Bill Would Limit Smoking by Apartment Dwellers - & allows law suits if your smoke drifts

kxtv ^

[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

[Protagoras]

Great quote!

Thanks, I wish I'd said it.

Hell, in fact I did say it, hundreds of times to hundreds of people, just not as well as Sowell.

[-YYZ-]

I give up, really. This debate has long ago left the realm of reality. Concentrated SHS *MAY* be a health issue. The tiniest waft or smell of it is NOT. An unpleasant odor will not affect your health. Nonetheless, selfish health control-freaks like you do seem to predominate, or at least you have the loudest voices. I say have the guts to ban the things outright, forgo the tax revenues, and let the chips fall where they may.

[Protagoras]

Regulations regarding rental properties hardly falls into government control of the property.

What does it fall under?

I don't agree with this stupid law,

That's comforting, but many so called "conservatives" here do.

but it is hardly Fascism.

It's one definition. If you don't like it I can't help that.

Pulling out words like that just for rhetorical effect cheapens the argument.

Funny, I thought you cheapened the argument by implying that people have some moral obligation to follow these tyrannical laws. The only reason to follow them is out of fear.

[Illbay]

Excellent. I hope it passes.

[Protagoras]

It didn't take long for the faux conservatives to show up and support the violation of property rights.

[Protagoras]

Excellent. I hope it passes.

You are nothing if not consistent. For government control on every issue at all times and in all situations.

[Protagoras]

On this particular law, its unenforcable whooey

Sounds like your only objection. Any others?

[HamiltonJay]

Regulation on how I have to operate my business does not equate to government control of that business or property. By that definition all business law is fascism, which is nonsense.

Businesses have to operate within the legal framework, its part of the game, you wish to go into business you have to follow the laws.

[Protagoras]

Regulation on how I have to operate my business does not equate to government control of that business or property.

Really? What is it then? You HAVE to do things they tell you to do. That is not CONTROL? Absurd conclusion.

By that definition all business law is fascism, which is nonsense.

Nonsense. But nice try. Laws which defend the rights of people against violation by others are not fascist in nature. Those that tell you what non rights violating behavior you can allow on your private property is fascist in nature.

Businesses have to operate within the legal framework, its part of the game, you wish to go into business you have to follow the laws.

It's not a "game". And you should not need government permission to go into business.

[Great Dane]

If only they were considerate they would have avoided all this.

Smokers were for the most part considerate, until people like you emerged.

[Dan from Michigan]

Pricks. I live in an apartment. I smoke cigars occasionally. I'd smoke cigars whether this is law or not, since Govt has no business in my apartment. Period. Who says? I say and that's all that really matters. This law would not be worthy of being followed by me.

And thank God I don't live in California.

[Dan from Michigan]

WHATS NEXT GRILLED BURGERS/

But that's a fire hazard.......

[finnman69]

Frnakly, it's the landlords problem if the party wall between apartments is not properly sealed. I used to live next to a smoker and the smoke would waft right through the wall. Annoying, but not nearly as annoying as the stereo speakers right next to my bedroom. I must have called the super 20 times to ask them (south Americans) to turn of their god damn gypsy king music and quiet their carousing at 2AM.

Fianlly I strted calling my neighbors at 5am to see how they liked being woken up.

[Great Dane]

#20........ As a landlord, you have the right not to accept smokers as tenants, counting on the government to do the deed for you, is not the way to go.

[Dan from Michigan]

Are you Henry Waxman?

[RMDupree]

I have a friend who lives in an upstairs condo with avid smokers downstairs. They sit on their patio and smoke like chimneys and the smoke drifts up into her place. Her condo absolutely stinks. But in this land of "freedom", she has lost her right to breathe clean air..... When common courtesy is lacking and their right to smoke infringes on her right to breathe clean air - I have zero problems with this legislation. Perhaps it will cause some folks to be a little more considerate, whether it be with the volume on their stereo or their drifting smoke.

Has your friend ever tried the crazy idea of going downstairs, knocking on thier door and trying to reach a compromise WITHOUT government intervention?

I smoke and am VERY courteous of nonsmokers. In the scenrio you painted, I would put a fan outside and have it blow the smoke outwards instead of upwards, thus dissipating the offensive odor that plagues your friend's nostrils.

Why has this nation become so wussified that neighbors have to get Big Brother to do for them what a few civil words can solve in most cases?

[Fraulein]

Members of the anti-smoking brigade are irrational and extremely paranoid. The only surprise is that they are not running around with masks and scarves wrapped around their faces like Michael Jackson.

[HamiltonJay]

Protagoras,

When you actually go out and run a business get back to me. Fact is when you go into business you enter the business world and have to follow the rules, unless of course you are part of the mafia or some such.

As to your inane notion of what is Facism, by your definition requiring safety equipment in manufacturing is facism, which is nonsense. Your arguments don't hold up.

You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. To try to equate business regulation with Facism defacto is a non starter.

Rules regulate non discrimination, whether I agree or not, they regulate safety codes, whether I agree or not, and they regulate behaviors and acts that are acceptable whether I agree personally with them or not. Many do not inately protect the rights of another, after all if I am a biggot, my denial to rent to you is not an infraction of your rights. AH, but in rental property (Business) it is... I have every right to deny you access to my personal home, but I am not allowed to discriminate against you as a tenant for such a reason.

Business is business and you want to go into business you play by the rules. Its all part of the way the world works... your ideological blindings may wish that things worked otherwise, but they don't. Business regulation is not defacto facism. Government regulates banking, but hardly is it a facist industry... they regulate manufacturing, but hardly is it facism... you make a jump of indefensible logic by forwarding such nonsense.

[Wrigley]

Reading these posts, makes me want to light a cigarette.

And I don't smoke.

[HamiltonJay]

In case you missed it, I said I don't agree with this law, and don't expect the government to do any deeds for me.