Note: The online Request to Speak window has expired.
The online Comment window has expired
Agenda Item
8 25-0184 Subject: No-Smoking Ordinance
From: President Pro Tempore Kalb
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Amending Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 8.30, "The Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance," To (1) Prohibit Vaping In All Places Where Smoking Is Prohibited By The Ordinance; (2) Prohibit Smoking In Dwelling Units In Multi-Unit Housing; (3) Require Owners Of Dwelling Units In Multi-Unit Housing To Disclose Smoking Prohibitions To Prospective Purchasers And Prospective Tenants And To Post Signage In Common Areas Stating That Smoking Is Prohibited In Dwelling Units; And (4) Prohibit Smoking In Unenclosed Areas Of Bars
I support the smoke-free bar and patio but cannot be on board unless the cannabis exemption for MUH is reevaluated. Without cannabis smoke being banned in multi-unit housing, all smoke-free ordinances are unenforceable.
Support smoke free bar and patio but cannot support cannabis exemption in multi-unit housing since that weakens all smoking policies within MUH. Smoke is smoke and there's no safe or friendly amount between neighbors.
I strongly oppose any ordinance that includes a cannabis exemption of any kind. I request that you either pass the version with no cannabis exemption or only pass the smoke free bar patio portion. I have a compromised immune system and am conflicted about going to my neighborhood pub mainly because so many people smoke on the patio out back. I've made several friendships there but I have to choose between keeping connected to them or leaving to protect my health from secondhand smoke. Every time I visit the patio and my friends are smoking...I come home with a cough. I wish more people didn't smoke on br patios.
As an Oakland resident, I strongly support smoke free protections for bar patios. I also believe that the city should protect multi-unit residents from all types of drifting secondhand smoke -- including cannabis smoke. If the Council wishes to exclude cannabis, I suggest that you remove that portion of the ordinance for discussion at a later meeting.
Americans for Safe Access (ASA) stands in strong support of Councilman Kalb’s proposed amendment of an exception to the “Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance” which would allow the smoking of legal cannabis in one’s home. For the reasons stated below, cannabis patients urgently need this exception. Our organization hopes you will pursue a compassionate stance on this matter and support the exception.
State law does not allow the consumption of cannabis anywhere in public, even for medical relief. Thus, if you enact an ordinance banning the medical use of cannabis in the home, you have eliminated all locations where a patient can legally consume their medicine, frustrating State law which mandates patients have access to their medicine as well as the will of the people because State laws allowing medical and adult cannabis use both arose of out of voter initiatives.
This does not mean that status as a medical cannabis patient serves as a justification for the olfactory discomfort of other tenants. Councilman Kalb has wisely inserted language allowing for a contractual agreement between tenant and landlord which addresses this. In doing so, the City preserves a patient’s legal right to the therapeutic use of cannabis; while allowing the patient and the landlord work out a tailored, nuanced solution not possible with a “once size fits all” law.
Regards,
Sarah Armstrong JD
Outreach Chair Los Angeles and Ventura Counties
Americans for Safe Access
I support the smoke-free bar and patio but cannot be on board unless the cannabis exemption for MUH is reevaluated. Without cannabis smoke being banned in multi-unit housing, all smoke-free ordinances are unenforceable.
Support smoke free bar and patio but cannot support cannabis exemption in multi-unit housing since that weakens all smoking policies within MUH. Smoke is smoke and there's no safe or friendly amount between neighbors.
I strongly oppose any ordinance that includes a cannabis exemption of any kind. I request that you either pass the version with no cannabis exemption or only pass the smoke free bar patio portion. I have a compromised immune system and am conflicted about going to my neighborhood pub mainly because so many people smoke on the patio out back. I've made several friendships there but I have to choose between keeping connected to them or leaving to protect my health from secondhand smoke. Every time I visit the patio and my friends are smoking...I come home with a cough. I wish more people didn't smoke on br patios.
As an Oakland resident, I strongly support smoke free protections for bar patios. I also believe that the city should protect multi-unit residents from all types of drifting secondhand smoke -- including cannabis smoke. If the Council wishes to exclude cannabis, I suggest that you remove that portion of the ordinance for discussion at a later meeting.
Americans for Safe Access (ASA) stands in strong support of Councilman Kalb’s proposed amendment of an exception to the “Smoking Pollution Control Ordinance” which would allow the smoking of legal cannabis in one’s home. For the reasons stated below, cannabis patients urgently need this exception. Our organization hopes you will pursue a compassionate stance on this matter and support the exception.
State law does not allow the consumption of cannabis anywhere in public, even for medical relief. Thus, if you enact an ordinance banning the medical use of cannabis in the home, you have eliminated all locations where a patient can legally consume their medicine, frustrating State law which mandates patients have access to their medicine as well as the will of the people because State laws allowing medical and adult cannabis use both arose of out of voter initiatives.
This does not mean that status as a medical cannabis patient serves as a justification for the olfactory discomfort of other tenants. Councilman Kalb has wisely inserted language allowing for a contractual agreement between tenant and landlord which addresses this. In doing so, the City preserves a patient’s legal right to the therapeutic use of cannabis; while allowing the patient and the landlord work out a tailored, nuanced solution not possible with a “once size fits all” law.
Regards,
Sarah Armstrong JD
Outreach Chair Los Angeles and Ventura Counties
Americans for Safe Access
Support Cannabis Exemption Only
Oppose Without Cannabis Exemption