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
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!
Irregardless, this thread is about govt intervention on private property to make suing a person easier because of a minor nuisance.
Really? Is that too a fascist government regulation?
Actually it is. There are very strict NATIONAL codes regarding fire separation and party walls within mutli unit residences. The idea is that if there is a fire in one unit, it will be contained so that until the fire department arrives, the spread of fire to other apartments is prevented.
If you can smell smoke through the wall, it's possible the wall is not properly constructed or sealed. If there was a real fire, the smell of smoke would be the least of your problems. You could be killed.
And if you question the importance of enforcement of fire safety standards, just recall the recent nightclub fire in Rhode Island.
Hey! I resemble that remark! :)
Love you anyway, my dear FRiend! Sorry I got so touchy about it.
And now you can call the cops and the cops will tell them to stop smoking or they will be arrested for violating the noise ordinances.