what do you think of the smoking ban

Juanita,
What is your policy regarding smoking in your units that you rent and the outside of the units, parking lot etc.

consuming small amounts of alcohol still impair drivers and wether it is legal or not people are going to continue to drink and drive. if a non drinker is in an accident through no fault of there own and the driver of the other car is impaired with alcohol, yep thats where the drinker is forcing his drink on others and causing harm and death. drinker dont have a right to force their reckless behavior on those of us who do not drink.

I agree, and that is exactly why this behavior is against the law. Causing harm to others with tobacco should also be against the law.

I don't think that many people would disagree that drinking and driving should be against the law. The alcohol consumption rules for aviation are much stricter than for automobiles.

Because the effects of second hand smoke are not as immediate we forget how harmful it is also. Should an adult be allowed to smoke in a car with a child?

Juanita and rotohead
as soon as smoking in certain places is illegal i will not do it. simple as that. juanita rotohead seemed to imply that people who drink dont affect others. they do and they do alot more than people realize.

Juanita,
What is your policy regarding smoking in your units that you rent and the outside of the units, parking lot etc.

How about "don't ask, don't tell". Hey...it works for the military, right??? LOL

Seriously, we encourage tenants to smoke on the galleries, but our policy is it's their home, and we want them to be comfortable. We do a lot of cleaning and painting after a smoker-tenant.

Well if this proposed bill passes as written it's not going to work for you, unless you change your policy. No inside no outside smoking.

Pretty sure people will still be allowed to smoke in their homes, but hey...if we have to go smoke-free, think of all the money I'll save on cleaning and painting. And...aren't there actual distances from a building where it's OK? We have 1.67 acres. They can find a spot.

Nope, no actual distance from the house was stated. Your Units are considered commercial investment property (a public venue). Maybe you can get a Real Estate Tax Deduction for lost income if this passes as written. Be careful what you wish for. If you have vacancies you don't paint or clean at all.

My property is residential investment property.

OK your property is not a single family residence, Your over 4 units correct, you are a commercial enterprise. A Building inspector does not need a warrant to enter your apartments. That makes your property commercial.

Well...this thread is not about my apartments, but if you must....we have 4 buildings, each one it's own entity, each one on a separate tax map, each one can be owned individually by different people. I just happen to own all of them. No building has more than 4 units.

I was not talking about the thread, I was talking about the Bill as proposed and how it will affect you and others. OH your units trade under one name correct, no free pass there.

We do not have a name of record. Casita Properties is not the name of the "complex". Casita was the name of our boat and just happens to be the name of our LLC. We like it. ANYHOO....it is very, very, VERY unlikely that the bill will pass, not allowing people to smoke in their homes. If it does, well...we'll cross that bridge then. Somehow, I just can't quite picture me going in...."This is a raid....I know you're smoking in here!!!!" :@):@):@)

It's Friday, happy hour, and it's time to partake in another vice...wine! Not to worry, I havent drunk and driven in years! Everyone enjoy your weekend.

Rotor,

If I ever get out of software development hell I'll look more into it but I find it almost impossible to believe that if someone lights up a cigarette next to me and I walk away immediately my chances of getting cancer are increased by any substantial level. What about when a truck or bus goes by spewing smoke out of it's tailpipe? I have to think that sitting behind a city bus in traffic is FAR worse for your lungs than sitting next to a smoker for the 10 seconds it takes to move on. I don't imagine that you think we should ban buses and trucks too?

Sean

Actually, the laws on vehicle emissions have been getting tighter in most states. Also, the laws about not smoking in public places are also to protect the employees.

The EPA is a joke! they continue to extend time periods for compliance to existing laws. That's a fact no need to cite that one just google EPA. Their going to protect employees in Public Parks, Parking lots, Beaches? HUH

I heard on the radio that enforcement of the proposed smoking ban will fall primarily on Health Dept inspectors with powers also granted to the police. They'll need help! Perhaps they can add a provision for citizen’s arrest. That way some of the more militant anti-smokers can form posses and wrestle someone that smokes on the beach to the ground and sit on them until the police arrive. That should prove entertaining... 😀

So the police blurbs in the local papers may start to read something like this: One homicide, 5 larcenies, 3 grand larcenies - no arrests...BUT 41 people were ticketed and fined for smoking. Oh yeah...that'll make things better here!

Nice one Aussie, I've been in bars in DC where they have a bucket at the end of the bar. If you want to light up you have to throw a dollar in the bucket. When they get fined they use the money from the bucket to pay the fine (or bribe the enforcement officer). Of course I don't spend much time in those bars, I don't like being around smoke and exercise my freedom to walk away!

This reminds me of the old joke about the only difference between the government and the mafia being the pretty flag the government flys outside is offices 🙂

Sean

All in all, the proposed smoking ban for St Croix is a bunch of crap. I'm all for having non-smoking in an enclosed place such as Case Place and other "indoor" dining places. But when it comes to open air estabishments & that also includes beaches, well that's where the proposed ban goes way over board the wrong direction. As Aussie pointed out, this island does have a terrible record when it comes to arresting & or convicting the gun toting and violent bad guys. However there will be no problem arresting or fining you for smoking, not wearing your seat belt and other such non-violent violations of the "law". Who knows what will happen given the lack of enforcement manpower req'd to monitor a tropical island for smoking violators.

