Skip to comments.Bill Would Limit Smoking by Apartment Dwellers - & allows law suits if your smoke drifts
Posted on 03/11/2003 4:42:21 AM PST by chance33_98
Bill Would Limit Smoking by Apartment Dwellers
California smokers may soon have one less place to light up. A new law would make it difficult for apartment dwellers to smoke at home.
Assembly Bill 210 would make it illegal to smoke in any in any common area of a multifamily dwelling, including outdoors. It would also forbid use of tobacco products in any apartment not specifically designated a smoking unit.
If it becomes law, AB 210 would allow residents, landlords or homeowner's associations to sue tenants who allow second-hand smoke to drift beyond their apartments.
The bill's author says that the legislation is necessary because drifting smoke can be both a nuisance and a health hazard. "You can sue someone to force them to turn off their stereo at 2 a.m., but you can't sue someone to force them not to smoke, even though it comes into your apartment," said Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael. "There's something wrong with that."
Critics say it's not the government's job to tell people where they can smoke, and call the measure a violation of their rights.
The bill comes up for committee hearings later this spring. Assembly Bill 210 can be read in its entirety by clicking on the link below.
Full Text of Assembly Bill 210
If everyone did the right thing all the time the threat of force would never be needed for anything.
And governments define the "right" thing? You mean people like Hillary and Bill? They have a great track record for forcing people to do the "right" thing.
You think that not allowing smoking on private property is the "right" thing. Many disagree.
Hardly, you aren't going to get SHOT by a government agent for discriminating in your leasing behaviors... you aren't going to go to be shot for violating the Germaine act, or for violating OSHA regulations. You may face penalties, including jail time but that's not "Deadly force".
Enforcment of law is not defacto facism either. Italy During WWII was a facist country, and while I may not agree with many regulations, business or otherwise, this nation is nowhere near a FACIST state. People making such claims do so for rhetorical impact, and weaken their argument by relying on nothing more than incendiary rhetoric. Our business regulations in america are no more an act of Facism, than being a republican makes one a NAZI or RACIST. Such incendiary rhetoric is nonsense, and its use by both sides of the political spectrum undermines the arguments they put forth. These words have pretty much lost all meaning because they are thrown around with callous disregard for rhetorical purposes. Voting Republican is not RACIST and business legislation frameworks are not FACIST. Those are nothing more than ideological propoganda talking point nonsense.
Try not paying the fine and see if they don't come for you. Try resisting going to jail and see how long you remain alive.
With all due respect, based on your posts on other smoking-related threads (here, here, and here, for example), it seems as though you enjoy spouting opinion and judgments but offer no basis for your conclusions.
Do you find smoke from a candlelit dinner repugnant as well?
Do you not enjoy cozying up by the fire with your S/O?
Or, what about campfires...surely the smoke that Boy Scouts inhale shouldn't be permitted.
Have you ever been to Elizabeth, NJ? (The whole town should be banned (in my opinion using your logic) for offensive odors harmful to everyone's health.)
What should be done about people who don't shower daily?
How about restaurant employees who don't wash their hands after using the bathroom?
Are you concerned about getting cancer or some sort of health-related illness from smokers?
Can you honestly say that you believe the media-tales when it comes to 2nd hand smoke?
Why is it that you feel the way you do?
Providing an answer to at least the last question would be helpful...at least then we can possibly steer away from the name-calling, argumentative aspect and perhaps try to have an actual intelligent stimulating conversation. :)
I see, so in your mind then all law enforcement of any kind is "DEADLY FORCE"?
Please... You get killed assaulting a police officer for resisting arrest, it wasn't the violation of the discrimination act that got you killed. You pay the consequences of your actions... you stupidly engage in an activity that does warrent the use of deadly force, you get what you deserve.
You don't get killed for failing to pay taxes, in fact few violations of the law are violations that carry "DEADLY FORCE" so your nonsense argument that any legal violation can be punished by deadly force shows either complete ignorance, or complete insanity. You are welcome to violate any rule you wish, just don't expect not to be held accountable for it. Or in other words, don't do the crime if you aren't willing to do the time.
What insane leaps of logic people make here.. unbelievable. Any law breaking is enforced by deadly force... what hogwash. You choose to break a law, you accept the consequences for your actions... of course that's a little too much personal responsibility for some "conservatives" around these parts I suppose.
Then you have conciously decided to violate more laws beyond the one that got you in trouble in the first place, and these new violations may incur deadly force. This however is an independent infraction from the original... and quite frankly if you conciously choose to engage in an act that violates the law, you accept that you may face enforcement of it. If you then try to escape enforcement you not only violate new laws, but show that you have no concept of personal responsibility and this being a "conservative" site, I know no one here would be that Bubba like in their behaviors.
Not paying the fine is a seperate violation, you know this. I suppose that you believe that enforcement of law should only be on the willing? I know a few million criminals just waiting for your viewpoint to dominate the legal system... of course that's a pretty "liberal" idea you are promoting... you sure you are on the right site?
Nope. If the neighbor would simply show some respect while exercizing their right to smoke, she could have her right to breathe clean air. The only person forcing anything here is the smoker - who insists on forcing everyone around to breathe their stinky air.
Again, I have friends who smoke (even a friend from FR- like, OMG!) and I don't have a problem with it, because they are considerate smokers and they don't have a chip on their shoulder about their "right to smoke".
Another "conservative" weighs in.
You are staring to catch on.
That is the reason why laws are ONLY supposed to protect rights. Laws against robbery, arson, rape, murder, assault are just laws because they protect individual rights by punishing the violation of such. A person who a) does not recognize the right of another individual to not have force intiated against them and then b) resists such punishments has no place in a free society, thus the use of deadly force as the ultimate "back up" for enforcing those laws is just.
Now, cotrast that with edicts, such as smoking bans, OSHA regulations, prohibitions of substances and the like. These laws do not protect against the violation of rights, they merely "enforce" a way of life that everyone has not agreed upon. It is not legitimate, or just, to pass such laws where the ultimate "back up" for resisting the punishment is the use of deadly force. A person pretty luch saying "I'll smoke in my house whetehr you like it or not" is not akin to a person saying "I'll take whatever property of yours I wish whether you like it or not". One shows the clear disregard for the rights of others while the other shows self-determination, an ideal not worthy of death.
How does a smoker force anyone to be around them?
I, as a smoker, would be the first to tell someone they were being inconsiderate with thier smoke. I, as a smoker, always check my surroundings before lighting up and ask anyone who may be close enough to be bothered by it if they mind my smoking.
But tell me, does that help me garner respect from the antis? Nope. They would like to see me tossed into the gallows with thieves and various other criminals because I dare pollute the sacred air around them. Heaven forbid! I imagine they must never break wind or eat garlic, for that would surely put them into a coma!!!
Maybe I should demand that the antismokers buy bubbles to live in. You know, like poor "Bubble Guy" on TV.
My demanding that they live in a bubble is as offensive and unreasonable as them demanding I give up my consumption of a perfectly legal product in a well ventilated area!
In all, smokers are geting fed up with being abused. We accepted the no smoking section in restaurants, we accepted the no smoking in office buildings and airplanes, we accepted the complete elimination of smoking in most airports, sports arenas, theatres, stores, eateries, etc. Now, they want us to stop smoking in our own homes!!??
Enough is enough! If your nose is that sensitive where it should determine the lifestyle of other Americans, you SHOULD be placed in a bubble. Preferably one with IDIOT spray painted on the outside.
The ignorance of the smoker as to how bad this smells is the reason smokers and nonsmokers are at opposite ends. This ignorance is the root cause of their inconsiderate behavior.
