Skip to comments.California: Legislature Approves Renter Smoking Ban
Posted on 08/18/2011 5:52:39 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Legislature Approves Renter Smoking Ban
Updated: Monday, 15 Aug 2011, 7:12 PM PDT
Published : Monday, 15 Aug 2011, 7:12 PM PDT
Sacramento - Landlords will be able to ban smoking on their properties, including inside rental units, if Gov. Jerry Brown signs a bill sent to him by the state Senate.
Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles says his bill is designed to give families more smoke-free options. He says 86 percent of Californians don't smoke, yet smoke-free multifamily housing remains comparatively rare.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxla.com ...
Why do we need a law for this? This sounds like a policy for owners...
Does this also mean all the government housing?
Looks like we gotta' get a California law in D.C.
When the Gubmint confiscates all the insurance carriers (i.e. Health, Dental, Auto, mortgage and Property) home ‘owners’ will be prohibited from smoking in single family houses.
First, those diabolical Home Owners’ Associations will do a test run.
I can see their point. The smell lingers and seeps into everything. I never really noticed it before. I think if you’ve been raised around it you don’t notice it, but if you haven’t been raised around it it really does stink.
The law probably protects them some how from being sued. ?
Pretty soon they’ll be goose stepping down the streets on May Day! Or do they do that already in LA?
Already done in dorms.
You’ve got that right. Most landlords in CA enforce a no smoking policy if they so desire it. They ask you before you move in if you smoke and make it part of the Rental agreement/lease that you can’t smoke inside the building. No law is necessary. Just one more useless regulation designed to control the people.
LOL! The first tenant who gets busted under this who turns out to be smoking medicinal pot is gonna tie up the entire California court system for the next nineteen years.
Why do they keep passing such laws? Wouldn’t it be more logical to go all the way and ban the sale and possession of tobacco?
I’d like to think this is a blow for property rights, but its not. Its just more anti-smoking PC crap.
Right decision, wrong justification.
Sorry, May Day in Los Angeles is already reserved for illegal alien protests.
I’d think they’ll wait for the fifth of May, actually.
You apparently don’t understand: Tobacco is BAD for you and those around you. Pot is GOOD for you and those around you.
You have to understand, they are both from a burning, smoldering weed, but only one is Good.
They nearly ban all firearms and preverts within 1,000’ of schools... maybe they should also ban smoking within the school zones. /s
No way. To ban the sale of tobacco and its products would cut a large hole in the TAX REVENUES of varied governments. This could NOT be allowed to occur. The fact that “evil” tobacco is reputed to kill a large percentage of its users cannot be taken into account. The governments cannot take the hit of tax revenue loss.
Some politicians will do the math, and realize the bonanza the legalization of all kinds of narcotics would accrue to governments by way of sales taxes on legal narcotics.
What matters is not right or wrong, but revenues to “help the people”. (big sarc)
A step towards restoring property rights to landlords.
The only medicinal pot user I know doesn’t smoke it, he vaporizes it and inhales the vapors, no smoke at all. He must be getting a form of hash oil.
Is there still anyone living in California?
Between the socialist economy and the fascist regulations, it’s amazing that there are still people there except actors/actresses and lawyers.
If one can, in any meaningful sense, consider them ‘people.’
They have always had the right to ban smoking on their rental properties, this law is meaningless.
How ironic that you posted that remark on a forum that is based in CA.
Private property owners controlling the terms and conditions to the use of their property?
I never thought we needed a law for something so obvious, but it’s California. If it were anything other than smoking, there would be a law (probably already is) giving the renter full control.
It will override any local ordinance which would have prohibited landlords from discriminating against smokers and also sets a precedent that allows landlords to actually exercise discrimination based on behavior. It is a recognition of the property rights of landlords.
Although it may have no practical effect it is a step in the right direction taken, no doubt, by a legislature that had no intention of doing so.
Actually, the vaporizor users use the same plant parts, not oil.
The only direction this is going is to advance the war on smoking. As you have noted, the CA legislature does not give a rip about property rights, they have banned smoking in private establishments such as bars and retaurants. If they can get away with it, they will ban smoking even in one's own home, in fact, I think there is a City ordinance in Davis that you cannot even smoke in your backyard, and apparently, no state law that prevents such an ordinance.
The war on tobacco is a sham. If it's so bad it should just be banned. Give me a break, gov't. But, of course, we're clever enough to know it isn't about public safety but about control and, most importantly, revenues.
Exactly. No law needed.
Just set up a government work program to fumigate the rentals - kind of like the federal housing insulation deal.
Just imagine all the new jobs - glory hallelujah. (sarc)
I mean if 86% of Californians don’t smoke, the problem should soon correct itself.