Aa
California city bans smoking in duplexes and other multi-family homes
SAN RAFAEL, Calif. - A San Francisco suburb on Monday banned smoking in duplexes, condominiums and other multi-family homes, with city leaders saying they hoped to lead a wave of such regulations across California and ultimately the country.
The City Council in San Rafael, a community of 57,000 people about 15 miles north of San Francisco, voted unanimously for the ban, following a handful of other California municipalities that have outlawed smoking in buildings with as few as two units.
"We are happy to blaze a trail," Mayor Gary Phillips said before the vote. "We're most happy to be in the forefront of the issue because we think it will greatly benefit our residents and those visiting San Rafael, and we think it will set the tone for other cities as well."
Tobacco-control experts predicted that the tough smoking ordinance in San Rafael could touch off a larger movement in other states and cities.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
"The San Rafael ban is a very significant event because it will spread," said Robert Proctor, a Stanford University history of science professor. "We're on the downslope of a big curve. Smoking peaked in 1981 with 630 billion cigarettes sold in the United States. Now it's down to 350 billion. And that number will keep on going down until smoking is a distant memory."
San Rafael is the state's ninth municipality to completely restrict smoking in multi-unit housing, said Pam Granger, advocacy manager for the American Lung Association in California. Granger said California was the only state where local jurisdictions have banned smoking in homes.
Supporters of the San Rafael measure say it would protect bystanders from the health hazards associated with secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen that can seep through ventilation ducts, doorways and open windows in residential units with shared walls, California Watch reported.
Although the ordinance has generally been supported by residents who have spoken at city council meetings, the proposal has set the stage for a fierce fight over how far the government should go in regulating peoples' private lives.
"This proposed smoking ban actually intends to punish people for what they do in their own homes," Thomas Ruppenthal told the city council. "I really feel this is tyranny."
City officials say they have received roughly 30 emails and calls from residents who say the ban would leave smokers with few places to go, California Watch reported.
The ordinance also would prohibit smoking on San Rafael's downtown streets - the backdrop for parts of the 1973 film "American Graffiti."
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
When George Lucas filmed his coming-of-age movie in his hometown in 1973 people smoked at work, on airplanes, in restaurants, even in schools and hospitals. It was not until 1977 that neighboring Berkeley became the world's first city to restrict smoking in restaurants.
California restaurants and most workplaces went smoke-free in 1995, and bars, once a smokers' haven, followed in 1998. California and three other states now restrict smoking in cars with children.
Secondhand smoke kills an estimated 50,000 Americans, including 430 infants, a year, according to a 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report. It concluded that concentrations of cancer-causing and toxic chemicals might be higher in secondhand smoke than in the fumes that smokers directly inhale.
California municipalities have used the report to prohibit smoking in apartments and other multi-family homes. In some cases, the laws apply only to new construction or to just a percentage of a housing complex's units.
But the restrictions have become increasingly strict, and San Rafael's ordinance applies to all homes, new or existing and rented or owned, with shared walls.
More content from NBCNews.com:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/16/14480203-california-city-bans-smoking-in-duplexes-and-other-multi-family-homes
The City Council in San Rafael, a community of 57,000 people about 15 miles north of San Francisco, voted unanimously for the ban, following a handful of other California municipalities that have outlawed smoking in buildings with as few as two units.
"We are happy to blaze a trail," Mayor Gary Phillips said before the vote. "We're most happy to be in the forefront of the issue because we think it will greatly benefit our residents and those visiting San Rafael, and we think it will set the tone for other cities as well."
Tobacco-control experts predicted that the tough smoking ordinance in San Rafael could touch off a larger movement in other states and cities.
Stay informed with the latest headlines; sign up for our newsletter
"The San Rafael ban is a very significant event because it will spread," said Robert Proctor, a Stanford University history of science professor. "We're on the downslope of a big curve. Smoking peaked in 1981 with 630 billion cigarettes sold in the United States. Now it's down to 350 billion. And that number will keep on going down until smoking is a distant memory."
San Rafael is the state's ninth municipality to completely restrict smoking in multi-unit housing, said Pam Granger, advocacy manager for the American Lung Association in California. Granger said California was the only state where local jurisdictions have banned smoking in homes.