Yes, and the hyperbole is so thick, you could cut it with a knife:
Add to that mix an elderly person with breathing problems who cannot go outside without breathing someone else's cigarette smoke and painfully coughing their guts out just to go to their mailbox.
Sounds like "...... thousands of innocent children being gunned down every year by ruthless gang-bangers with military assault rifles......."
I have been personally offended by your universal inconsideration of my feelings as a smoker. And I think you stink...in more ways than one.
Can I have a law passed that protects me from your whining and nasty little generalizations of smokers? No. My dislike of your personal behavior does not entitle me to stifle you.
I rest my case.
Why is it that the exact arguments in favor of government control being made by liberals are thought to be "conservative" by these people?
Mr. Smith: Oh yeah, who told you that?
Smoking Police: Mr. Jones who lives upstairs. He said he can smell it. Is that cigarette smoke I smell, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: No, that's my tobbaco scented incense I burn as part of a religious ceremony.
Smoking Police: Are you sure Mr. Smith? Do you mind if I come in and have a look around?
Mr. Smith: I certainly do mind.
Smoking Police: I can get a warrant Mr. Smith. Don't make this harder than it has to be.
Mr. Smith: Do what you must. You're not coming in.
Smoking Police: OK, Mr. Smith, have it your way. We'll be back.
Mr. Smith: I'm sure you will.
Smoking Police leave, vowing to be back. Mr. Smith lights a smoke and goes back to watching a John Wayne movie.
One week later
Mr. Smith has just extinguished his last smoke for the night, and gone to bed. He checks to make sure his pistol is loaded and in the night stand where he always keeps it when he sleeps, since this is a pretty rough area of LA in which he lives.
In the mean time, two Smoking Police unmarked squad cars roll up the the aprtment building's entrance very quietly. They must have the element of surprise or Mr. Smith may be able to flush the evidence which these dedicated Smoking Police officers know exists in that aprtment.
Smoking Police Seargent: OK, men, we've been through this hundreds of times, you know what to do. Johnson, you cover the fire escape with Adams. Wells and I are going in the front. We go in at 02:00. Good luck!
Wells and the sarge slowly make their way up the stairs and down the hall to Apt. 2G. When they arrive, they quickly check their watches... 01:59:30.
Sarge: OK Wells, ready? I'll kick the door in, you go in as soon as it opens, with me covering you.
Wells: Got it.
The sarge looks again at his watch, 02:00 on the nose. He plants his large foot against the door near the knob and the door quickly gives way. Wells rushes in, the sarge right behind him.
Wells: THIS IS THE POLICE! EVERYONE ON THE FLOOR HANDS IN THE OPEN!!!
The officers finding the living room empty proceed down the hall to the bedroom, where Mr. Smith, awakening to the racket at the door, has reached into his nightstand for his pistol.
Wells kicks open the bedroom door, but before he can make his announcement the 2nd time, Mr. Smith has fired two shots hitting Wells squarely in the chest knocking him back out of the bedroom. His vest has saved his life this time. However, Mr. Smith is not so lucky as the sarge, right behind Wells at the door, empties his 16 round mag of 9mm into Mr. Smith's bed, killing him almost instantly.
Another day in the trenches for the Smoking Police, making life safer, and smell better, for all of America.
Whoa down there cowboy. You can't have it both ways.
Where is a person more likely to have an ashtray to butt their smoke? At home or outside?
If they can't smoke at home guess where they go. You got it, outside.
So, the result of this insanity will be MORE butts on the sides of roads and sidewalks, washed up on beaches, etc.
Ah yes, unintended consequences.
The stench of tyranny is far worse than any smell coming from cigarettes.
Oh, geez, you're right - the non-smoker should just move out of their home that has become smoke infested, OR, never spend any time at home. Me thinks you haven't been reading all the posts.
And where, pray tell, do you meet these inconsiderate smokers? Can't be in a restaurant, or a shopping mall, or a theater, or a sports arena, or an office building... is it outdoors somewhere? Like a park?
