Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elk Grove Considers Banning Smoking In All Apartment Complexes
CBS Sacramento ^ | March 22, 2012 | CBS13

Posted on 03/25/2012 9:03:07 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

ELK GROVE (CBS13) – You’ve heard the saying smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. But if you got ‘em and you live in an apartment complex in Elk Grove, the luxury of lighting up may soon go up in smoke.

“i think it’s a pretty good idea,” one apartment resident said.

He’s talking about the possibility of banning smoking in all apartment complexes in the city.

A Sacramento-based trade association that works with landlords is against the idea, however.

“We don’t think it’s necessary,” said Cory Koehler with the Rental Housing Association. We support an owner’s right to choose the policy that’s in the best interest of their particular property. But what we don’t support is a new law by local government forcing the owner to do that.”

That’s because hundreds of apartment complexes in Elk Grove are already smoke-free. Property owners – many argue – have made the move without government intervention.

But a father and apartment resident wants the ban to go into effect:

“I think it’s harmful to the human body and especially to younger kids who live here,” he said.

Others say no way and are left shaking their heads.

“I don’t think it’s right,” one resident said. “That’s kind of violating people’s rights.”

The right to light up vs. the power of a possible ordinance – this smokin’ hot debate over a cigarette showdown has only just begun.

The City Council will take up the issue at its meeting next week.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: apartments; elkgrove; nannystate; pufflist; smokingban

1 posted on 03/25/2012 9:03:13 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084; SheLion; Gabz; Hank Kerchief; 383rr; libertarian27; traviskicks; bamahead; CSM; ...

Nanny State PING!


2 posted on 03/25/2012 9:04:41 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Liberty is offfensive to the collective.


3 posted on 03/25/2012 9:11:11 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What happened to the one proposed in Rocklin, CA by the City Council that was to prohibit anyone from smoking OUTSIDE their own home? Haven’t seen an end result on that one.


4 posted on 03/25/2012 9:13:32 AM PDT by Thank You Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Well, the POS socialists want to ban it because they deem it to be harmful to the health of citizens (as if they really care). If that is a great idea then ban homosexual partnerships in apartments because that has been proven to be a lifestyle that can affect the public’s health.


5 posted on 03/25/2012 9:15:11 AM PDT by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The anti-smoking lobby has gone from a position that could be based on factual, observational and scientific to a position that can only be supported by superstition and witchcraft.


6 posted on 03/25/2012 9:17:37 AM PDT by Jonty30 (What Islam and secularism have in common is that they are both death cults.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Forced to buy health insurance, forbidden to smoke, denied the right to choose an appropriate light bulb, children coerced into schools that can’t teach... FU liberals.


7 posted on 03/25/2012 9:18:59 AM PDT by GOPJ (Democrat-Media Complex - buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“We don’t think it’s necessary,” said Cory Koehler with the Rental Housing Association. We support an owner’s right to choose the policy that’s in the best interest of their particular property. But what we don’t support is a new law by local government forcing the owner to do that.”

Welcome to the watch list Cory.

8 posted on 03/25/2012 9:21:01 AM PDT by mykroar (Ray: "You drank too much."...Archer: "That's a thing?!?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
But a father and apartment resident wants the ban to go into effect:

“I think it’s harmful to the human body and especially to younger kids who live here,” he said.

What's stopping him from moving to an apartment building where smoking is already banned? Why does he hate his own kids?

Anway, this whole smoking jihad has never been about smoking. It's a sustained infringement on property rights and a softening up of the populace to accept government control of the minutiae of every aspect of a formerly free peoples' lives.

It has, in fact, been praised as the successful template for tyranny.

9 posted on 03/25/2012 9:21:51 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“I think it’s harmful to the human body and especially to younger kids who live here,” he said.

That about sums up the Nanny State mentality. Its harmful to the body (so much for personal choice) and its for the children (even if no children are in the private residence). People have completely forgotten the concept of personal liberty. "Its harmful to the body." So what? So are ice cream and tattoos.

Even in Orwell's 1984, people got to smoke and each chocolate.

10 posted on 03/25/2012 9:22:43 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

In other news.. Local/state governments are complaining that tobacco taxes are down and they are looking for ways to make up the “shortfall”


11 posted on 03/25/2012 9:42:34 AM PDT by cableguymn (Good thing I am a conservative. Otherwise I would have to support Mittens like Republicans do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“I think it’s harmful to the human body and especially to younger kids who live here,” he said.

These people actually make it through the growing up period, reproduce, and vote.

12 posted on 03/25/2012 9:49:10 AM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a momma deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
What's stopping him from moving to an apartment building where smoking is already banned? Why does he hate his own kids?

Great Question!
He must be one of those people who are incapable of making their own decisions, and by this incapacity, according to his beliefs... HE IS putting his child at risk.
Hey, maybe his child can sue him for not moving him out of the perceived 'harms way'...

13 posted on 03/25/2012 9:55:18 AM PDT by libertarian27 (Check my profile page for the FReeper Online Cookbook 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: libertarian27; Madame Dufarge; Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What he is also admiting here is that the City Council also has the ability to mandate all apartment complexes must permit smoking, since he is accepting the idea the council can ban it..................


14 posted on 03/25/2012 10:09:05 AM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Thanks for the ping!


15 posted on 03/25/2012 10:37:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

It’s a double-edged sword, for sure. :-)


16 posted on 03/25/2012 10:48:59 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

MOVE elsewhere, JackWagon!!!