Supporters of the San Rafael measure say it would protect bystanders from the health hazards associated with secondhand smoke, a known carcinogen that can seep through ventilation ducts, doorways and open windows in residential units with shared walls, California Watch reported.
Although the ordinance has generally been supported by residents who have spoken at city council meetings, the proposal has set the stage for a fierce fight over how far the government should go in regulating peoples' private lives.
"This proposed smoking ban actually intends to punish people for what they do in their own homes," Thomas Ruppenthal told the city council. "I really feel this is tyranny."
City officials say they have received roughly 30 emails and calls from residents who say the ban would leave smokers with few places to go, California Watch reported.
The ordinance also would prohibit smoking on San Rafael's downtown streets - the backdrop for parts of the 1973 film "American Graffiti."
Watch the most-viewed videos on NBCNews.com
When George Lucas filmed his coming-of-age movie in his hometown in 1973 people smoked at work, on airplanes, in restaurants, even in schools and hospitals. It was not until 1977 that neighboring Berkeley became the world's first city to restrict smoking in restaurants.
California restaurants and most workplaces went smoke-free in 1995, and bars, once a smokers' haven, followed in 1998. California and three other states now restrict smoking in cars with children.
Secondhand smoke kills an estimated 50,000 Americans, including 430 infants, a year, according to a 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report. It concluded that concentrations of cancer-causing and toxic chemicals might be higher in secondhand smoke than in the fumes that smokers directly inhale.
California municipalities have used the report to prohibit smoking in apartments and other multi-family homes. In some cases, the laws apply only to new construction or to just a percentage of a housing complex's units.
But the restrictions have become increasingly strict, and San Rafael's ordinance applies to all homes, new or existing and rented or owned, with shared walls.
More content from NBCNews.com:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/16/14480203-california-city-bans-smoking-in-duplexes-and-other-multi-family-homes
The above post goes to another thread... sorry for the inconvenience..... MOOOOOOOOOO
It's them in particular. Get over yourself. I've used the term for a long time and it is directed to individuals/not necessarily women, who seem rather bull-headed and ignorant. They fit the bill.... Have you worked cows, OH?
Do it and you'll understand an honest days work. You'll also figure out that heifers are pretty hard to deal with.... You can take offense, but why? Nobody called you anything and I was not stereotyping women....
Do it and you'll understand an honest days work. You'll also figure out that heifers are pretty hard to deal with.... You can take offense, but why? Nobody called you anything and I was not stereotyping women....
I agree in that I believe in personal liberty whether it's about birth control or smoking. Its up to the individual.
Although when something is socially unacceptable that does affect people's choices besides, it being so difficult.
While traveling, I hated being in cafe's with young Europeans smoking like chimneys ( especially the French~ not sure why)
The fact that it is socially acceptable for them, I believe meant more of them smoke.
Around here it isn't really socially acceptable. But then again, I live in the land of vegan soul food restaurants. I still haven't figured that one out.
How do you have soul food without lard ? lol.
Although when something is socially unacceptable that does affect people's choices besides, it being so difficult.
While traveling, I hated being in cafe's with young Europeans smoking like chimneys ( especially the French~ not sure why)
The fact that it is socially acceptable for them, I believe meant more of them smoke.
Around here it isn't really socially acceptable. But then again, I live in the land of vegan soul food restaurants. I still haven't figured that one out.
How do you have soul food without lard ? lol.
"I read your comment El, and now have this image in my head of the swat team surrounding a house for smoking violations...lol. Can't you just picture it? Like a grow op bust. Or arresting someone for having too big a softdrink in public..ha "
LOL! "Dropthe big gulp and put your hands in the air!!" LMAO!
"I live in California not all that far from San Rafael.
Although I don't like these types of laws, I have to say that since more and more laws came along here in the state, outlawing where you can smoke, I see less and less people smoking. "
I agree completely, thats because they have made it SO hard and SOP expensive that people just give up. Now, of course that's a very GOOD thing, but it's just not right.
LOL! "Dropthe big gulp and put your hands in the air!!" LMAO!
"I live in California not all that far from San Rafael.
