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

Skip to comments.

New Santa Monica Ordinance Makes It Illegal To Light Up Inside A Smokerís [Own] Home
CBS) ^ | July 11, 2012 11:01 AM

Posted on 07/11/2012 3:13:06 PM PDT by BenLurkin

SANTA MONICA (CBS) — Santa Monica smokers may be breaking the law if they light up in the privacy of their own homes, after the City Council approved a more restrictive anti-smoking law Tuesday night.

The ordinance would prohibit smoking for new tenants in multi-unit housing and force existing residents to declare their apartments and condos as smoking or non-smoking units, according to the Santa Monica Daily Press. If smokers neglect to designate their units, they lose the right to light up at home.

The City Council also asked for a drop dead date after which every unit in Santa Monica would be declared non-smoking.

Information about whether a unit is smoking or non-smoking would also be given to every resident in the building, concerning at least two city council members that the designation would “create second class citizens,” according to the Daily Press


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: antismokingscam; antitobaccoscam; pufflist; santamonicascam; scam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

1 posted on 07/11/2012 3:13:12 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

But illegal aliens using gas-powered leaf blowers on the grounds of such complexes is acceptable?


2 posted on 07/11/2012 3:19:58 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I actually listened to the council meeting on the radio while they discussed this.

The two council members against the ordinance were just afraid that long term smoking tenants in rent controlled apartments would be harassed by their landlords so as to free up the unit so that new tenants paying higher rents could move in.

So exactly none of the council members was concerned about the freedom of people to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.

They equated smoking with keeping a house so untidy that it drew rats, or playing music so loud in your house that it could be heard outside.

They are all deathly afraid of 2nd hand smoke.

Don't even get them started on 3rd hand smoke!

3 posted on 07/11/2012 3:22:01 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Smokers are rebellious. Must crush rebellion. /s Mexifornia will be the first 100% government-operated State. First, all private sector businesses and most cities must declare bankruptcy due to stifling over-regulation. That’s well on it’s way.


4 posted on 07/11/2012 3:26:21 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Makes you wonder how many dogs will be shot because of police action resulting from such regulation.


5 posted on 07/11/2012 3:27:53 PM PDT by GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

No smoking, eh?

Does that include marijuana and crack?


6 posted on 07/11/2012 3:30:34 PM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

The “ Peoples Republic of Santa Monica “ martin sheen country.
This should be fun to watch.


7 posted on 07/11/2012 3:34:28 PM PDT by Pompah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Oh, a conundrum: What if the smokers are illegal aliens?
8 posted on 07/11/2012 3:39:10 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
"Does that include marijuana and crack?"

That topic actually came up, at least with regard to medical marijuana.

If you don't let people smoke in their homes, then they won't be able to smoke their California-legal medical marijuana. One council member thought that the rule only applied to tobacco smoke, but the lawyers disabused him of this notion.

For some reason that argument was brushed aside without being responded to directly.

It looks like even in Santa Monica the helicopter soccer moms have more political weight than aging hippies.

9 posted on 07/11/2012 3:51:49 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Who would have thought such things could happen in the peoples republic of Santa Monica?


10 posted on 07/11/2012 3:55:24 PM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
One of the council members brought up a similar point.

Evidently the city had just recently voted to lower parking fees. She claimed that this would tend to encourage more people to drive into the city resulting in more air pollution and more suffering by asthmatics. So she asked why are you lowering parking fees at the same time you are making it a crime to smoke in your own home?

The Kennedy on the board rambled on and eventually lamented that six other cities in California had more restrictive smoking laws than Santa Monica and implied that he wished Santa Monica had been first.

He wanted Santa Monica to be "in the vanguard".

Vanguard? Isn't that a word used by great reformers like Lenin, Stalin, etc.? /sarc

11 posted on 07/11/2012 3:58:39 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
So exactly none of the council members was concerned about the freedom of people to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.

If they are renters, it's not their own homes.

12 posted on 07/11/2012 4:04:22 PM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
If they are renters, it's not their own homes.

You are correct. But if they OWN their condo, then it is no one's business what they do in THEIR condo.

Further, what business is it of the government if a landlord, bar owner, restaurant owner, hotel owner, etc wishes to allow smoking on/in THEIR property?

Non-smokers can chose to frequent non-smoking establishments and smokers can frequent smoking establishments; you know property rights and the free market and all.

13 posted on 07/11/2012 4:16:15 PM PDT by Repeat Offender (Why do cops have more lenient ROEs when facing us than troops in combat facing suicidal islamists?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

wouldn’t a penumbra of an emanation make that an invasion of privacy that inhibits a persons right to choose to smoke?


14 posted on 07/11/2012 4:46:28 PM PDT by hecht (restore Hetch-Hetchy, and screw San Francisco and Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Any hints on how this will be enforced? Other than this declaration nonsense by the apt/condo owner?


15 posted on 07/11/2012 4:47:29 PM PDT by bunster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

declare the Santa Monica city council as obviously “aliens to America and it’s principals” and deport them to the utopian paradise of their choice


16 posted on 07/11/2012 4:49:57 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
the helicopter soccer moms have more political weight than aging hippies.

"There's nothing more pathetic than an ageing hipster..."

17 posted on 07/11/2012 4:58:51 PM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; who_would_fardels_bear
If they are renters, it's not their own homes.

OK - then let us rephrase the original statement -

So exactly none of the council members was concerned about the freedom of people to do what they want in their private prperty.

IOW - no one on city council believes the building owners have the right to make their own rules...........but of course this is California that stripped those rights away decades ago.

18 posted on 07/11/2012 5:14:27 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Why any freedom-loving American continues to live in CA is a mystery to me. You could not pay me enough to live there.


19 posted on 07/11/2012 5:23:27 PM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth29
What if the smokers are illegal aliens?

Homosexual illegal alien pot smokers?

20 posted on 07/11/2012 5:31:19 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (I miss Harriet Miers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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