Sponsored link
Saturday, January 16, 2021
Sponsored link
News + Politics City Hall Supervisors vote to ban smoking tobacco in apartments—but spare...

Supervisors vote to ban smoking tobacco in apartments—but spare cannabis

Sup. Mandelman’s amendment saves SF from what for many, could have amounted to a ban on smokable marijuana.

-

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors voted 10-1 to ban smoking tobacco in San Francisco apartment buildings with three or more units—but rejected a similar ban on cannabis smoking. Coming the day before the House of Representatives’ historic approval of the MORE Act, the supervisors’ decision reflects a nationwide legislative trend towards ensuring cannabis access. 

The No Smoking in Multi-Unit Housing Complexes ordinance was written by board president Norman Yee, who commented during Tuesday’s hearing that, “It should be remembered that every fight to protect our communities from secondhand smoke was at one time framed as overreaching policy that takes away the rights of those who smoke … We can see that pattern clearly.”

The bill includes a maximum $1,000 penalty per day for violations to be enforced by the Department of Public Health. But it does include language stating its ban on home smoking could not be used as grounds for a tenant’s eviction. 

Yee clearly hoped to reach a resolution on the issue before he is termed out in January. But some supervisors, like Gordon Mar and Hilary Ronen, lamented the quick timeline of the bill, which was introduced one month ago and has been subject to intense public debate. 

“It is controversial, and it’s impacts will last well beyond any of our terms in office,” said Mar.

Few supervisors disagreed with the fact that tenants have the right to breathe tobacco-free air. 

“I myself, when I’ve gone to deliver meals or visit people in these big apartment buildings, I also go into hallways that just reek of cigarette smoke,” said Supervisor Sandra Fewer.

But neither did they agree that cannabis smoke should be subject to the same restrictions as that of tobacco. Unlike cigarettes, California health code states that you can’t smoke marijuana in public. The bill would have essentially banned smokable forms of cannabis for many residents—in a city that was an early home to the global marijuana legalization movement.

To pass such a repressive ban on smoking cannabis would have been wildly out of step with national political trends. In the fall elections, no fewer than five states widened cannabis access, approving 100% of the statewide ballot measures expanding marijuana regulation. On Friday, the House of Representatives approved the Drug War justice-focused MORE Act, marking the first time a US legislative chamber has decided on the end of cannabis prohibition in a floor vote.

Sup. Rafael Mandelman introduced the amendment to the bill to remove its cannabis language yesterday. Despite some supervisors complaining that they had not been giving adequate time to consider the amendment, it was approved by the board in an 8-3 vote, with Yee and Supervisors Gordon Mar and Ahsha Safaí in dissent.

“Cigarette smokers and tobacco smokers are fundamentally in a different position under state law,” Mandelman said in Friday’s hearing. 

Yee had previously introduced an amendment to the bill to prevent it from applying to marijuana users with a medicinal card. He allowed that cannabis has many benefits, but indicated that the risks of secondhand smoke left him convinced the ban on recreational use should stay in the bill. 

Supervisor Dean Preston was the sole dissenting vote against the smoking ban once its language around cannabis had been removed. He cited his experience during years as a tenants’ rights advocate, saying that a ban on tobacco smoking in one’s own apartment is a complex issue.

Supervisor Dean Preston was the sole dissenting vote on the ban on smoking tobacco in San Francisco apartments.

Preston said he was concerned about “the risk that [the tobacco smoking ban] is selectively used against long-term tenants,” reminding the board that many leases already include language that bars smoking in apartments. 

“I will say that in 20 years of my landlord-tenant experience, I cannot think of another issue that has so divided folks who really have good intentions on both sides,” continued Preston. “Folks who are trying to protect their own health and public health, and folks who are addicted to cigarettes or are using within their own homes, and want to keep their homes.”

At the core of the debate was the legislation’s potentially classist application. The bill would not affect those San Franciscans rich enough to have a single family home, but instead focus on apartment dwellers, who are more often BIPOCs, and who make less money. 

Yee, who said he was compelled to act on the issue when a mother called him saying her child had developed a chronic cough due to secondhand smoke from another apartment unit, rejected such criticism. Indeed, he called the risk of secondhand smoke exposure, “a health justice issue that amplifies health inequities.” 