Although I don't like these types of laws, I have to say that since more and more laws came along here in the state, outlawing where you can smoke, I see less and less people smoking. "
I agree completely, thats because they have made it SO hard and SOP expensive that people just give up. Now, of course that's a very GOOD thing, but it's just not right.
I live in California not all that far from San Rafael.
Although I don't like these types of laws, I have to say that since more and more laws came along here in the state, outlawing where you can smoke, I see less and less people smoking.
Last weekend I attended a wedding. A small group of smokers gathered in the garden outside the hall. Ten years ago, the group would have been much larger. Twenty years ago, even larger.
Like it or not, I do think these laws are working to help stop people from smoking.
How would they enforce it ? It gives the landlord a reason to evict the tenant.
Someone would have to complain. Also I'd think they'd loose their deposit.
Although I don't like these types of laws, I have to say that since more and more laws came along here in the state, outlawing where you can smoke, I see less and less people smoking.
Last weekend I attended a wedding. A small group of smokers gathered in the garden outside the hall. Ten years ago, the group would have been much larger. Twenty years ago, even larger.
Like it or not, I do think these laws are working to help stop people from smoking.
How would they enforce it ? It gives the landlord a reason to evict the tenant.
Someone would have to complain. Also I'd think they'd loose their deposit.
I read your comment El, and now have this image in my head of the swat team surrounding a house for smoking violations...lol. Can't you just picture it? Like a grow op bust. Or arresting someone for having too big a softdrink in public..ha
Really though, how would they enforce it? Now we would be talking about a waste of resources.
Really though, how would they enforce it? Now we would be talking about a waste of resources.
We had a big smoking ban here locally. Only one joint fought, and won a legal battle over keeping the right to remain a "smoker friendly environment". Now, some 2 years after winning, they too decided to be non smoking. It affected the joint for the positive... more new clients frequent the place.
But their stand on the issue was that it is a personal preference. Smokers know the potential damage they are doing, and those that hang out in smokey environs know the ramifications of doing so. As I said, they fought and won. The judge stated that it was their right to keep the place "smoker friendly" and those who don't smoke, don't need to go into a smokey environment.
For the government to mandate enforcement like this in private places is too much. We have a damned "leash law" for dogs that they cant enforce, or won't enforce.... It's ridiculous. They screw around with things like this, and real issues sit on the back burner. Issues that affect us all get far less attention over issues that are personal choices. They've got to stop.
But their stand on the issue was that it is a personal preference. Smokers know the potential damage they are doing, and those that hang out in smokey environs know the ramifications of doing so. As I said, they fought and won. The judge stated that it was their right to keep the place "smoker friendly" and those who don't smoke, don't need to go into a smokey environment.
For the government to mandate enforcement like this in private places is too much. We have a damned "leash law" for dogs that they cant enforce, or won't enforce.... It's ridiculous. They screw around with things like this, and real issues sit on the back burner. Issues that affect us all get far less attention over issues that are personal choices. They've got to stop.
Teko, SM....agree wholeheartedly with both of you. Great posts.
Yes, I agree. I really don't think that the city/state should get involved unless it is city owned property. I don't like ANYONE telling me what to do. Most smokers I know go outside or in the garage.
My aunt has said to me before that she resents how smokers are treated. I get that. That part is unfortunate.
But I don't like the government getting overly in people's business/ home life for sure.
My aunt has said to me before that she resents how smokers are treated. I get that. That part is unfortunate.
But I don't like the government getting overly in people's business/ home life for sure.
I think the government should stay out of it or the next thing will be limiting you to many other things in a rental environment. Its a can of worms that overrides not only the owner of a property but is prejudice against smokers. Next will it be drinkers? Or like I said above, someone using bleach that the neighbor doesn't like the smell of?
However, I have NO problem with the owner of said property layin down restrictions and under a lease is a mutual agreement between two consenting adults.
Thats my opinion.... I rent, I smoke, but I do it outside the house, more because I dont like the odor and buildup on the furniture, but out of respect for the landlord as well.
If the owner does not want you smoking in the residence and you disagree or are a chain smoker or whatever, find another dwelling. But hands off with governing.
