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.
the comments at the article are something else... lots of pro smoking comments
LOL!
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.
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
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.
Gay sex with many partners is more dangerous than smoking - but for some reason, liberals don't care about that...
Stage one thinkers at their finest. Our republic is doomed.
“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....
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.
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.”
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.
” 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.
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?
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.
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.