Rotor,

If I ever get out of software development hell I'll look more into it but I find it almost impossible to believe that if someone lights up a cigarette next to me and I walk away immediately my chances of getting cancer are increased by any substantial level. What about when a truck or bus goes by spewing smoke out of it's tailpipe? I have to think that sitting behind a city bus in traffic is FAR worse for your lungs than sitting next to a smoker for the 10 seconds it takes to move on. I don't imagine that you think we should ban buses and trucks too?

Sean

Sean,

Using your logic, why do we bother to ban any airborne pollutants? Until recently Hovensa was allowed to pump many toxic gases into the air from their stacks. Standards have gotten tougher. Smokers are now also caught up in the push for cleaner air to breath. Why should smokers get a pass?

I have no problem with someone smoking in the privacy of their own home but why should they be allowed to force others to breath their poison? Tobacco smoke is toxic. Why should this toxin get a pass but others do not. Tobacco accounts for 440,000 deaths a year in the US alone. If you think that this should not be regulated then why do we bother to regulate emissions of Sulfur Dioxide? How many deaths were attributed to it last year?

Short exposure, even 10 seconds, is to be avoided because the effects are cumulative. Why is tobacco smoke a special case? If I were to walk into a restaurant with an aerosol spray can of toxic gas and empty it into the air most of the customers would be upset. We are conditioned to give smokers a pass even though they are doing exactly the same thing. The toxicity of tobacco smoke is well documented.

If you need tobacco so badly why not chew tobacco and keep it to yourself?

From the US Surgeon Generals report on Second Hand Smoke.
"Secondhand smoke contains over 50 known carcinogen (causes cancer) and causes lung cancer and heart disease in non-smoking adults. Evidence indicates that there is a 25% to 30% increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke.

In 2005 it is estimated that secondhand smoke kills 3000 non-smoking adults from lung cancer, 46,000 from coronary disease and 430 newborns from sudden infant death syndrome. "

As for how to enforce the new law. Simple. If you notice an offense you simply take a picture of it with your cellphone camera and email it to DLCA along with a message telling where it occurred. The next time the business license is renewed they get fined for allowing illegal smoking. Kind of like a traffic camera or speeding camera.

As for how to enforce the new law. Simple. If you notice an offense you simply take a picture of it with your cellphone camera and email it to DLCA along with a message telling where it occurred. The next time the business license is renewed they get fined for allowing illegal smoking. Kind of like a traffic camera or speeding camera.

OMG I hope you are not serious !

Sean,

Using your logic, why do we bother to ban any airborne pollutants? Until recently Hovensa was allowed to pump many toxic gases into the air from their stacks. Standards have gotten tougher. Smokers are now also caught up in the push for cleaner air to breath. Why should smokers get a pass?

Again, I just don't see the two as comparable. Surely you aren't comparing the chemical output of a major industrial plant such as Hovensa with giant smokestacks to the stick of a 4" cigarette? If a smoker is in an establishment that chooses to allow smoking and I am not I will not be affected by his/her smoke. But if a plant such as Hovensa pumps toxic gases into the air that ends up in my home and on my property I am most definitely affected, as are my property rights. The two scenarios are just completely uncomparable in my mind.

We are in complete agreement I think that a paradigm shift had to happen. I think it has already happend, in the past allowing smoking in a bar or restaraunt was automatically expected but this is no longer the case, even in the VI. How many people wouldn't have set foot in "Bongo's" because of the smoke problem. Now that it is non-smoking I've had a ton of people who want to go there that have told me they never went before because of smoking. Rum Runners is now non-smoking. On the flip side, how many people on this board have said they avoid Case Place because it's too smokey (see Restaraunt thread)? We are already well on our way to a world where us non-smokers will have our rights protected in establishments that respect them and can choose to ignore those establishments that don't. Smokers can do likewise, we can all get along, and no one will have to use the violent force of government to accomplish their goals.

I think us non-smokers should be vocal, but I don't agree with the idea that we should trample property rights by involving government as the next time someone else might use them to trample a right I hold dear. Instead we should let business owners know how we feel, patronizing those who give us clean air environs and banning those who don't.

Sean

Again, I just don't see the two as comparable. Surely you aren't comparing the chemical output of a major industrial plant such as Hovensa with giant smokestacks to the stick of a 4" cigarette? If a smoker is in an establishment that chooses to allow smoking and I am not I will not be affected by his/her smoke. But if a plant such as Hovensa pumps toxic gases into the air that ends up in my home and on my property I am most definitely affected, as are my property rights. The two scenarios are just completely uncomparable in my mind.

You focus on the size of the smokestack vs the size of the cigarette, why not focus on the number of lives lost as a result of the two. 440,000 people a year die as a result of smoking in the US alone. How many died as a result of the smokestacks at Hovensa and other plants?

Look at it another way. Almost 50,000 NON-SMOKERS died last year as a result of smokers right to smoke. These are people who did not choose to smoke but were killed by smokers. This happens every year. It amazes me that people get upset about guns. There are only about 12,000 firearm homicides a year in the US. Four times that number of innocent non-smokers are killed every year. The only difference is that the firearms murders can be traced back to a single gun and the smoking related homicide takes time and is the result of the effort of many smokers.

Linda J -- totally off topic, but which team are you on at Chicken Charlie's? I figure we must have been playing against each other... Until the last couple of weeks when the new captain moved back to Ohio, my family was on the ACLU team!

Lisa

I'm on the Renegades.

I used to be a "Know Brainer". Maybe one day we'll get back!