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?
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.