then you can hardly cry foul over an anti-smoking policy. This is also true in any subsidized housing situation.

Most of the smokers I know today don't smoke in their homes for obvious reasons: it stinks. Nothing sticks like tobacco smoke. When I started smoking in my freshman year in college, my mother immediately caught on; all she had to do was smell my clothes, which hung in my smoke-filled dormroom and reeked even after a good washing.

I should think if you own your apartment/condo, however, you should have a right to stink up your nasty self if you want.

...I should think if you own your apartment/condo, however, you should have a right to stink up your nasty self if you want...

WHAT DON'T YOU GET? I don't care what someone does to themselves in their own condo or apartment--JUST MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T TOUCH MY APARTMENT. Get it?

WHAT DON'T YOU GET? I don't care what someone does to themselves in their own condo or apartment--JUST MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T TOUCH MY APARTMENT. Get it?

What is there to get, dude? You sound rather perturbed.

WHAT DON'T YOU GET? I don't care what someone does to themselves in their own condo or apartment--JUST MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T TOUCH MY APARTMENT. Get it?

Does the same principle apply everywhere? What if you're in your backyard and your neighbor is in his backyard and your neighbor is smoking. Inevitably, if the wind is right, his smoke will drift into (or "touch") your back yard. Does anyone have the right to prohibit him from smoking outside, on his own property?

i think that whatever one's stance is on the right to smoke, they ought to hold the same stance on the right to do recreational drugs. if you're a smoker and want your freedom to be protected, you ought to stand up for marijuana tokers too. it seems only fair.

Timaree, I generally agree w/ the freedom to toke. I don't personally enjoy it as smoking (anything) interferes with my ability to exercise, not to mention that I just don't find the experience to be enjoyable. But, I have productive, tax paying friends who contribute to society, and at the end of the day I will go home and enjoy a glass of wine - and they go home and enjoy a joint.

There is a definitive line, however. Some recreational drugs are more addictive, more expensive and lead the user down a path of near-certain self-ruin. I don't know anyone who uses heroin but I'd be willing to bet there are few heroin users that are very productive. While I think people have the right to eff up their own lives, having a bunch of drug addicts around is bad for society. So, to each his own - until it starts affecting me and eating up the tax dollars I contribute.

Marijuana is on par w/ alcohol in my book, as both can be enjoyed occasionally and responsibly w/o ever one who tries the stuff becoming addicted and useless. The same can't be said for other drugs, which is why I, a libertarian, do support limiting their legality.

I think that it would make sense to have "smoking" and "non smoking" condos or apartments. It would obviously have to be a phased-in rule, as people aren't going to play musical apartments b/c the landlord decided to designate it as "smoking" and they're tobacco free and need to vacate it for a smoker.

People should be able to smoke in their own apartments; likewise, non smokers shouldn't be subjected to cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke is a different animal than a backyard BBQ: first of all, you grill outside, not inside; grilling is a finite occurrence and doesn't happen every 20 minutes; cigarette smoke has a way of working its way into your closet and tinging your clothes with a horrendous stench. If a new person moves in and is a smoker, I'm not, I'll be ticked if my place starts to reek. Why should I move?

Landlords and condo associations should regulate the entire building and create uniformity concerning smoking. It shouldn't be smokers and non-smokers pitted against each other, there should just be a clear policy per building so that people can make the right choices for themselves. It shouldn't be a war.

Timaree,

I am a smoker, and I think that people ought to be able to smoke just about anywhere that the owners say its ok to do so. The cigarettes that I smoke don't get me "high" in the way pot would. To compare the two is just CRAZY!!! It would not be "fair" or OK to allow herds of stoned people just out and about. Driving, working--generally putting others in immediate danger.

Second hand smoke is also a danger. I get that. But you can opt to leave the area. You don't have to patronize a smoking establishment. That would be your choice. Or it would be if Big Brother didn't have his say. If you own a restaurant, bar or any other business in this, (a supposedly free) country, you should be able to say that you will or won't allow smoking. Then everyone would actually be able to choose for themselves, like grown, free Americans. Same goes for rental apartments. If you own the building, you can choose to restrict it. If you don't want to be restricted, rent elsewhere. It's pretty simple to sort these things out without sacrificing other's rights if you aren't a control freak fanatic.

There wouldn't be an issue of smoke coming from another person's apt. Most people love their privacy in this country. We don't want to hear someone's music or lovemaking, we don't want to smell someone else's food cooking (ever notice how 9/10 times if it's not cooking in your apt., it stinks?), we don't want to be aware of whatever drugs you are using and have it affect us.

i have no problem with that. But why don't we make the building owners build apts that will do this?