I also don't think cigarettes will ever be illegal simply because they make so much money off of it and regardless of price a smoker will pay it because they need their fix. imo
However, I have NO problem with the owner of said property layin down restrictions and under a lease is a mutual agreement between two consenting adults.
Thats my opinion.... I rent, I smoke, but I do it outside the house, more because I dont like the odor and buildup on the furniture, but out of respect for the landlord as well.
If the owner does not want you smoking in the residence and you disagree or are a chain smoker or whatever, find another dwelling. But hands off with governing.
I also don't think cigarettes will ever be illegal simply because they make so much money off of it and regardless of price a smoker will pay it because they need their fix. imo
Not sure what they'd do to enforce it. We'd hit them on the other end and keep the whole deposit for clean up.
And how, pray tell, are they going to enforce this "mandate"?
I agree with Vance, this is going too far. I'm a smoker and take no issue with restaraunts, and airports, schools...places like that to be smoke free, but to tell peolpe they cannot smoke in their own home? That IS a violation of someone's rights!
I also agree it should be up to the owner. That's their right, and I take no issue with that. People choosing an apt, or house, can choose based on their needs and desires, whether they want to seek out a smoke-free place to live, or if they're a smoker...and they're looking for a place with either no or minimal restrictions. SM, I would never fault you for choosing that, it's YOUR property, if you lived there, you wouldn't smoke there. PLUS, I totally get it...it would be VERY hard to rent it out again after someone smoked in it. That smell never goes away. Thats a condition of renting from you...and totally fair. Its nice that you even provide an ashtray.
On the flip side, however, what if you WERE a smoker, and allowed it...and you had a vacancy, the government regulated that smoking isn't permitted....times are tough, the ONLY prospective tenant you have is a smoker, and that's a deal breaker for them. I KNOW you wouldn't appreciate someone MANDATING what you can do with your OWN property.
I'm a smoker and have NEVER smoked inside my house. My husband DEPLORES smoking. Even if he didn't, out of respect for my family, especially the kids, I would still smoke outside.
I also agree that many (if not most) smokers are freaking pigs. There will be a ashtray, and there are butts allll over the ground. Jesus. Don't be such a hog, be respectful, it's nasty. I get that...I get all of that...but that still doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to do as I choose. Christ, they're literally squeezing out smokers by making it nearly impossible to find a place to smoke. It's simply NOT fair. And, to ban smoking in an OUTSIDE venue? Like a park? Nonsense. have a smoking area...don't freaking ban it.
I take issue with these newest laws telling people what they can do in their own home, or in the car etc. It's just going WAY too far. The government makes a FORTUNE on tobacco products, they are taxed to death....which is why I find the tough legislation to be so hypocritical. It's fine for them to make money hand over fist, but then they want to give the impression that they're trying to reduce or eliminate tobacco products. BS! They know they have people over a barrel, people will keep paying higher and higher prices. I'm one of them. It IS ridiculous. Over $7/pack, and MOST of that is taxes. So, they're making a killing, yet are so "concerned". I'm not buying it.
The public smoking laws are different. I've made my OWN choice, knowing the risks, to smoke. The guy beside me in a restaurant, or other place, didn't make that choice. But how DARE they tell me what I can and can't do in my own home, or in my own car (that's coming too). Think about it...what's next? A limit on how many alcoholic beverages you can have in your home? How many people you can have over for a party?
Smoking is bad for you, smoking will kill you...yes, all of that is true. I think the government's role in tobacco should be to make sure the products aren't being marketed to minors (which they have done), keep people in PUBLIC areas from having to be subjected to it (which they have done), ensure there are proper warnings (which they have done, hell, they changed the way they are packaged, where cigs can no longer be called "lights" and "ultra lights"...they had to go to like "blue pack", "gold pack"), and collect their boatloads of money in taxes. It's just scary the level of "regulation" that is becoming "okay" with people. It really is. Even if you're not a smoker, you shouldn't be okay with someone being told what they can and can't do in their OWN home. That's a travesty.
Like this:
http://health.heraldtribune.com/2012/09/14/new-york-first-city-to-ban-big-gulps/
Seriously? A BAN on allowing sugary drinks larger than 16 oz?? WHERE is our sense of accountability??? This kind of stuff is just getting out of hand. It won't be long where you'll have to buy donuts on the black market. Seriously. LET PEOPLE make their OWN decisions. If they make stupid ones, that's on them.
