San Mateo County (CA) Board of Supervisors bans vaping and smoking inside and outside of apartments and condos

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66

cafecraig

Full Member
Sep 21, 2014
38
62
Oakland, CA
Last edited:

Endor

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 31, 2012
687
2,074
Southern California
Nice comment, Bill. It is true that there are often some dang offensive smells in apartments/condo communities, and none of them include vaping.

This is unenforceable, as vaping inside even a shared-wall condo/apartment is really undetectable (at best, barely detectable as a pleasant smell of a berry "air freshener", based on what I'm vaping right now). I should know, as I've vaped in non-smoking hotel rooms for years with never a complaint from neighbors -or- the hotel management.
 

LaraC

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 6, 2013
283
1,229
Tennessee
Craig (cafecraig), what an excellent comment you wrote below the Bay Area News & Talk article linked in your post. The two references you mentioned were perfect:
1. “Peering Through the Mist: Chemistry and Contaminants of e-cigarettes,” 2014, Dr. Igor Burstyn, Drexel Univ School of Public Health
2. “Real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation,” Aug 2014, Cancer Research UK, Dr. Robert West et al.
 

bigdancehawk

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 27, 2010
1,462
5,477
Kansas City, Missouri
"The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously
to change the definition [sic] of “smoking” and “tobacco product” to include
electronic smoking devices."

At the same meeting, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously
to change the definitions of "dog" and "canine" to include parakeets.
 

NorthOfAtlanta

Ultra Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 27, 2011
1,616
3,582
Canton, GA
"The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously
to change the definition [sic] of “smoking” and “tobacco product” to include
electronic smoking devices."

At the same meeting, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously
to change the definitions of "dog" and "canine" to include parakeets.

Is it now required by law that you have to teach your parakeet to bark?

:facepalm::D:vapor:
 

bigdancehawk

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 27, 2010
1,462
5,477
Kansas City, Missouri
Is it now required by law that you have to teach your parakeet to bark?

:facepalm::D:vapor:

No, but all parakeets must now get rabies shots and be on a leash when not confined in an enclosed area.

EDIT: Trained guide parakeets are permitted on commercial aircraft, in restaurants, etc. LIcenses for unaltered parakeets are considerably more expensive, so most owners have them neutered.
 
Last edited:

cafecraig

Full Member
Sep 21, 2014
38
62
Oakland, CA
Thank you Lara! Comments may get some "fence-sitters" to wonder if we may be right. Therefore if given the chance, I want to add the references, so people can look up the support and read it for themselves and see what I mean.

One point the article misses: Santa Clara County added "e-cigarettes/vapor products" into all existing "no smoking/smoke-free" county ordinances.

So anywhere in San Mateo County (this is the hugely populated area between Silicon Valley and San Francisco) where you could vape indoors but not smoke, now you cannot vape either. Effective 11/22 I believe.
 

bigdancehawk

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 27, 2010
1,462
5,477
Kansas City, Missouri
And now it's official...

There is at least one place in the United States where you can not vape in your own home.
I hope that all the "I don't vape where I can't smoke" people will consider this a wake-up call.

Probably not.

That's what happens when people have become accustomed to being marginalized.
 

Endor

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 31, 2012
687
2,074
Southern California
But they are allowing the other types of burning vegetable matter. But for medical reasons only. The stupidity of these people will never stop amazing me.

I noticed that too. I guess the smell of burning that doesn't bother people nearby?

And, second-hand smoke from that has no negative health impacts whatsoever?

Oh wait... err.... the American Lung Association says that "M......... smoke contains a greater amount of carcinogens than tobacco smoke". So, yes, it does impact health.

If they truly wanted to do this to improve health, then this should have been #1 on the hit list. Yet it was EXCLUDED, as it's the sacred cow of the people that run this state.

Stupidity, yes... in spades.

The scary part is, this sets a precedent that other counties/cities will start to follow.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,050
NW Ohio US
Even though I've said I don't mind vaping in smoking designated areas - I like the people who smoke :) .....and SHS is BS.... but from an ANTZ viewpoint, basically they're saying to vapers - even though you think that vaping is safer, although there is no evidence to support that, and even if that is the case, then we want to expose you to second hand smoke anyway. Try to improve your health and they do things to counteract it - we may live longer and screw up their 'smoking related death' stats. lol. And that is one of the primary PR points, even though it's cooked beyond recognition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread