Posted on 11/19/2013 1:19:52 PM PST by Kaslin
Berkeley, Calif., City Councilman Jesse Arreguin has recommended that the city ban smoking in single-family homes. Councilwoman Susan Wengraf, who supports an ordinance to ban smoking in multiunit dwellings, is appalled.
"The whole point is to protect people who live in multiunit buildings from secondhand smoke," Wengraf said. Locals have told her they find the notion of a ban in single-family homes scary. "I hope he wakes up and pulls it," she said.
Actually, I think Wengraf should want Arreguin's recommendation to stick around. After all, his proposal makes the multiunit ordinance seem reasonable.
Arreguin aide Anthony Sanchez tells me that the recommendation is really just a "footnote," "a non-actionable topic of future consideration."
Or call it the next logical step. Berkeley already has banned smoking outdoors -- in commercial districts, in parks and at bus stops, where nonsmokers are free to walk away from smokers or ask them to move. With that ordinance on top of California laws banning smoking in the workplace, at restaurants and in bars, have advocates of nonsmokers' rights determined that their work is done? Never!
The job is never done in the nanny state. Hence the Berkeley proposal, hardly the first in the Bay Area, to ban smoking in multiunit dwellings. Wengraf tells me that smoke can get into ventilation systems and spread through a building.
But what if it doesn't? What if you live in a building where secondhand smoke doesn't leach? There is no burden of proof that your smoke bothers others. If you smoke in an apartment, you're guilty.
Enter Arreguin, who fears that the multiunit ordinance would fall "disproportionately and unfairly on the backs of tenants." It's not fair. So if the city is going to tell renters what they can do in their own lodgings, he writes, it should pass a ban "in any dwelling (including single-family dwellings)." In deference to the secondhand smoke rationale, Arreguin suggests that the ban apply if a minor lives in the home, "a non-smoking elder (62 or older) is present" or any other "non-smoking lodger is present."
Walter Olson of the libertarian Cato Institute compares the Berkeley nanny ordinance to secondhand smoke itself: "They are seeping under our doors now to get into places where they're not wanted."
He faults "ever more ambitious smoking bans" that rework the definition of private space. "Now they're really just saying it doesn't matter if you have the consent of everyone in the room." Olson savored Arreguin's suggestion that 62-year-olds cannot consent to being near a smoker.
When I asked Cynthia Hallett of the Berkeley-based Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights whether she supports the Arreguin recommendation, she answered, "Right now, the policy trend is really for multiunit housing."
The left always likes to say that the government shouldn't tell people what they can and cannot do in their own bedrooms. Yet here is progressive Berkeley about to pass a law that tells people they cannot smoke in their own bedrooms.
Of course, there is an exemption for medical marijuana. City Hall wouldn't dare to tell pot smokers not to exhale. After all, they have rights.
So you prefer laws to force businesses to make decisions you agree with - got ya. That’s all I need to know about you.
Unlike you, I choose to spend my money in establishments that provide services to all who choose to spend their money in those establishments without picking and choosing their clientele. In the case of places where people like you have gotten the government to force your choices on businesses establishments, I only choose to spend my money in the establishments that fought against nanny statists like you.
I respect the rights of a business owner to choose to be non-smoking, I have little use for businesses that wish to force other businesses to go the same route. However, I have absolutely no use for individuals such as yourself who enjoy using government guns to force businesses you don’t own or wouldn’t even patronize to cater to your personal whims. people like that disgust me.
We have a political process in this Constitutional Republic - within which we make those laws. I agree with the political process that we have been handed by our founding fathers, and as has developed over the last couple of hundred years by the involvement of our citizens.
If you don’t like our Constitutional Republic, you can always go somewhere else and set up your own government. I’m staying here and working within the government we’ve been given from the beginning.
Don’t worry, I probably wouldn’t be on your lawn - even if someone paid me handsomely ... :-)
Thanks for the ping!
I adore what used to be our Constitutional Republic. Unfortunately, statists like you have taken over and use personal preference to create “laws” where they are not needed.
Some of us prefer less government in our lives, you are obviously not one of them. Enjoy your life.
My rights don’t stop because you don’t like a smell and that is all it is, a smell.
Please don’t tell me you are gullible to buy into the whole second hand smoke hysteria.
Sometimes I think people like you are the only reason I still smoke. Militant anti smokers are just too much fun to annoy.
How is that Sun working out for them.
Well it does take Oil, Nuclear, and Coal to produce those solar panels.
You’ve got fewer places to do so, now - so enjoy it while you still can. Those days are numbered.
All your property are belong to us! Those FReepers that supported smoking bans in the first place, are the same folks that have handed a very handy tool to the marxists to continue down the path of total elimination of private property and individual liberty.
Thanks again for that....
“my rights to NOT BE POISONED”
And there you have it. Given your position, we should also ban cleaning solutions, bbq grills, lawn mowers and automobiles. You are a marxists wet dream.
“Well, I don’t consider it sane to continually poison oneself”
I hope you don’t drink coffee, or drink water. Both contain many “poisons.” In addition, I hope you don’t have a job in manufacturing, you would freak when reviewing the MSDS sheets....
“That smoker has exactly ZERO RIGHTS”
In 1930’s and 1940’s Germany, the same sentiment ran rampant! Those insane Judens were trampling on everyone’s rights and needed to be exterminated from society. In fact, there was also a very prominent anti-smoking campaign at the same time in that society...
Your mind is dangerous.
“That smoker has exactly ZERO RIGHTS”
I looked at your profile and you proudly state that you are a christian. I hope you realize that your posts on this thread are exactly what is empowering the marxists to attack churches for preaching against sinful behaviours, such as homosexuality. You are currently being hoisted on your own petard and are still so hateful that you gleefully offer them more empowerment!
“You can do a scientific study - if you want - on the distance required to dissipate it sufficiently. But since it’s my face I’m talking about, I’m saying a hundred yards.”
Facts and evidence are irrelevent to a marxist. The Agenda 21 folks would love you!
Shhh! Facts are irrelevent when marxists are advancing!
“And, there are plenty of other people around who also claim that poison-free zone around them,”
Now you are supporting the Tyranny of the Majority.
” because they won’t be around much longer.”
Gather up those that oppose me and get them on the trains already!
You can try banning those other things if you want. However, I won’t be marching with you.
“The law in Oklahoma (link is above) doesn’t cost the business anything......for those who think it’s a good business decision to allow smokers in their place, then they will recoup their costs “
Nice circular logic there. You are a very selfish person.
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.