Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Smoked Out in Portland
Occasional reason
contributor and occasional smoker Jacob Grier recently moved to
Portland, OR, where he's having trouble
finding an apartment.
A cheerful libertarian, Grier doesn't object to a building's owner banning smoking on the premises:
"I respect their rights of property and freedom of association, even if they won’t extend the same courtesy to smokers and business owners."
But it turns out things are a little more complicated than that.
To be a green-certified property (pretty important in crunchy Portland) there must be an absolute prohibition on smoking, including outdoor spaces. Banning outdoor smoking ranks higher in the green building certification standards than building with certified wood, reusing materials, using renewable energy, or reducing water use.
Unless a guy smoking a cigar on his balcony is having a vastly more significant environmental impact than I previously thought, the standard seems to be driven less by a real balancing of environmental priorities and more by aesthetics or political correctness. Too bad, since voluntary, independent standard setters have a lot of appeal for the liberty-loving set, by and large.
Read all of Grier's thoughtful post here.
|10.14.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Is it guided by respectable science or by political
correctness? Not being an expert in design, I have no way of
knowing.
I'm gonna go with it being PC bullshit, Jacob. I mean, really, is
it that hard to figure out?
|10.14.08 @ 7:42PM|#
So what if a LEED designation bans smoking? The LEED designation is entirely voluntary and non-governmental. The developers pursuing it are responding to market demand. Yes, Portland is "crunchy," but a LEED designation is not a requirement for a building permit. Heck, the market probably demands no smoking buildings, LEED or no LEED. If he wants to smoke on his deck, I also know the market offers plenty of opportunities for that as well, perhaps just not in the irritating, tool-dwelling, soviet-esque Pearl District, where he was looking.
|10.14.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Too bad, since voluntary, independent standard setters have
a lot of appeal for the liberty-loving set, by and
large.
Uh, sure. Like the warm embrace you give to localvores and organic
food buyers.
|10.14.08 @ 7:48PM|#
I'm relieved to note that I can still piss my pants on my balcony, if I so choose.
|10.14.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Portlander
The developers pursuing it are responding to market
demand.
Are there really that many people demanding to rent only in
buildings where smoking is forbidden on the entire property?
I thought Seattle was too filled with these fuckwits. Portland
seems worse.
Dave|10.14.08 @ 7:48PM|#
I say this is a violation of free speech, because smoking a cigar conveys the attitude of what I want to say and portray. So by not allowing me to smoke a cigar, I'm not being allowed to speak my thoughts and feelings.
Dave|10.14.08 @ 7:50PM|#
"I thought Seattle was too filled with these fuckwits.
Portland seems worse."
Denver too. All over the damn place. It's not about the smoke
bothering them, but they want to make a statement.
|10.14.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Then again, I spoke too soon:
http://www.komonews.com/news/30863929.html
"These places have exhibited little or no sincerity with coming
into compliance," said Scott Neal, tobacco-prevention program
manager for Public Health"
Or, "Ze places have exhibited little oder no sincerity vis zer
coming into compliance!" shrieked Scott Neal, stamping his boot
upon an errant cigarette butt.
"But vee haf vays! Zay vill comply!" He
added a moment later.
|10.14.08 @ 8:01PM|#
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find smoking going on on this
balcony.
I wonder if a lot of the landlords are pulling a Claude Rains.
|10.14.08 @ 8:09PM|#
> Unless a guy smoking a cigar on his balcony is > having
a vastly more significant environmental > impact than I
previously thought, the standard > seems to be driven less by a
real balancing of > environmental priorities and more by
> aesthetics or political correctness.
Or perhaps by the fact that many smokers are inconsiderate pigs who
throw their butts everywhere and anywhere, as if the world is their
personal ashtray.
Butts are all over the city sidewalks -- everywhere. It's
disgusting.
They have only themselves to blame for such bans.
$3.50|10.14.08 @ 8:17PM|#
The disparate impact suit over this thinly veiled "If you're black, get back" policy will be awesome.
|10.14.08 @ 8:23PM|#
David | October 14, 2008, 8:09pm | #
Butts are all over the city sidewalks -- everywhere. It's disgusting.
They have only themselves to blame for such bans.
Or you know, currently existing litter laws could be enforced
but that would be too hard, wouldn't it?
This is the same form of strawman that is levied against pot
smokers: "but if they smoke weed they will drive stoned". Ignoring
the fact that laws prohibiting DUI already exist to pile new ones
on actions some people don't like. And it's just as vile a
tactic.
|10.14.08 @ 8:38PM|#
David,
They have only themselves to blame for such bans.
If that were even a little bit true, I imagine there would have
been some mention of "cigarette butts littering the sidewalk" or
words to that effect somewhere in the 2005 bill banning
smoking in Seattle.
But there isn't.
|10.14.08 @ 8:48PM|#
> Or you know, currently existing litter laws
> could be enforced but that would be too hard, > wouldn't
it?
That's *exactly* the problem -- smokers need laws to curtail their
filthy littering, instead of being courteous and disposing of their
butts properly.
In any case, the police cannot be everywhere at once. That places
even more of the onus on the individual citizen.
If you expect to be treated with respect, then treat others with
respect. From the butt-tossing smokers I see around town, few have
an interest in that. It's arrogant and inconsiderate, and you get
what you sow.
|10.14.08 @ 8:50PM|#
They have only themselves to blame for such bans.
Do you say that with an upturned nose or through gritted teeth like
Thurston Howell III?
|10.14.08 @ 8:51PM|#
>> They have only themselves to blame for such >>
bans.
> If that were even a little bit true, I imagine > there
would have been some mention of
> "cigarette butts littering the sidewalk" or
> words to that effect somewhere in the 2005
> bill banning smoking in Seattle.
Hardly. It's already implicit in the negative attitudes that now
exist towards smokers -- too many of you are inconsiderate and,
well, pigs.
It's no wonder we can't stand you and want you gone.
|10.14.08 @ 8:52PM|#
If you expect to be treated with respect, then treat others
with respect.
Yes. All that respect being paid to bar owners and landlords. Why,
the respect is so thick, you could walk across the sound on it!
SIV|10.14.08 @ 8:53PM|#
In GA cigarette butts aren't legally litter!
I always tell my crunchy friends that the filters provide an
important source of nesting material for birds.It is true in urban
areas.
|10.14.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Hardly. It's already implicit in the negative attitudes that
now exist towards smokers -- too many of you are inconsiderate and,
well, pigs.
Perhaps you should stick to speaking for yourself, lest you make
other look as bigoted, something they probably wouldn't
appreciate.
Also, I'm not a smoker.
|10.14.08 @ 9:01PM|#
It's no wonder we can't stand you and want you
gone.
Your respect comes across as sincere as a cigarette ad. "Respect!
It's invigorating!"
I have a few more for you:
"Mmmmmm....feel the tolerance!"
"This is nanny country"
"I'd rather snitch than fight!"
"You've come a long way, baby, to stand at least 100 feet from any
dwelling, school or public facility."
|10.14.08 @ 9:09PM|#
JW wrote:
>> It's no wonder we can't stand you and want
>> you gone.
> Your respect comes across as sincere as a
> cigarette ad. "Respect! It's invigorating!"
But I *don't* respect smokers. Why should I pretend otherwise. In
my experience they are inconsiderate -- with with their SHS or
their butts -- and deserve no more respect than some continuous
farter or habitual litterbug.
Don't pretend like we hate you for no reason. You have shown us
over and over again that too many of you are inconsiderate.
You have made your own bed as far as I am concerned.
|10.14.08 @ 9:12PM|#
> "This is nanny country"
It's no more nanny country than asking people to obey basic rules
that derive from courteousness -- though many of you like to think
otherwise, as if you're some great oppressed class under the boot
of government. Please. It's your _actions_ we object to. And,
behind them, the implicit inconsideration, no less than if you
threw your leftover lunch into the street. Why on earth would you
think this is acceptable? Don't you care what your neighborhood
looks like?
SIV|10.14.08 @ 9:20PM|#
Not only do I throw cigarette butts out(on public property)I also toss chicken bones and peanut shells. I also rag on people for actually littering.
|10.14.08 @ 9:26PM|#
Don't pretend like we hate you for no reason. You have shown
us over and over again that too many of you are
inconsiderate.
Sorry, non-smoker here. Think harder.
Now, go sneer at the help.
|10.14.08 @ 9:27PM|#
But I *don't* respect smokers.
Ya think? You sure had me fooled. You might want to add property
owners to your list there, chief.
|10.14.08 @ 9:40PM|#
> Ya think? You sure had me fooled. You might
> want to add property owners to your list
> there, chief.
Please. Stop confounding the issue. This is about consideration,
not property. The smoker in question here does not own his
apartment -- his landlord does. He's free to take his business
elsewhere.
In any case, I've been talking about the city streets, who are no
one's property. A great many of us mind walking through the filth
that smokers throw down.
Why do you have such a difficult time understanding that? Look on
any city street or in any mall parking lot. It's an obvious
problem. Tell me why it should not disgust us.
Hogan|10.14.08 @ 9:45PM|#
The health concerns about SHS are fake. There are already laws
against littering. The idea is that smokers are abusing public
space not by making it unhealthy or more dirty but by doing such a
damn DESPICABLE thing where everyone can see them. If you want to
make people more courteous, use informal means like shaming rather
than the authority of the state.
OT, i HATE when people wear their pants down below their asses like
pigs. They have only themselves to thank for the new regime of
legislation I'm proposing to whip them into shape. Who do they
think they are, really?
|10.14.08 @ 10:06PM|#
Hogan said:
> The health concerns about SHS are fake.
Hardly. They have been well-established by the same scientific
bodies you rely on to guarantee the safety of your food, medicine,
and other products.
> There are already laws against littering.
And, without a policeman every 20 feet, they are difficult to
enforce. And smokers know this. And so they feel free to toss their
butts wherever they please. That's the very definition of
inconsiderate. It's why I don't spit on the sidewalk.
Until smokers evolve to the point where they take others into
consideration and not merely because they might be arrested, they
will continue to be looked down upon as the pigs that they
are.
> The idea is that smokers are abusing public > space not by
making it unhealthy or more
> dirty but by doing such a damn DESPICABLE
> thing where everyone can see them.
No, although it's clearly convenient for you to think so -- it
justifies your being thought of as some poor persecuted
person.
It is actually the filth -- the butts that wash into the water
supply, the way they disgustingly disintegrate and spread out when
wet, their putrid odor. It's the same reason we gave up shitting in
the gutter. Is there anything more disgusting in the universe than
a pile of butts tossed down by some creep emptying their ashtray in
a parking lot?
This is why you are being regulated. You have shown yourselves
unable to police yourselves. Hence the hand of government is
needed, to protect the rest of us from your filthy ways.
If you want to make people more courteous, use informal means like
shaming rather than the authority of the state.
OT, i HATE when people wear their pants down below their asses like
pigs. They have only themselves to thank for the new regime of
legislation I'm proposing to whip them into shape. Who do they
think they are, really?
|10.14.08 @ 10:18PM|#
So i guess they are just using vaporizers for their drug of
choice?
You did note that it's all about tobacco
prevention, no?
If pot was included under these no smoking ordinances, they'd
disappear faster than a fart in a hurricane.
rhywun|10.14.08 @ 10:33PM|#
Hence the hand of government is needed, to protect the rest of us from your filthy ways.
OK, you had us going for a while, but the jig is up.
Matt D|10.14.08 @ 10:40PM|#
Uhm, it's an air quality standard, and if you read the actual specs, I'm pretty sure it doesn't ban indoor smoking in residential buildings anyway.
|10.14.08 @ 10:43PM|#
Please. Stop confounding the issue. This is about
consideration, not property. The smoker in question here does not
own his apartment -- his landlord does. He's free to take his
business elsewhere.
I'm not confounding the issue. You obviously haven't devoted too
much thought to it. The landlord and bar owner aren't free to go
elsewhere, unless they want to sell their business and go to the
next city that will make business decisions for them. They're stuck
there.
The non-smoker is free to go to smoke free facilities, as is the
smoker is free to avoid the same. See how easy that is?
Why do you have such a difficult time understanding
that?
I understand that. I think I grok the concept of litter just fine,
but thanks for asking. I simply don't agree that it is a valid
reason for the wholesale usurpation of one's property rights,
because you were touched in a bad place by a smoking litterbug when
you were 7.
Hence the hand of government is needed, to protect the rest of
us from your filthy ways.
I think our time is up; see you next week. Half-hour earlier?
|10.14.08 @ 10:45PM|#
OT, i HATE when people wear their pants down below their
asses like pigs. They have only themselves to thank for the new
regime of legislation I'm proposing to whip them into shape. Who do
they think they are, really?
OK, the joke's over, Alice.
|10.15.08 @ 1:06AM|#
"The smoker in question here does not own his apartment"
By paying rent the owner has the same rights to privacy as an owner
of a property. In this case the rental agreement he would need to
sign takes away certain rights. The same as the condo association
agreement or CCR's would do to an owner.
KD|10.15.08 @ 3:24AM|#
While I appreciate a good debate over smoking rights, the real
heart of the matter here is why LEEDS considers a no smoking ban to
be a green issue.
And to that, I answer, that objectively, cigarette smoke leaves
visible stains and makes the air smell a distinct smell to a
non-smoker. So in that sense, while debatable whether the
smell/smoke is actually carcinogenic or not, the presence of any
type of smoke is in and of itself, arguably "un-green."
Additionally, from the linked LEEDS site:
less exposure to mold, mildew and other indoor
toxins
While some debate that secondhand cigarette smoke isn't as toxic as
many claim, the fact is that many people are allergic to cigarette
smoke, regardless of whether it causes cancer or not. Asthmatics
frequently have asthma attacks/difficulty breathing in the presence
of even a trace amount of cigarette smoke. In that sense, all of
the above things listed in the quote are common allergens, and one
could argue that avoiding allergenic substances can be "green
living" (however bs that phrase may be).
Thus, I don't have a problem with LEEDS making that mandatory for
their purposes, so long as no property owner of a private/rental
residence is forced to be LEEDS certified. If that organization
believes in reducing those things, I say let them, so long as it's
voluntary to comply with their rules.
|10.15.08 @ 6:46AM|#
While some debate that secondhand cigarette smoke isn't as
toxic as many claim, the fact is that many people are allergic to
cigarette smoke, regardless of whether it causes cancer or
not.
People are alergic to perfume and peanut dust too. Are they on the
list?
MJ|10.15.08 @ 7:52AM|#
"Additionally, from the linked LEEDS site:
less exposure to mold, mildew and other indoor toxins"
Mold, mildew, outgassing of organics from upholstery, carpeting,
paint (new car smell is poison!) are important design issues for
buildings, especially since the easiest solution i.e. increasing
the outdoor air intake also raises your energy usage. The question
is: what does a mandate to reduce indoor toxins have to do with
prohibiting smoking outdoors?
ed|10.15.08 @ 8:01AM|#
Relax, everyone.
The important thing is that you're still allowed to burn a flag on
your balcony.
rhywun|10.15.08 @ 8:50AM|#
cigarette smoke leaves visible stains and makes the air smell a distinct smell to a non-smoker
Neither of which have anything to do with being "green". And when
did "green" become all about nannying people to be "healthy"
anyway? I can think of lots of other activities that should be
banned by that measure.
|10.15.08 @ 10:03AM|#
OT, i HATE when people wear their pants down below their
asses like pigs.
Ha! Shows what you know! Pigs don't even wear
pants!
Zeb|10.15.08 @ 10:24AM|#
David, as a constant farter, I am offended by your comments and I demand an apology.
Loves the Flag|10.15.08 @ 10:43AM|#
I am sure if they made cigarettes in the form of the American flag, then you would be free to smoke it on your balcony.
|10.15.08 @ 10:47AM|#
And in that horrible dictator ship across the Taiwan Straits smoking was just banned in department stores, but everyone ignores the law.Seems like they have some concept of freedom and rights there. And they hate religious nutcases, another plus.
robc|10.15.08 @ 10:50AM|#
joe,
Like the warm embrace you give to localvores and organic food
buyers.
Mocking something isnt contradictory to support.
concerned observer|10.15.08 @ 10:53AM|#
smoking is a repulsive habit and smokers are getting all bent out of shape because they have to take some of the abuse they dealt out with impunity for years. i remeber smoke blown in my face by assholes when I asked them to put out the damn things in enclosed spaces. whatever "oppression" these asswipes suffer they deserve.
robc|10.15.08 @ 10:54AM|#
They have been well-established by the same scientific
bodies you rely on to guarantee the safety of your food, medicine,
and other products.
Does David even know where he is posting?
|10.15.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Make everyone go outside to smoke, don't put an ashtray there, and then complain about cigarette butts.Good plan.
|10.15.08 @ 11:07AM|#
All we want is mandated no-smoking sections in restaurants.
Surly that is not unreasonable.
Fatties, you're next.
|10.15.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Concerned observer,
Write a manifesto or blow your brains out--the world isn't going to
change just for you.
|10.15.08 @ 11:16AM|#
That's *exactly* the problem -- smokers need laws to curtail
their filthy littering, instead of being courteous and disposing of
their butts properly.
