Skip to comments.California bill would ban smoking in multi-unit housing
Posted on 03/07/2013 4:39:58 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Millions of Californians would not be able to smoke tobacco inside their own homes under new legislation that would raise the bar nationwide for fighting secondhand smoke.
No state ever has ventured into personal bedrooms and living rooms with its smoking restrictions, but California is going even further than that by targeting owner-occupied residences as well as rental units.
Specifically, the measure would prohibit lighting up a cigarette, cigar or pipe in condominiums, duplexes and apartment units.
The push would extend a lengthy list of places where smoking already is barred, including restaurants, workplaces, playgrounds, public buildings and cars containing young kids.
"Californians should be able to breathe clean air in their own homes," said Assemblyman Marc Levine, a San Rafael Democrat who introduced the legislation, Assembly Bill 746.
Standalone homes would not be affected because Levine is taking aim at health hazards of secondhand smoke in residences that share walls, ceilings, floors or ventilation systems.
One-third of California's residents live in multiunit housing, and secondhand smoke endangers everyone it touches, Levine said. "Whenever a neighbor lights up, everyone in the building smokes with them."
Landlords already have authority to prohibit smoking in their rental units, through a law implemented last year, but Levine's bill would impose a mandatory ban statewide.
The California Apartment Association has taken no position, but its officials question who would enforce AB 746, how, and what impact the bill would have on habitual smokers or people with disabilities.
"I'm not justifying the practice, but somebody in a wheelchair who smokes in the late evening, for example, is going to have to go in the dark to a place off-site," spokeswoman Debra Carlton said.
Residents of a Sacramento public housing project, south of Broadway, have mixed feelings.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Didn’t Rush predict this stuff some years ago?
Nanny State PING!
Didn’t Rush predict this stuff some years ago?
Nanny State PING!
Yes he did... However, I’m sure there are some people here who would support this measure. I’m not one of them..
How do they enforce that?
Pardon me for asking, but.........who cares? Its California; they get what they deserve. They elect these commiecrats to office, this is what they get.
California has become a giant amusement park for totalitarian government officials.
The citizens are like captive animals.
They can only live the way their captors want.
They can only eat what their captors want them to eat.
They can only have freedom as their captors define it.
Totalitarian government officials in other states, like Maryland, NY, Massachusetts, even Colorado, look at California and drool.
Landlords always had the right to ban or not ban smoking at their property.
Another Property Right down the tubes....
I am. I've known cases of people being horribly burned or killed because some clown three or four units over went to sleep with a cigarette in his mouth. Nobody deserves to die for that sort of reason.
People should be banned from cooking in apartments too.
But is it fair to impose the restrictions on conscientious smoker?
For example, one smoker I know has his final smoke of the day while soaking the bathtub. He told me he does this because he fears the very disaster you describe. He barely escaped electrocution when, as he soaked and listened to NPR his Bose radio fell of the shelf and barely missed the the tub.
Of course I know of one diurnal smoker who's found another solution: he rolls up a nicotine patch and uses it as a suppository. I confess I've not verified this, but he seems honest.
So let me get this straight.
In a california bedroom: you can get stoned out of your mind on weed (releasing all sorts of noxious fumes into the air), commit sodomy with whatever you picked up off the street and spread horrible diseases, but you can’t have a cigarette?
Why are there any sane people left in California anyway? I would have left there years ago if I were unfortunate enough to live in that cesspool
Of course this will not be enforced in “certain neighborhoods” aka Barrios.
“Californians should be able to breathe clean air in their own homes,”
In that case, we better ban cleaning supplies, shell fish and stinky recipes. Just to be on the safe side, let’s ban kitchens from homes.
The most frequent complaint I hear from apartment dwellers is the smell of marijuana smoke drifting from some nearby unit.
Does Cali intend to crack down on THAT? I doubt it.
“I am. I’ve known cases of people being horribly burned or killed because some clown three or four units over went to sleep with a cigarette in his mouth. Nobody deserves to die for that sort of reason.”
Many fires are started by electrical failures, let’s ban electricity from homes! Space heaters are another cause of fires, we better ban them too! No one deserves to die by being burned up as a result of someone elses desires for electrical conveniences or their desire to be warm!
Wow, this totalatarian mindset is rather easy!
It will start with the usual warning ticket, then escalate to a $100.00 or so fine. Then it gets to a $1000.00 fine, then jail time, then it moves to no knock raids and swat teams.
Making sure of course, it is taught in schools that this is a NO TOLERANCE law.
All in the name of your health and the health of your neighbors. Because YOUR governmnt knows what is good for you.
Tyrants NEVER sleep.
My family owns numerous multi-unit housing and over the years one of the biggest tenant complaints was tenants in adjoining units smoking.
Now we have a complete non smoking policy in all of our buildings and that policy has permitted us to increase rents and decrease maintenance costs. Banning smoking was one of the best decisions we ever made.
However, the state should never force such a decision on owners or renters.
This is just proposed as of now but ironically the Sandra Day O Connor SCOTUS ruled that same-sex sodomy laws are unconstitutional because they violate ‘right to privacy’ and have no overwhelming positive purpose (a dangerous totally subjective criteria for a court to use.)
Yet notice that smoking in private does NOT have the similar protection.
Much as I hate cigarette smoke, I like the nanny staters even less. Libs- can’t live with ‘em, can’t kill ‘em.
I am. Ive known cases of people being horribly burned or killed because some clown three or four units over went to sleep with a cigarette in his mouth. Nobody deserves to die for that sort of reason.
Many fires are started by electrical failures, lets ban electricity from homes! Space heaters are another cause of fires, we better ban them too! No one deserves to die by being burned up as a result of someone elses desires for electrical conveniences or their desire to be warm! Wow, this totalatarian mindset is rather easy!
The idea of going through life without smoking first occurred to me when I was around 10 or 11 years old, something to do with watching half the adults in my neighborhood dying at age 50 - 55 from coughing and/or cancer if memory serves. Nonetheless over the years I've been in numerous situations in which me bieng the only person in the room not smoking was a limited asset, particularly government meetings in which everybody else was chain smoking for two hours or more, it sometimes took two or three hours for my eyes to start working again.
There are numerous things in life which I can actually sympathize with, but smoking isn't one of them. Don't ask me to feel sorry for smokers.
The liberals thank you for establishing the tools to change society. The tobacco wars have established the foundation to conduct a societal clensing of guns.
I believe in freedom, liberty and private property rights. It is clear that you don’t. Don’t fret tho, there are many a FReeper who out themselves in the tobacco threads.
I support it. Not because I dislike cigarette smoke.
I just figure that Californians deserve the government they voted for. Karma is a b!tch and I’m her mother.
Plus, there is a good chance that the majority of smokers who live in multi-family dwellings are takers and that smokers who are makers live in single family dwellings.
So this law will fall most heavily upon the food stamp using, section 8 dwelling welfare population. That thought makes me happy.
Forget the smokers - what about the owners of the buildings who are having their property rights trampled upon. If the building owner wishes to rent to smokers where is it the business of yours or the government to tell him he can't just because you don't like it?
The issue here isn't smoking or smokers. The issue is the rights of the property owner.
Thanks for the ping!
What about the rights of the makers who own the buildings who might happen to be smokers?
This isn’t about makers/takers, this is about the property rights of the building owners. If the government is the landlord, fine, but if I am the landlord it should be my choice.
If this goes through, I guarantee you it will not stay confined to the state lines of Kookiefornia.
Well, you are right that this is a fundamental attack on property rights and interference in contracts as well since they are basically invalidating rental agreements that allow smoking.
Thanks for wrecking my happy thought. It was short lived but well loved.
Yep, we are one country.
Give up on one state, you are giving up on yours.
Rich21, what state are you in?
No there are not.
And it is a stinky poo cesspool.