BTW, anse, i'm all for people who own their own property doing what they will with their own bldgs. I hate hearing from people who have been renting an apt. for 50 years and then get mad that they aren't allowed to do what they want to do with their apt. That sense of entitlement is different, however, than the person who WOULD own property if they could and do not have the resources to make that possible.

I honestly don't know what we expect people to do anymore. Smokers aren't allowed to smoke outside many places anymore, now they will not be allowed to do what they want in their own homes that they pay for (whether they own or not). This has consequences for smokers and non smokers alike and should be thought of as such...

. . . alcohol should still be illegal.

"The cigarettes that I smoke don't get me "high" in the way pot would. To compare the two is just CRAZY!!! It would not be "fair" or OK to allow herds of stoned people just out and about. Driving, working--generally putting others in immediate danger."

Is it "fair" or OK to allow herds of drunk people just out and about? If so, please explain the difference.

I know I'm late in replying, but I hope Feline that you get to read this. I don't think it's OK to let "drunk" people out and about. You quoted me, and then challenged something completely unrelated to the arguement. But, I don't mind answering. Pot and alcohol are similar in their affects to people's judgement, reaction times, etc., but the difference is that once you are high--you are high. If you have a glass of wine with your dinner, you aren't necessarily drunk. That varies, of course, from person to person. Not to mention, the legal aspects. It's always illegal to have pot in you or on you. It's only illegal to have alcohol in you if you are in public or driving. Carrying it unopened is OK most places.

But NO it's not OK to allow herds of "drunk" people out and about either. They also pose an imminent threat. I'm still not sure why it's related, but, there you go!

You're not the only one who gets around to it late sometimes:P

The relevance of the remark on alcohol lies in the reason for opposing pot. If one's reason is the fear of having stoned people around engaging in unsafe behavior, then whatever you propose for dealing with it has to be considered for dealing with alcohol as well. To your credit, you seem to recognize this and don't like hordes of drunk people on the streets either.

I am curious, though, to hear more about your thinking on the difference between pot and alcohol's effects on a person. Considering the ever-shrinking levels of blood alcohol allowed to drivers- and my own experience of nearly getting a DUI after a single bottle of beer- I'm not sure the difference is as great as you're making it out to be.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, I can say that I have experience (years ago, thank God) with both. I, also, had a near DUI (after a bachelorette party, YIKES! bad night) anyway, I know what you mean. Despite my own extremely limited experience with pot, I have many friends who partake. They seem to go from themselves to Tommy Chong in a matter of moments. (To my knowledge, none of them are daily users. That might make a difference, too!) There seems to be little "in between." I wouldn't let any of them drive me anywhere if they'd even smelled a joint. But I also see many of my friends, and even my husband, drink beer, wine, anything that isn't hard liquor, and they show no effects whatsoever for quite some time. Not exactly a controlled scientific experiment, I know, but given my own experience, and years of observing others, it has seemed true more often than not. Every situation has variables like food, rest, mood in general before drinking, etc., but generally what I have witnessed has led me to the conclusion that pot takes hold of you more quickly and with a firmer grasp than "beer or wine" tend to. I am SURE there are Many examples of that being wrong. I am even aware of some, but it has seemed "generally" right to me.

The only time I've ever seen people stoned is after they've been at it for a while. And the closest I've been stoned is when I got a contact high from the dorm room of a friend of mine. Didn't realize it until I floated back down the hall to my room to take a nap for a few hours. . .

In a backwards way, though, that lack of in-between period would seem to argue for the safety of pot. You or I can drink that beer and not be sure of whether we're intoxicated or not. We can get behind the wheel not realizing that our reflexes are slowed, our attention off. Going from zero to Duude, though, that tricky intermediate period isn't there. You're sober, or you're stoned. That suggests it might be possible to combine a legalization (or at least decriminalization) regime with clear rules on the amount of time one should wait after a last joint before driving-- with appropriate penalties for violation.

Ideally, but that would be soooo hard to prove. the time, I mean. Also, if they were still stoned and driving, the time having passed, they would be legal to drive stoned. I know what you're trying to get at, but I don't think that "stoners" care about laws Now (if they did, they wouldn't be smoking pot in the first place)--let alone if there were more complicated ones aimed at them. I wouldn't be opposed to putting stricter legal limits on comsumption of alcohol. I don't think it should be entrapment if you get stopped in a bar's parking lot trying to drive out drunk. If he can catch you down the block for drunk driving, why let it go that far? You never know who's child is walking down that street. Hopefully never mine if they don't get a little stricter with alcohol laws. I have known people that seem to drive just fine with a couple beers in them, but I have also know people who don't. I know one person, who after smoking, accidentally put his car in N instead of D and actually thought he was stuck in the fog that was out that night. It's all very individual. But I do think that something should be done differently with respect to the laws regarding both.