Grrrr.
I also agree it should be up to the owner. That's their right, and I take no issue with that. People choosing an apt, or house, can choose based on their needs and desires, whether they want to seek out a smoke-free place to live, or if they're a smoker...and they're looking for a place with either no or minimal restrictions. SM, I would never fault you for choosing that, it's YOUR property, if you lived there, you wouldn't smoke there. PLUS, I totally get it...it would be VERY hard to rent it out again after someone smoked in it. That smell never goes away. Thats a condition of renting from you...and totally fair. Its nice that you even provide an ashtray.
On the flip side, however, what if you WERE a smoker, and allowed it...and you had a vacancy, the government regulated that smoking isn't permitted....times are tough, the ONLY prospective tenant you have is a smoker, and that's a deal breaker for them. I KNOW you wouldn't appreciate someone MANDATING what you can do with your OWN property.
I'm a smoker and have NEVER smoked inside my house. My husband DEPLORES smoking. Even if he didn't, out of respect for my family, especially the kids, I would still smoke outside.
I also agree that many (if not most) smokers are freaking pigs. There will be a ashtray, and there are butts allll over the ground. Jesus. Don't be such a hog, be respectful, it's nasty. I get that...I get all of that...but that still doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to do as I choose. Christ, they're literally squeezing out smokers by making it nearly impossible to find a place to smoke. It's simply NOT fair. And, to ban smoking in an OUTSIDE venue? Like a park? Nonsense. have a smoking area...don't freaking ban it.
I take issue with these newest laws telling people what they can do in their own home, or in the car etc. It's just going WAY too far. The government makes a FORTUNE on tobacco products, they are taxed to death....which is why I find the tough legislation to be so hypocritical. It's fine for them to make money hand over fist, but then they want to give the impression that they're trying to reduce or eliminate tobacco products. BS! They know they have people over a barrel, people will keep paying higher and higher prices. I'm one of them. It IS ridiculous. Over $7/pack, and MOST of that is taxes. So, they're making a killing, yet are so "concerned". I'm not buying it.
The public smoking laws are different. I've made my OWN choice, knowing the risks, to smoke. The guy beside me in a restaurant, or other place, didn't make that choice. But how DARE they tell me what I can and can't do in my own home, or in my own car (that's coming too). Think about it...what's next? A limit on how many alcoholic beverages you can have in your home? How many people you can have over for a party?
Smoking is bad for you, smoking will kill you...yes, all of that is true. I think the government's role in tobacco should be to make sure the products aren't being marketed to minors (which they have done), keep people in PUBLIC areas from having to be subjected to it (which they have done), ensure there are proper warnings (which they have done, hell, they changed the way they are packaged, where cigs can no longer be called "lights" and "ultra lights"...they had to go to like "blue pack", "gold pack"), and collect their boatloads of money in taxes. It's just scary the level of "regulation" that is becoming "okay" with people. It really is. Even if you're not a smoker, you shouldn't be okay with someone being told what they can and can't do in their OWN home. That's a travesty.
Like this:
http://health.heraldtribune.com/2012/09/14/new-york-first-city-to-ban-big-gulps/
Seriously? A BAN on allowing sugary drinks larger than 16 oz?? WHERE is our sense of accountability??? This kind of stuff is just getting out of hand. It won't be long where you'll have to buy donuts on the black market. Seriously. LET PEOPLE make their OWN decisions. If they make stupid ones, that's on them.
Grrrr.
The smoking laws aren't as tough here as they are there, but still, I think smoking is probably heading toward an illegal substance. Maybe not in our lifetime, but I do think eventually it will happen.
I have been an on and off smoker for many many years (sadly, on right now). And it is a deadly habit. So, while I support individual rights, I do think people who choose not to smoke should be protected from second hand smoke, etc. And if you are in an apartment building or something, you can smell it walking past doors and in common areas. So I don't know, maybe it's not a bad thing?
