Jump to content

Cigarette Smoking Bans & Ordinances


hokieone

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have insight into COH stance on smoking ban in "non-enclosed" common areas of condos? Called and spoke to Smoking Enforcment office they stated ALL common areas are included in ban. But reading the ordinance sure seems to leave room for fighting about it.

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have insight into COH stance on smoking ban in "non-enclosed" common areas of condos? Called and spoke to Smoking Enforcment office they stated ALL common areas are included in ban. But reading the ordinance sure seems to leave room for fighting about it.

Thanks!

The ordinance defines "enclosed" and "public places". The ordinance prohibits smoking in "enclosed" public places". If the common area is not "enclosed", then it is legal to smoke in that area (as long as you are 25 feet from the doorway).

Enclosed, when used in reference to an area or a building or

portion thereof, means closed in on all sides from floor to ceiling by

solid walls, with or without windows and exclusive of doorways.

Public place means an enclosed area to which the public is

invited or in which the public is permitted, including, but not limited to:

(13) Lobbies, hallways, and other common areas in

apartment buildings, condominiums, retirement

facilities, nursing homes, and other multiple-unit

residential facilities;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Cigarette Smoking Bans & Ordinances

FDA Proposes Rules Prohibiting Menthol Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars to Prevent Youth Initiation, Significantly Reduce Tobacco-Related Disease and Death

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-proposes-rules-prohibiting-menthol-cigarettes-and-flavored-cigars-prevent-youth-initiation

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is announcing proposed product standards to prohibit menthol as a characterizing flavor in cigarettes and prohibit all characterizing flavors (other than tobacco) in  cigars. These actions have the potential to significantly reduce disease and death from combusted tobacco product use, the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., by reducing youth experimentation and addiction, and increasing the number of smokers that quit. 

“The proposed rules would help prevent children from becoming the next generation of smokers and help adult smokers quit,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. “Additionally, the proposed rules represent an important step to advance health equity by significantly reducing tobacco-related health disparities.” 

“The authority to adopt tobacco product standards is one of the most powerful tools Congress gave the FDA and the actions we are proposing can help significantly reduce youth initiation and increase the chances that current smokers quit. It is clear that these efforts will help save lives,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. “Through the rulemaking process, there’s an important opportunity for the public to make their voices heard and help shape the FDA’s ongoing efforts to improve public health.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often found it odd how some cities and states spend so much money on anti-smoking campaigns, then turn around and say, "But it's OK to smoke pot!"  Well, make up your mind.  Is smoking bad, or not?

(I'm not a smoker of anything.  I'm just glad people can't smoke in airplanes and buses anymore.  That was awful.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, editor said:

I've often found it odd how some cities and states spend so much money on anti-smoking campaigns, then turn around and say, "But it's OK to smoke pot!"  Well, make up your mind.  Is smoking bad, or not?

(I'm not a smoker of anything.  I'm just glad people can't smoke in airplanes and buses anymore.  That was awful.)

Plus, pot smoking is frequently done roll-your-own style, which means no filters like in a cigarette.  Maybe marijuana smoke is good for the lungs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, august948 said:

Plus, pot smoking is frequently done roll-your-own style, which means no filters like in a cigarette.  Maybe marijuana smoke is good for the lungs?

I don't think I've heard anyone other than the potheads in my high school say that pot smoke is good for your lungs.  I'm not sure there is much of a body of serious research around it.  Without that, I feel pretty confident in saying that no smoke in your lungs is better any smoke in your lungs.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

Edibles for the win. Legally, this a joke.

 

Edit: I'll be interested to see the long term effects of vaping. I only have a handful of friends who do, but I always encourage them to quit. 

Vaping cannabis is almost certainly not as bad as smoking it via "regular" means, as you're not inhaling many of the toxic byproducts generated by combustion. But it's still not great for your lungs.

Using any kind of "vape juice" cartridges, whether for cannabinoids or as a nicotine replacement, may very well be a different story. They're new enough to where I don't know that there's enough data yet to get a long-term picture of their overall effect on health, but just from what I've read, I'd be pretty hesitant to subject my respiratory system to the ingredients in many of those cartridges. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It speaks to the power of the tobacco lobby that cigarettes, with all their well-documented high health risks, continue to be legal for recreational use when the FDA has banned so many other products for even therapeutic use that had much lower risks. Ephedra, for instance, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been banned, but there were an estimated 12 million people using it at one point, and it was implicated in 155 deaths over a 13 year period. The CDC says cigarettes kill 480,000 people a year. They estimate 34,000 nonsmokers die from heart disease linked to secondary exposure a year. I don't think anyone died because their parent or spouse took ephedra. Over a 30 year period, something like 30 women who took phenylpropanolamine either as a decongestant or in Dexatrim for weight loss suffered an intracranial hemmorage, and data indicated that 1 woman might have a stroke out of every 107,000 to 3.3 million women who used PPA (normal stroke incidence rate is 0.6 per 1 million), and it was yanked off the market. How many smokers have heart attacks or strokes every year? If tobacco is such a dangerous product (which it is) why not just take it off the market?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 11:14 AM, Reefmonkey said:

It speaks to the power of the tobacco lobby that cigarettes, with all their well-documented high health risks, continue to be legal for recreational use when the FDA has banned so many other products for even therapeutic use that had much lower risks. Ephedra, for instance, I'm not saying it shouldn't have been banned, but there were an estimated 12 million people using it at one point, and it was implicated in 155 deaths over a 13 year period. The CDC says cigarettes kill 480,000 people a year. They estimate 34,000 nonsmokers die from heart disease linked to secondary exposure a year. I don't think anyone died because their parent or spouse took ephedra. Over a 30 year period, something like 30 women who took phenylpropanolamine either as a decongestant or in Dexatrim for weight loss suffered an intracranial hemmorage, and data indicated that 1 woman might have a stroke out of every 107,000 to 3.3 million women who used PPA (normal stroke incidence rate is 0.6 per 1 million), and it was yanked off the market. How many smokers have heart attacks or strokes every year? If tobacco is such a dangerous product (which it is) why not just take it off the market?

Zero people have died directly from consuming LSD....just saying...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeerNut said:

Zero people have died directly from consuming LSD....just saying...

Not counting the ones who jumped out of windows thinking they could fly?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ross said:

Not counting the ones who jumped out of windows thinking they could fly?

Are you referencing the incident where the CIA might have been involved...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BeerNut said:

Are you referencing the incident where the CIA might have been involved...

No. I was thinking of Art Linkletter's daughter, which was an event when I was in elementary school that was held up as an example of what can go wrong if a person reacts badly to the drug.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BeerNut said:

Are you referencing the incident where the CIA might have been involved...

A reasonable person might conclude in reference to that particular incident that there was very possibly no jumping  involved, but rather a homicide that was made to look like the decedent had jumped from a hotel window.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 9:18 PM, Ross said:

No. I was thinking of Art Linkletter's daughter, which was an event when I was in elementary school that was held up as an example of what can go wrong if a person reacts badly to the drug.

Mighty suspicious that David E. Durston was with her when she jumped out of the window and also happened to be with another woman when she wound up dead from drowning.   Some serious Robert Durst vibes...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/27/2022 at 4:17 PM, BeerNut said:

Zero people have died directly from consuming LSD....just saying...

My mom, who knew lots of people who took LSD in the 60's would beg to differ.  She told me all kinds of horror stories about her friends who took LSD. 

I suspect that today's modern tech-industry-fueled LSD mini-craze isn't real LSD, like back then; but some kind of watered down version.  Like how people who currently drink absinthe scoff at it being illegal way back when, without knowing that what they're drinking today is 1/500th the potency of the drink that was killing people when it was banned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 4:43 PM, editor said:

My mom, who knew lots of people who took LSD in the 60's would beg to differ.  She told me all kinds of horror stories about her friends who took LSD. 

I suspect that today's modern tech-industry-fueled LSD mini-craze isn't real LSD, like back then; but some kind of watered down version.  Like how people who currently drink absinthe scoff at it being illegal way back when, without knowing that what they're drinking today is 1/500th the potency of the drink that was killing people when it was banned.

There's a difference between death through consumption(like drinking till alcohol poisoning) and doing something life threatening while tripping.  As for LSD drinks killing people.... trust but verify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...