Next steps for the bill include a second hearing by the board next week. If approved, it will go from there to Mayor London Breed to be signed into law, to take effect within 30 days. 

Caitlin Donohuehttp://www.donohue.work
Caitlin Donohue grew up in the Sunset and attended Jefferson Elementary School. She writes about weed, sex, perreo, and other methods of dismantling power structures. Her current center of operations is Mexico City.

5 COMMENTS

  1. There are serious issues of personal liberties and ripe opportunities for landlord abuse. I am a life long non smoker who strongly opposes this indoor apartment smoking ban. First, this law seems like excessive government overreach and intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Second, it offers abusive landlords an another opportunity to evict long time tenants from rent controlled apartments.

    As long as someone is not emitting toxic vapors into adjoining units (which is already illegal) they should be allowed to enjoy the privacy of their own living space and also enjoy how they want to entertain themselves. I am also concerned that this smoking ban will disproportionally impact lower income individuals. This is over regulation of private behavior and is one more step down a slippery slope of a guardian state dictating how one is to live.

    Finally, it can and will be abused for property management financial gain or blackmail. This is a step to far.

    David Elliott Lewis

  2. It’s not right to ban people from enjoying themselves however they choose in their own apartment.
    Normal Yee, dialog has too much time on his hand, and not enough understand of people that’s different from himself.
    The issue isn’t about whether you like the smell of one thing or another, but how to accommodate everyone.
    And SF city hall unfortunately completely disregarded the tobacco smoking population.

    The sensible, pragmatic option would’ve been to figure out how tenants could enjoy their smokes.

  3. In San Francisco, there is no need to allow science, rather than politics and political correctness, guide the legislation.
    From the American Lung Association regarding marijuana smoke:

    “Smoke is harmful to lung health. Whether from burning wood, tobacco or marijuana, toxins and carcinogens are released from the combustion of materials. Smoke from marijuana combustion has been shown to contain many of the same toxins, irritants and carcinogens as tobacco smoke.

    Beyond just what’s in the smoke alone, marijuana is typically smoked differently than tobacco. Marijuana smokers tend to inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than cigarette smokers, which leads to a greater exposure per breath to tar.8

    Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxins and carcinogens found in directly-inhaled marijuana smoke, in similar amounts if not more.5 While there is no data on the health consequences of breathing secondhand marijuana smoke, there is concern that it could cause harmful health effects, especially among vulnerable children in the home.”

  4. I think it’s a good idea that smoking inside apartment buildings got banned. Several years ago someone who smoked in the apt next to me set the room on fire. The sprinkler water came into my room and ruined a lot of my stuff and stunk up my room. It was a mess remediating. . So no, smokers should smoke outside and not cause risk to everyone inside.

Sponsored link

More by this author

Supervisors vote to ban smoking tobacco in apartments—but spare cannabis

Sup. Mandelman’s amendment saves SF from what for many, could have amounted to a ban on smokable marijuana.

If SF bans smoking weed in your apartment, where could you get high?

Bill would criminalize pot smoking for a large part of the city's population.

Cannabis for president: Legalization, decriminalization ruled ballots nationwide

Last night, US voters proved ending prohibition is the one thing they can agree on, from Arizona to Mississippi.

30 SF candidates sound off on how they would support sexual assault survivors

The Coalition of Local Anti-Rape Advocates questionnaire grills candidates on how they would support houseless, undocumented, and incarcerated survivors.

Internationally Black series ‘So Soul San Francisco’ opens up global arts discourse

Creator Edris Cooper-Anifowoshe and co-host Rotimi Agbabiaka's monthly interview show surveys Black expression worldwide
Sponsored link

Most read

[UPDATED] ‘Sacred’ LGBTQ memorial space in Castro threatened by Bank of America

New signs at 'Hibernia Beach' area, traditionally used to mourn community members, warn against shrines

Growth machine wins big in Berkeley

Mayor who ran as a progressive sides with developer-friendly plan for Adeline Corridor.

Make this: La Palma snack wrap

A TikTok-inspired video recipe honoring the 68-year-old Mexicatessen.

Chron rejects comments critical of Boudin editorial

Comments supporting the DA don't seem to violate the paper's standards; why were they blocked?
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED