of common interest complexes, rather than existing units, is a reasonable compromise. But yeah, this is serious. I really can't complain myself, but then I don't smoke cigarettes and I own my fully-detached home, so it doesn't affect me personally. But there's a coercive aspect to this kind of approach that I have trouble fully getting behind.

Please also see my comment at "Smoke-Free Alameda Blog: A Note about Second-Hand Smoke from a Condo Owner"

Dear Lord - I spend a lot of time on Park Street, Webster Street, South Shore, public areas...and at MOST, I pass only a few smokers while I'm out. If that. Most people that smoke that I encounter set themselves as far away as possible nowadays so the smoke doesn't hit people in the face. Perfect example would be any festival here in town. You've got hundreds of people, and very rarely will I walk through a cloud of smoke....WHY???? Because the smoker will separate themselves from the hundreds of people so no one has to be hit with the smoke.

This debate is really off center. It's not like you are being subjected to cigarette smoke as it was in the 50's, 60's or 70's. Come on people, lets focus on something more important, like the loss of air quality due to the trees being destroyed on Park Street!!!

I agree that most smokers smoke in public with consideration to non-smokers, but there are those that smoke with no consideration..... I do not have issue with not smoking on Webster Street or Park Street, If I want a smoke I will walk a bit further down a side street.....I don't smoke many cigs in my day but the few I do have are ones that I enjoy..its my right.....with the new law I will no longer enjoy my morning or afternoon coffee out an about at Peet's (Nob Hill)....or Peet's (park street) or starbucks (webster street).....

renters, condo owners should have the same rights as single family dwellings...rather it is a rental or owned. Double standards should not be a way of life we live by..

Can hardly wait to see what City Council does about:

Alcohol consumption in public or private spaces.
Motor vehicle exhausts.
Consumption of high fat products and "foods."
Neighbors allowing their tree leaves to rot creating mold and mildew.
Pets defecating and urinating on lawns, leaving all manner of viruses and bacteria, protozoa and other microscopic pathogens for kids to play in.
Mexican restaurants blaring 'music' onto public sidewalks.

Why the concern with cigarette smoke as opposed to vehicle exhausts?

Or, a matter of 'priorities.' Sure.