S. F. sets vote to ban smoking ( yes, pot too) in apartments
San Francisco could become the largest U. S. city to ban smoking cannabis and tobacco in apartment and condo buildings.
The Board of Supervisors is expected to vote Tuesday on a proposal to protect residents from secondhand smoke. Smoking is illegal in common spaces such as stairwells and hallways, and many landlords ban it indoors entirely.
The wouldbe ordinance crafted by Supervisor Norman Yee would take existing laws further and prohibit all residents — except those with medical cannabis cards — from smoking in buildings with three units or more. That includes private apartment buildings, lowincome buildings called Single Room Occupancy hotels, and condominiums.
Repeat offenders could be fined $ 1,000 a day, but could not be evicted for any violation.
The proposal roils cannabis activists, who say it would infringe on the right to use a legal substance unless they made enough money to own a singlefamily home.
It’s illegal under state law to smoke cannabis in public places — although that’s not earnestly enforced in San Francisco.
Ban supporters say it’s vital to protect the health of nonsmokers, particularly lowincome residents in dense apartment buildings.
“My motivation is just to give people clean air to breathe, that’s all,” said Yee, who will leave office in January.
If passed, San Francisco would join 63 California cities
— including Alameda, Berkeley, Santa Clara and Santa Rosa — and counties with bans.
The Department of Public Health would be responsible for enforcing the new law. Yee said the city would first try to educate violators and help smokers quit.
The Bay Area division of the American Heart Association, which supports the ordinance, called it an “important strategy to protect vulnerable populations from dangerous secondhand smoke exposure in their homes.” The San Francisco TobaccoFree Coalition said it would add to the city’s “history of advanced tobacco policies which increase health equity among our diverse communities.”
Supervisors Shamann Walton and Sandra Lee Fewer cosponsor the ordinance. Walton declined to comment, and Fewer could not be reached Monday.
Supervisor Rafael Mandelman said he will propose an amendment to exempt cannabis from the ordinance. He said he is “persuaded” by the harm of secondhand smoke from tobacco, but he was not comfortable with a law that does not allow people to smoke cannabis at home.
“We are taking away the only feasible place for people to smoke cannabis,” he said.
The city’s Cannabis Oversight Committee, which is appointed by the Board of Supervisors, staunchly opposes the ban. In a fivepage letter to the board, the committee said while the “wellintentioned” legislation seeks to protect air quality for nonsmokers, it does so “at the cost of the health and civil liberties of cannabis users.”
“The ordinance would disallow smoking, but only for people in multiunit residential buildings, meaning that San Franciscans who can afford to buy freestanding homes would be unaffected and could still smoke in peace,” Nina Parks, chair of the committee, said in the letter.
While those with medical cannabis cards would be exempt, she said the “vast majority” of cannabis patients do not have one because it is a legal substance for adults in San Francisco. Parks added that the $ 1,000aday penalty would add “insult to injury, since only wealthy people can pay such fines, but wealthy people are already exempted by virtue of owning their own freestanding homes.”
Kaylah Williams, copresident of the Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, said the law would also disproportionately impact lowerincome residents and people of color, who generally live in denser apartment buildings in the city.
City statistics show 53% of San Franciscans live in housing with two or more units. The ordinance would apply to buildings with at least three units.
“That is a huge frustration,” Williams said. “It could play into some real classist issues. Like, it’s only OK for you to smoke cannabis if you own a ( singlefamily) home?”
In response to that point, Yee said lowincome people living in dense apartment buildings are already subject to the harms of secondhand smoke.
“The negative impact is already there,” he said. “Where is the right for people to breathe clean air?”
According to the American Heart Association Bay Area, secondhand smoke can cause serious disease and premature death among nonsmokers. The smoke can travel through ventilation, heating and air conditioning units.
In 2013, more than half ( 52%) of Latino San Franciscans reported secondhand smoke drifting in their homes, according to the Department of Public Health.
But Dr. Donald Abrams, an oncologist and cannabis researcher at UCSF, said banning cannabis smoking indoors “lacks scientific basis and would do more harm than good.”
“It is incorrect that cannabis smoke is equally dangerous as tobacco smoke; it is not,” he wrote in a letter to the Board of Supervisors. “Since no serious harms have been proven, even for the individual inhaling cannabis firsthand, evidence does not support the conclusion that it is a health risk for someone in an entirely different housing unit.”
Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who oversees neighborhoods like Chinatown, which have dense housing, said complaints about secondhand smoke are
“few and far between.” But, he said, many of his constituents support such a ban on indoor smoking — particularly when it comes to tobacco.
Peskin said he would support the ordinance only with an exemption for cannabis. Still, he said there may be “unanticipated consequences.”
“If people live in longterm, rentcontrolled apartments, and some of those people are addicted to tobacco, and if they are facing $ 1,000 in penalties, that could be extraordinarily impactful to their ability to age in place,” he said.
Secondhand tobacco smoke has been a huge issue in renter Julie Halatyn’s Sunnyside building, as cigarette and cigar smoke from her downstairs neighbor constantly drifts into her apartment. While she said she has asked her neighbor to be more mindful, the smoke continues to agitate her and her baby.
“I can smell it in my bathroom,” said Halatyn, a registered dietitian.
Halatyn — who emailed Yee last year and inspired him to pursue the legislation — said she’s more concerned about tobacco smoke than cannabis smoke, and that she would still support the ordinance if cannabis were exempt.
“It’s frustrating,” she said of tobacco smoke seeping into her apartment. “Of course it stinks and it’s gross, but what really gets me is that I take such good care of myself and I have no control over the person who is inflicting harm on my body.”