I live in Detroit.
Without those damn littering smokers, it would be paradise.
|10.15.08 @ 11:18AM|#
It's no more nanny country than asking people to obey basic
rules that derive from courteousness
What's considerate about forbidding a person from enjoying a stogie
on his own balcony?
i remeber smoke blown in my face by assholes when I asked them
to put out the damn things in enclosed spaces.
If you copped the same attitude to those "assholes" as you're
copping to us, I understand why you got smoke blown in your face.
(Not that I approve, but I understand.)
|10.15.08 @ 11:30AM|#
i remeber smoke blown in my face by assholes when I asked
them to put out the damn things in enclosed spaces.
I'm guessing there was another, and much better, reason that they
did that. Just a hunch.
Jordan|10.15.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Neither of which have anything to do with being "green". And when did "green" become all about nannying people to be "healthy" anyway? I can think of lots of other activities that should be banned by that measure.
Green is the new red.
Anvilwyrm|10.15.08 @ 12:25PM|#
I saw 2 beer bottles and a coke can on the ground
yesterday.
I believe we should ban both of these products, as we clearly don't
have sufficient police to enforce littering laws.
Filthy drinkers....
Anvilwyrm|10.15.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Not to mention that pile of tires I found in the woods yesterday. Damn car drivers!
Invisible Finger|10.15.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Denver too. All over the damn place. It's not about the
smoke bothering them, but they want to make a statement.
And that statement is "Fuck Liberty"
Same reason all these fuckwits support Obama.
|10.15.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Being a libertarian in Portland would be a frustrating
existence. I grew up there, and whenever I go back to visit my
parents, I'm amazed at how the nitwit statism and "green" silliness
seems to increase each time.
The city is falling apart and the unemployment rate is appalling,
but those problems don't seem to rate with the local govts.
MJ|10.15.08 @ 7:07PM|#
Unfortunately Katherine Mangu-Ward did not do the research on
this.
LEED Certification does not require a total prohihibition on
smoking outside a commercial or residential building. Outdoor
designated smoking areas are required to be 25 feet from an
entrance, open window or outside air intake. Also LEED only
requires residential buildings prohibit smoking in common indoor
area and that individual dwelling units be sealed from each other
to prevent transmission of smoke between units. Got that from the
"LEED for New Construction & Major Renovation Version 2.2, 3rd
Edition October 2007"
|10.15.08 @ 11:02PM|#
David | October 14, 2008, 10:06pm | #
Is there anything more disgusting in the universe than a pile of butts tossed down by some creep emptying their ashtray in a parking lot?
Hyperbole much? I have a sneeking suspicion that if I were to sit
in your lap nude, take a HUGE dump, wiggle around for a minute or
two, then vomit directly in your mouth, you might just be able to
put a few cigarette butts in perspective.
Or perhaps not. In your case, something might come up. :-)
|10.15.08 @ 11:18PM|#
Classic example of people like you:
I was at a local baseball game this summer, small field with some
basic wooden bleachers. At one point, I felt the need for some
sweet, sweet nicotine. I left the bleachers, walked around behind
them and lit up.
A woman turned around to talk to another spectator, and saw me
through the seats. She began to frown, glare, make little coughing
noises, etc. then asked me "would I mind taking that somewhere
else".
Now, it is essential to the story that I point out a few things.
The wind direction had me down-wind of everyone in the stands. The
woman was not even aware of my evil behavior until
she saw me. In fact, I had been sucking Satan's cock for 7-8
minutes and was almost down to the filter when the confrontation
took place.
I politely agreed to move away, finished my smoke, field stripped
the butt (as I always do when in a public place), and threw it in a
trash receptacle.
Now, I ask, which of us was the inconsiderate asshole? Hmmmm??
|10.16.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Question for those of you who have been to Portland. I went
there once and I really liked it very much. I'm from NY/NJ, and I
liked the small-city feel, the clean, open streets, the proximity
to lots of natural space, and the general vibe of the place. (OR in
general is a beautiful state.) The hippie-ness didn't really get on
my nerves, although I wasn't there long.
So the question - are there places you guys can recommend living
which have some of those positive aspects I mentioned, without the
more onerous govt restrictions and regulations in place, especially
with regard to personal space or personal behavior, in Portland or
in Oregon in general?
|10.16.08 @ 6:27PM|#
sv, you just described 2/3 of the communities that are non-coastal and W of the big muddy.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245