Don't come here.
Don't even visit, even the beaches are covered with garbage, drug syringes and the ocean water is polluted and smells so bad you can't go near the shoreline.
Don't come here, it's horrible!
Even the 1/2 of lake Tahoe that is in California is completely polluted, the Nevada side is pristine.
Whiny neighbors call the authorities--whenever they have a problem, be it smoke, loud music, the neighbor's dog, they aren't homos, whatever.
Someone will be there to kick the door down and shoot the dogs in short order.
Just imagine what you could charge in a 'smokers only' unit.
“Plus, there is a good chance that the majority of smokers who live in multi-family dwellings are takers and that smokers who are makers live in single family dwellings.”
What an elitist bunch of crap.
Sorry, but a large swathe of the smokers I know are receiving public assistance of one type or another.
I will add that there is an age component in that this is only true in the under 50 crowd and that older smokers 65+ seem to have worked most of their lives (but they also own their own homes).
What I see of the younger group is that they are members in the smoking, drinking, drugging, tatooed crowd that is seemingly uninterested in actual work.
State of confusion! Actually, Texas, and we haven’t adopted one tenth the silly crap that’s been inacted in California, nor will we ever, IMHO. That’s not a “prideful” or statement meant to be a “bragg”, its just 1) a cultural thing and 2) its a money thing in that the Gov’t of Texas doesn’t have, has never had, the money the California gov’t has been able to raise. Part of that is because there’s no state income tax. The other part is that our crap legislature only meets every other year, by law. So.........they’ve only got 6 months every other year to concoct ways to rob us.
I’ve got to side with Mears here. In your situation what you claim is probably true, but I have had the total opposite experience. Where I live the majority of the most vile of the nanny state loving anti-smokers are on public assistance of more types than just one.
I know a woman who turned down free tutoring for one of her daughters because the home where it would take place permitted smoking - this same woman has been indicted on numerous charges of welfare fraud and convicted of a number of them. She is also of the believe children of smokers should be removed from the homes.
Everyone has a different story - thus broadbrushing never works.
See post 37. Demographics of smokers indicate a larger percentage of people below the poverty line smoke.
ermagerd, I mean post 39.
I’ve seen it all before, time and time again. I have also seen the CDC (as most govt agencies do) manipulate such data to suit their preconceived goals.
You spoke of personal experience, as did I - has nothing to do with CDC numbers.
“According to the CDC “The prevalence of current smoking was higher among adults living below the poverty level (29.9%) than among those at or above the poverty level (20.6%)”
And what does this info have to do with multi and single family dwellings,to which you referred in your earlier post?
Many rural poor live in single family dwellings and many urban and suburban middle class and wealthy live in condos,apartments,and co-ops.
That said,the entire war on smoking is pure,unadulterated madness.
“She is also of the believe children of smokers should be removed from the homes.”
I find opinions like this very frightening.Breaking the law,okay———smoking,child abuse.
As someone who lived in a lot of Non smoking rental units over the years, the answer is, they aren’t.
I have smoked in every place I ever lived, smoking or non smoking, I don’t let the state dictate my enjoyment or a legal product when it comes to my home. There are millions of ways around getting caught, and in my time in the People’s perpetual police state of California taught me all the tricks.
Thankfully now I live in a free state.
Truth be told, to this day she doesn’t think she did anything wrong. And she considers the homes of smokers to be “filthy.” Yet when she belonged to our church, she was always requested to bring chips and dip to potlucks - no one wanted anything cooked by her or coming from her kitchen - her house was that disgustingly filthy.
I could go on forever - but I’ll quit while I’m ahead. Nice seeing you, dear!
Typical hysterics. I'm guessing that a fire generated by an exploding strawberry Pop Tart, or a grease fire on the stove would be acceptable "reasons" to you.
Progs love varmintman types because they choose to vent their personal prejudices rather than see the big picture, which is repressiion on all fronts.
Good to see you're still around, CSM.
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.