Do they just walk right up to you and just start blowing it in your face? I wonder why anyone would do that? Wierd.
Or wait, don't tell me... it must be in bars? Maybe you should go to a bar that doesn't allow smoking. Oh, what's that you say? They all allow it, and you think it should be banned there too? Why not open your own bar, and ban smoking there yourself. There must be millions of folks that feel just as you do. You'll be rich, for sure!
I'm describing the root cause of the disconnect between two groups. On the one hand there is a group of smokers who are unaware of how offensive they are and on the other is a group who cannot believe how rude the others are.
From this one group thinks the other is acting irrationally and attributes conspiracy theories about control and nazis while the other group looks for reasons to impose a ban.
The cigar smoker knows his smoke is offensive and acts accordingly. The cigarette smoker doesn't know and also acts accordingly.
130Million cigarette butts are picked up on the sides of Texas Highways each year... you trying to suggest that smokers don't have ashtrays in their cars?
Secondly, my point was not where they smoked, but a counter to the claim "Cigarette smokers are generally courteous". Which by the amount of litter they generate certainly puts that at debate. Whether you smoke inside or outside, flicking yout butt in the street is not an act of someone being courteous to those around them... litter is not a courteous act. Regardless of where you are at the time.
No, I just get to walk behind them. That is bad enough. You have no clue how far your smoke travels. I know you think that the only smoke that can be smelled is what you see. That is the problem with smokers. If they knew how far, wide and disgusting their smoke really was they wouldn't be so rude.
I used to smoke, I am around smokers all the time. It doesn't bother me. It bothers some. They shouldn't go on private property where smoking is allowed by the owners.
Do you support the use of government power to force private property owners to conform to "no smoking" laws?
I'd like a source for this statement. I can't believe anyone actually counted them, or that anyone actually picks them up.
That sucks. The only people who should be feeling targetted here on this thread and playing "victim" are the rude and inconsiderate smokers. I have consistently said that it is smokers who lack common courtesy that are the problem. The rest of you polite smokers are just being plain cranky and probably need a nicotine fix. So, go have a smoke, and b*tch about us non-smoker-goody-two-shoes, and get it out of your system. Come back when you can play nice.
We are just wondering what priority our right and desire for breathing clean air fits in with your freedom agenda....
Cheers, CC :)
Here's a start:
Conservatives support the 2nd Amendment........ unless reasonable regulations are supported by a current Republican administration.
Conservatives support the 4th Amendment......... unless violations of such are deemed just because the intent of a law in question is to do away with undesirables and check up on the populace to guarantee compliance with the edict of the day. IOW, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".
Conservatives support private property rights................unless an individual is engaging in consensual, non-violent activities which may be deemed immoral by a certain religion; unless a property owner wants to allow activities they do not like.
Conservatives support limited government................... unless Republicans currently occupy the White House.
Conservatives support the 1st Amendment in every situation concerning Judeau-Christian religion, but deny others the same freedom of speech if the words offend them.
Conservatives support States Rights..................unless the State is choosing to legislate in areas where the federal government has overstepped its power and made its own laws.
Conservatives believe all people are equal........... unless the people in question are Law Enforcement, who should be unquestionably held to a different standard than the average citizen.
Conservatives believe only non-Republicans lie.
Conservatives believe it was illegal for Janet Reno to campaign against State abortion laws, but it was perfectly fine for Drug Czar John Walters, a federal employee, to campaign against a Colorado State marijuana initiative.
California seems to be doing more than merely flirting with fascism. The state has the most draconian "3 strikes" law, passed an overt ban on gay marriages 3 years ago, banned smoking in bars/restraunts, sued energy companies for not providing enough cheap energy, is constantly forcing housing developers to build free subsidized housing in exchange for large building permits, darn near bans more guns than the rest of the U.S. combined, etc.
If the state starts purchasing a bunch of railway boxcars, then watch out!