17 posted on 03/25/2012 11:20:59 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Santa Clara County ordinance
http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/scc/aspecial?path=%252Fv7%252FSCC%2520Public%2520Portal&contentId=3fb6284011b7c210VgnVCM10000048dc4a92____

The Multi-Unit Residences Ordinance bans smoking in the common areas of all multi-unit residences in the unincorporated areas. Furthermore, the ordinance will ban smoking in all units of apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. The ordinance allows for setting up designated smoking areas for multi-unit residences provided that they are in unenclosed areas that are at least 30 feet away from operable doors, windows and other openings into enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited.


18 posted on 03/25/2012 11:34:32 AM PDT by jennychase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I saw a movie last week, can't remember the name, where there was a house of oll repute connected with an illegal gambling joint.

One of the characters wanted a cigarette and went outside to smoke it.

19 posted on 03/25/2012 11:38:25 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6

ill repute.


20 posted on 03/25/2012 11:39:27 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

the comments at the article are something else... lots of pro smoking comments


21 posted on 03/25/2012 12:08:31 PM PDT by markman46 (engage brain before using keyboard!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6

LOL!


22 posted on 03/25/2012 12:55:58 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

What I do not understand is why some clever child doesn’t invent an appliance that allows a person to smoke without producing airborne particulates that bother other people. It is a matter of containment and filtration. It can’t be that big a technical leap.


23 posted on 03/25/2012 12:57:32 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (There is no such thing as "renewable" energy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

All you say is true....yet...liberals won’t ‘ban’ anything per se. They just expound on the benefits or detriments and spew forth rules and regulations that titillate them, all the while making you pay for it through taxes.

Smoking is bad for you; it is bad for others, blah, blah, blah. Then ban the goddam things! Why don’t they? You all know the reason. Effing Hypocrits


24 posted on 03/25/2012 1:16:40 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You’re applying a sane person’s view of science, logic, and action. That isn’t what they are about. The very fact that you might be enjoying a cigarette somewhere pisses them off.

I’ve seen it a hundred times. Someone smoking in open air down wind from a stuffed liberal and the liberal’s first reaction is to cough, clear their throat and issue forth a dirty look....

It would piss off a liberal if you even had an unlit cigarette in your mouth near them. The words you’ll hear are “you can’t smoke here”, etc.


25 posted on 03/25/2012 1:20:39 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Smoking is bad for you; it is bad for others, blah, blah, blah. Then ban the goddam things! Why don’t they? You all know the reason. Effing Hypocrits

Gay sex with many partners is more dangerous than smoking - but for some reason, liberals don't care about that...

26 posted on 03/25/2012 1:59:07 PM PDT by GOPJ (Democrat-Media Complex - buried stories and distorted facts... freeper 'andrew' Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Stage one thinkers at their finest. Our republic is doomed.


27 posted on 03/26/2012 6:07:25 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

“What he is also admiting here is that the City Council also has the ability to mandate all apartment complexes must permit smoking, since he is accepting the idea the council can ban it..”

Great point and you should see the liberal heads explode when I point this out to them. They can’t see the logical shortfalls of their own positions....


28 posted on 03/26/2012 6:14:18 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

The advent of the e-cig is proof that your suggestion would not be accepted. The e-cigs emit steam, yet they “look like cigarettes” so the loons freak out and ban them.


29 posted on 03/26/2012 6:16:42 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CSM
The advent of the e-cig is proof that your suggestion would not be accepted. The e-cigs emit steam, yet they “look like cigarettes” so the loons freak out and ban them.

Of that I had little doubt, but I'd love to see the underlying legal argument.

30 posted on 03/26/2012 6:38:25 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There is no such thing as "renewable" energy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

There is no underlying legal argument. They are simply being banned because “people don’t know for sure what is in them and they are uncomfortable.”


31 posted on 03/26/2012 6:47:13 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CSM
They certainly would complicate enforcement. I could see a municipality exercising powers like that on those grounds, but not the Feds.

I wasn't thinking of something like an e-cig anyway, but an actual containment device by which a person could smoke and emit nothing but air. It would look different. There would be no emissions. It would be a much more interesting test case.

Now, under socialized medicine I could see how a rationale for banning such a device might be constructed, but not now.

32 posted on 03/26/2012 6:53:47 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There is no such thing as "renewable" energy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

” but an actual containment device by which a person could smoke and emit nothing but air.”

In all truth, the emissions from an e-cig is no different than the steam from a cup of coffee. There is no harm and no tangible smell. However, due to it being steam it “looks like smoke” and therefore it must be banned because “other people are uncomfortable.”

My point is that we no longer have any expectation of people being able to think. Instead we govern to the least common denominator and in the vast majority of cases we go a step further and govern to the most ludicrous emotional response.


33 posted on 03/26/2012 7:09:26 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CSM
In all truth, the emissions from an e-cig is no different than the steam from a cup of coffee.

I understood that. What I have been talking about the entire time is a way for a user to get tobacco smoke, not steam, and still emit no smoke upon exhalation. It would take a machine that contains the user's breathing passages. NOBODY could mistake that for a cigarette. Got it now?

34 posted on 03/26/2012 7:29:35 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (There is no such thing as "renewable" energy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

When you think about how even first hand smoke on average takes decades to actually kill a smoker, it only really takes about 10 years off the average life span.

BUT, if you think about how much more a certified smoke free human lung could fetch at auction, all this effort begins to make sense.

So forget about calling it the Nanny State — that’s far too civilized for what the “progressives” have in mind. Call it the Cannibal State.


35 posted on 03/26/2012 10:32:00 AM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla (How humanitarian are "leaders" who back Malthusian, Utilitarian & Green nutcases?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson