FEWER SMOKERS FEWER SMOKERS Percentage of the U.S. adult population that smokes: • 1965: 42.4%

• 1970: 37.4%

• 1974: 37.1%

• 1980: 33.2%

• 1985: 30.1%

• 1990: 25.5%

• 1995: 24.7%

• 2001: 22.8%

• 2004: 20.9% Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (latest figures available) Digg



del.icio.us



Newsvine



Reddit



Facebook Lawmakers in two California cities are discussing unprecedented legislation this month that would widen a growing voluntary movement by landlords and resident associations to ban smoking inside apartments and condos. Next Tuesday, the City Council of Belmont is scheduled to cast a final vote on an ordinance that would ban smoking in apartments and condos. The measure, which won initial approval last week, could trigger fines and evictions if neighbors complain and smokers don't heed repeated warnings. YOUR VIEW: What do you think of the Calif. proposals? If you smoke, where do you light up? TENANTS TANGLE: Neighbors take sides on tobacco In Calabasas on Wednesday, the City Council discussed a proposal that would expand its anti-smoking law to bar lighting up inside existing apartments and most new condos. The council agreed to request changes to the measure that would exempt all condos and set aside a certain percentage of apartments for smokers, says city spokesman Michael Hafken. It is slated to consider the revised proposal next month. The legislative push, which has triggered death threats against council members in both cities, is a controversial part of a mostly voluntary effort to prod landlords and condo associations to adopt smoke-free policies. Health officials in about 30 states promote the health and economic benefits, including reduced fire risk and lower cleanup costs for multiunit housing, says Jim Bergman, director of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, a Michigan group funded partly by the state. Tens of thousands of apartments and condos have gone smoke-free in the past five years, management companies and health activists say. Last month, Guardian Management began phasing in a smoke-free policy at 8,000 of its rental units, mostly in Oregon and Washington. "We've proven the voluntary approach can work very well," Bergman says. He doesn't think legislative bans will work because of a "my home is my castle" philosophy. "The time has come. The evils of smoking have been known for decades," says Barry Groveman, a Calabasas councilman who co-wrote the proposal. Still, he knows he's struck a nerve. "I've gotten threats like you wouldn't believe," Groveman says. "Fresh air should be breathed by everybody," Belmont Mayor Coralin Feierbach says. She cites a 2006 surgeon general's report that says no level of secondhand smoke is risk-free. Critics say the bans violate civil and personal property rights. "You should be able to do as you wish in your own home," says Michon Coleman of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors. Belmont's ordinance is "way over the top," because a smoker can be evicted simply for lighting up, says Warren Lieberman, one of two council members who oppose it. Such criticism prompted Oakland last month to remove a ban on smoking in new apartments and condos from an ordinance that barred lighting up in public places. Feierbach says she never intended to create a stir, but she expects other cities to follow Belmont. "We really broke ground," she says. READERS: If you smoke, where do you choose to light up? Do you think local California proposals are justified, overly restrictive or don't go far enough? Share this story: Digg del.icio.us Newsvine Reddit Facebook Enlarge By Paul Sakuma, AP Helen Heinlo smokes outside of a coffee shop in Belmont, Calif. The city is scheduled to vote on a measure that would allow fines and evictions from apartments or condos if neighbors complained and smokers didn't respond. Conversation guidelines: USA TODAY welcomes your thoughts, stories and information related to this article. Please stay on topic and be respectful of others. Keep the conversation appropriate for interested readers across the map.