If you rent in a no smoking building, that means no smoking, whatever you are smoking. Is it really complicated?

It's not illegal, it's merely a civil contract violation. If you want to get evicted, you can take your case to court; see how it goes. Dog's shitting in the park is illegal.

I've told all my tenants that the 'no smoking' policy means 'no smoking anything.' I've got no problem with vaporizers, though, as they don't leave the smell in the carpets and walls.

And although I *haven't* told my tenants that I don't mind if they smoke on the porch, I don't plan on complaining to anyone if I see it.

Reymont is right, vaporizers solve this problem.

It would be interesting to see statistics about the number of minutes/hours that the average pot smoker smokes during a 24 hour period, vs the average cigarette smoker. My guess is that pot smokers are lit up for a tiny percentage of the time that cig smokers puff away. So the damage to paint, wallpaper, etc. is going to be far less. And once you put vaporizers into the mix, it's insignificant. I have seen/smelled apartments whose owners smoke weed on a daily basis over a several year period -- there is no indication whatsoever of the fact. Landlords need to lighten up. Get a good air cleaner and a vape, and nobody is the wiser. Now about that curry my neighbor cooks every day. . .

Pot is legal, but you can't smoke it anywhere you'd want to smoke it. So this law embodies the passive aggressiveness that is emblematic of Portland. The people, indeed, have spoken.

I do think there's a serious equal protection issue to be addressed here. How come cooking smells, pet smells, fertilizer smells, and all the rest are perfectly fine, but there is something about marijuana that requires not the slightest whiff to be smelled? This is patently unfair. If you make a law that says "no stinky fertilizer on the lawn, no curry smells, no baking Kale, no paint fumes, no exhaust smells while you work on your motorbike or whatever, and no pot smells. . . I get that. No smells. But to single out one particular smell (weed) as intolerable over all others is ridiculous. Now if you can prove that I might get cancer from smelling second hand weed smoke from the downstairs apartment, perhaps there is an argument. But I know of no such study or conclusions. There is simply no reasonable logic to say that the odor of pot smoking should be considered more obnoxious than any of the other smells escaping from a neighbor's apartment. If I have to tolerate your curry or Kale baking, you should be willing to tolerate my vape.

They would literally need to catch you smoking. Barring hotboxing your place after a 24 hour notice, it's gonna be real hard to prove that smell isn't coming from the jar on my shelf.

You guys are all so lame. As any self respecting indoor guerilla grower is aware, ionizing air filtration will neutralize even the heaviest reeks of cheese and chorizo.

It's close to the same for cigarettes. For cigarettes, you cannot smoke in non-smoking apartments. You cannot smoke in bars or restaurants. You cannot smoke in public places or parks. You cannot smoke less than 10ft from doors, windows, and vents. Essentially you can smoke in traffic. So either bend the rules at your own risk and hope some of them are held in abeyance, or smoke in your car if you have one.

It hasn't really prevented most people from smoking weed on the sidewalk or in their apartments heretofore, so I doubt it will really prevent people now.

Ovidius -- all correct, or course. But the issue for the long term is -- all the rules barring cigarette smoking weren't created so much because we the people think that smoke and odor should be controlled -- the rules were made on the principle that cigarette smoke is carcinogenic, and it is patently unfair that your uncontrolled smoke could make an unwilling participant sick with cancer.

But with marijuana, there is very little evidence to suggest that it causes cancer, particularly if "smoked" in a vaporizer, instead of burning it. Even less to suggest that second hand marijuana smoke has effects similar to tobacco. So the principles that brought us the cigarette rules don't really apply, right? If it doesn't cause cancer, I think people have no more right to be protected from smelling it than we have to protected from smelling anything else out there.

In fact one doesn't even need to hold one's breath on inhalation of Cannabis smoke, as THC is instantly absorbed; exhalation is inert. Side stream directly from the burning herb, however, is still psychoactive.

Paul, perhaps. But I think what the article is saying is that it is not illegal for you to smoke in your home, but you are still subject to the rules and restrictions of your landlord -- a separate issue from the law. It does not say why landlords want a no-smoking policy, but I would guess it has something to do with smoke and odor. In any case, it's a bit much ado about nothing, since both smokers of cigarettes and marijuana have skirted laws and regulations of all sorts for quite some time.

Smoking is the problem; not weed. Is this really hard to understand??

Just light up close to the ionizing air filter. The smoke will be drawn in, and the detectors won't even trip.

Pot smell does not linger and stick to things like ciggarettes. I think that it has more to do with landlords becoming the new scum of the earth. Cleaning the carpet and painting used to be routine, but now they just gouge your eyes out on rent and then slumlord it because they can.