Draconian measure

The proposed San Francisco ordinance banning smoking in residences in multiunit buildings addresses the issue of secondhand smoke affecting neighbors.

But instead of immediate passage, it deserves the further consideration called for by Supervisor Dean Preston to explore more how the ordinance will affect people with other concerns — especially during heightened stresses from a pandemic and lockdown.

A smoking ban in a person’s residence is qualitatively different from those imposed in public places. Many people — notably seniors with decades of nicotine addiction, recovering substance abusers and some with mental illness — rely on cigarettes as a coping mechanism. Some can’t tolerate substitutes such as lozenges or patches. The impact of sending a sleepless octogenarian in a nightgown out to the sidewalk at 3 a. m. on a wet, cold morning for her smoke deserves consideration, too.

Measures less draconian than a ban, such as requiring use of “smokegrabbing” ashtrays along with “personal smoke filters” ( such as Sploofy or SmokeBuddy) and perhaps smokeoptimized air purifiers for inhome smoking, should at least be considered. Secondhand smoke in residential buildings is a valid issue and deserves to be addressed, but not with wholesale disregard to a ban’s effect on those with a physical or psychological dependence on smoking.

Jim Edlin, San Francisco