I have been an on and off smoker for many many years (sadly, on right now). And it is a deadly habit. So, while I support individual rights, I do think people who choose not to smoke should be protected from second hand smoke, etc. And if you are in an apartment building or something, you can smell it walking past doors and in common areas. So I don't know, maybe it's not a bad thing?
I just saw they called San Rafael a suburb of San Francisco. I doubt the Marinites there would care for that. It's a lovely town in it's own right, not a housing development burb.
Seeing that this is California, I wonder if the smoking law goes for peoples
'medicine' too.
'medicine' too.
Well, we put a container outside for the butts. I agree, I don't like to see them either. One time we had a man and woman that threw butts off the side of their patio for the whole year they lived there, I think. It was disgusting and guess who got to clean those up? Gag me.
Proper disposal of the butts seems like common courtesy to me.
Proper disposal of the butts seems like common courtesy to me.
I do think it should be up to the owners of the buildings and I do think it should be fine to smoke on one's patio or deck or wherever, outside the apartment.
I don't think I'd want to have a smoker living in an apartment next to me, not if I could smell the smoke.
Although it seems fine to smoke outside, I hate seeing cigarette butts on the ground in the park or even on the sidewalk for that matter.
I don't think I'd want to have a smoker living in an apartment next to me, not if I could smell the smoke.
Although it seems fine to smoke outside, I hate seeing cigarette butts on the ground in the park or even on the sidewalk for that matter.
I think they should leave it to the owner of the building...
Government going too far for sure on this. As the owner of an apartment complex, I think one should be able to make the rules as they see fit. No smoking, certain amount of vehicles, no trailers, so much stuff allowed on decks.... I am fine with all of that. The government to say so.... **** on them.
I think that decision should rest with the owner of the dwelling. Most rentals now are non smoking and you know that going in and opt to rent or not to rent and if you do, its outdoors only.
Legislating that is a whole different animal imo. From government. How long will it be before you cannot cook with certain spices like curry for example?
Legislating that is a whole different animal imo. From government. How long will it be before you cannot cook with certain spices like curry for example?
Well, this is probably not going to go over very well but we have a rental property and our apartments are non smoking. We have it written into our lease.
It is not because we are anti smoking but rather we think about after someone moves out and renting the place again. Some non smokers absolutely would not move into a place that had the remnants of smoke. If they smell it --- the place is off their list of potential apartments. '
So, I smile my best pretty smile and tell all who look at our apartments that they are non smoking but that they are welcome to smoke outside and will tell you that in twelve years, I've never had one person act upset about this or put out by it. We've had plenty of smokers. They usually tell me that they are a smoker and will smoke outside. They have decks, covered patios--- so they smoke there.
I guess I always felt like we were small time property owners/landlords and this was a reasonable request.
I never looked at it like we were taking rights away or infringing on private lives. Hm.
Before we had the no smoking part of our lease, we had carpets cleaned and the walls washed down. We had a bad experience with it so put in the non smoking section of our lease. And it has been smooth sailing ever since. Our tenants have never once mentioned this as bothersome to them.
It is not because we are anti smoking but rather we think about after someone moves out and renting the place again. Some non smokers absolutely would not move into a place that had the remnants of smoke. If they smell it --- the place is off their list of potential apartments. '
So, I smile my best pretty smile and tell all who look at our apartments that they are non smoking but that they are welcome to smoke outside and will tell you that in twelve years, I've never had one person act upset about this or put out by it. We've had plenty of smokers. They usually tell me that they are a smoker and will smoke outside. They have decks, covered patios--- so they smoke there.
I guess I always felt like we were small time property owners/landlords and this was a reasonable request.
I never looked at it like we were taking rights away or infringing on private lives. Hm.
Before we had the no smoking part of our lease, we had carpets cleaned and the walls washed down. We had a bad experience with it so put in the non smoking section of our lease. And it has been smooth sailing ever since. Our tenants have never once mentioned this as bothersome to them.
This is going too far, if they want to why not just tax smoking out of existance and cost millions of jobs? It's legal so they need to stop telling people where they can and can not smoke. I can see inside of resturants and things like that, but in own homes, public parks, just not right. Hope stuff likes this goes to the Supreme Court.
I am a non-smoker, always have been and always will be.
I am a non-smoker, always have been and always will be.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
