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

To: FreedomStar3028

The problem is that not all multiple dwellings are that air leak proof. Unfortunately, some people are very allergic to tobacco smoke. This is a really hard one to balance in fairness to everyone. California is not the only place where people are trying to put this into law.


22 posted on 03/29/2013 11:47:52 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: gleeaikin

LOL!

I’m allergic to BS.


24 posted on 03/29/2013 11:49:01 PM PDT by FreedomStar3028
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: gleeaikin

No, it goes beyond this, “allergic to tobacco smoke” is an excuse to deprive others of their choice to do what they want on their private property.

Also you can’t enforce this, there will be tons of fake calls just because someone doesn’t like someone, etc. Also where is the money going to come from to enforce this?

It’s just another BS reason to fine someone to collect money.


25 posted on 03/30/2013 12:05:01 AM PDT by FreedomStar3028
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: gleeaikin
The problem is that not all multiple dwellings are that air leak proof.

It's worse than that. Some buildings have to be equipped with fans that maintain elevated air pressure in stairwells. They also have airtight stairwell doors to keep that extra pressure in. However some people like to hold the door open and smoke in that stairwell. The smoke is then pushed by the airflow into the building, and - since it retains positive pressure - it penetrates into apartments and escapes through the vents there. As result, apartments near the stairwells become filled with smoke.

I lived in one such building some time ago, and I had to hermetically seal the door after I come through it, otherwise the apartment would have more smoke than smokers themselves have - all *their* smoke is blown away by the fresh air.

I don't smoke. In most situations I can distance myself from someone who smokes, and there is no need to force the smoker to stop. He has his freedoms, I have mine. In that building, however, it was pretty bad. Once one smoker leaves, another shows up. I haven't signed up to live in an apartment that gets filled with tobacco smoke for most of the day by teams of smokers. I left the place as soon as I could.

26 posted on 03/30/2013 12:50:58 AM PDT by Greysard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: gleeaikin

My first apartment was above that of elderly retired heavy smokers. They smoked from the minute they got up to the minute they went to bed. My place reeked of smoke even in the winter with windows closed.

My furniture, my hair, my clothing, everything smelled of stale smoke. It was like I had sat in a small, smoky bar for hours.

After about a year, the man passed away (no wonder-he coughed up a lung every morning) and his wife moved. A younger couple moved in and they smoked as well, but it was only bad at night because they were at work all day.


42 posted on 03/30/2013 5:43:21 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: gleeaikin
"This is a really hard one to balance in fairness to everyone."

Not really. All it requires is a "lawsuit", not a "law". If enough money changes hands in court, those who rent to others will fix their rental properties.

BTW, I am a non-smoker.

45 posted on 03/30/2013 9:02:10 AM PDT by Uncle Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

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