Two Californicator cities to ban smoking in apartments/condos

[Osborn F Enready]

All I was trying to point out Techno, is that BILL CLINTON set the groundwork for LEGAL action, by, of course, Executive Order, the powers traditionally held by Kings, and has the same technical meaning as a Kings proclamation.

Executive Order is an obvious sign of tyranny in our nation.

I find it funny that none of the "champions of democracy" such as Obama, Clinton, Biden, Edwards, only want to trust "democracy" when it "doesn't interfere with their installation of a communist authoritarian federal government".

Democrats, USED TO BE the champions of social individual rights, while Republicans USED TO BE the champions of economic individual rights.....

Now they are both authoritarian based parties, Republicans fascists, Democrats Communists, and they both have a goal of empowering the Executive branch to the point of rendering the peoples intrests, conscent, voices, moot.

The biggest mistake ANY voter could make that values individual rights, in this coming election, is to vote for ANY of the front runners from either party.

Clinton, Biden, Obama, Edwards are all major party puppets, whereas a vote for Mike Gravel would be safe.

Romney, Giulianni, McCain, Brownback, Huckabee, Thompson are all major party puppets, whereas a vote for Paul, or possibly Tancredo would be safe.

I wish all people would simply take the time to investigate the facts, and then present them objectively.

[The Decider]

Quote by: grandpa This whole punishment of vices thing brings me this quote: "It sometimes happens that men who preach most vehemently about evil and the punishment of evil, so that they seem to have practically nothing else on their minds except sin, are really unconscious haters of other men. They think that the world does not appreciate them, and this is their way of getting even." Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, p. 93

That's a profound quote. Please elaborate it's significance to one or more arguments on this thread.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider That's a profound quote. Please elaborate it's significance to one or more arguments on this thread.

Perhaps it has to do with "men who preach most vehemently about evil
and the punishment of evil".


That does seem to be the general gist of this thread.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Perhaps it has to do with "men who preach most vehemently about evil and the punishment of evil". That does seem to be the general gist of this thread.

Oh, I thought this thread was about the disgusting and dangerous habit of smoking in crowded apartment and condo complexes. "Evil" deserves its own thread in the religion/philosopy forums--it's not an argument here.

[Praxius]

Smoking in crowded apartments huh? I'm not sure what apartment buildings you have lived in, but the ones I lived in have things called doors and walls, which keep out things from other apartments. Also, they have reqiured venteliation systems to keep air clean.... it's not like everybody and their dogs are in line to suck on a tail pipe.

And besides that, about this stupid law passing....

What if someone who owned a few complexes decided to make them exclusively reserved for smokers? Thereby allowing non-smokers more opportunity to live in apartment buildins withouth smoking in them.

But now this foolish law is to make sure nobody has the freedom of choice to do what they want with the business they decided to run.

I infact heard and seen a few complexes here in Canada which were reserved since these kind of laws came into place.

I mean, sure Canada has a load of useless laws and taxes towards smoking, but not towards some level such as this is.

[Osborn F Enready]

I don't care what the habit is, PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET THE RULES FOR THEIR PROPERTY.

If I am a smoker who owns, builds and maintains an apartment, I have the RIGHT to allow smokers in that building, or NOT allow smokers in that building.

This is more nanny-statism, regardless of how much of a rabid anti-smoker you are, you should be able to see that through your haze of hatred for smokers.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider Oh, I thought this thread was about the disgusting and dangerous habit of smoking in crowded apartment and condo complexes. "Evil" deserves its own thread in the religion/philosopy forums--it's not an argument here.

You are ignoring the fact that according to the messenger that "smoking is evil", and that the messenger has plans to punish that evil with a tax, or perhaps even a ban.


It was a perfect example, and thus on topic.


Doesn't that just make you want to mock me, and throw up in my face how "it's a free country".

[Suburbanite]

California: Out with cigarettes in with marijuana! The healthier alternative.

[Milton Bradley]

How about out with commies, and in with liberty.


I used to think California was part of the US.

[Suburbanite]

Its hard to feel good about yourself as a tobacco smoker in California, that is for sure.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Suburbanite Its hard to feel good about yourself as a tobacco smoker in California, that is for sure.

How about as an American?

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You are ignoring the fact that according to the messenger that "smoking is evil", and that the messenger has plans to punish that evil with a tax, or perhaps even a ban. It was a perfect example, and thus on topic.

Who claimed "smoking is evil?" A disgusting and dangerous act is not necessarily "evil" in a religious or philosophical sense. The "example" is a strawman argument.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Doesn't that just make you want to mock me, and throw up in my face how "it's a free country".

I'll leave the "mocking" comments to you.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I don't care what the habit is, PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET THE RULES FOR THEIR PROPERTY.

Property owners MUST adhere to many health and safety codes regarding chemical storage, environmental protection, sanitation, physical safety, plumbing, electrical systems, ventilation, etc., etc., etc. Whether or not you oppose such regulations doesn't invalidate them. Only the judicial branch can do that. Good luck.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready If I am a smoker who owns, builds and maintains an apartment, I have the RIGHT to allow smokers in that building, or NOT allow smokers in that building.

You don't have that "right" if smoking is deemed a public health hazard.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready This is more nanny-statism, regardless of how much of a rabid anti-smoker you are, you should be able to see that through your haze of hatred for smokers.

According to the article, the "hatred"--in the form of death threats against public officials--came from the pro-smoking side. I don't wish death on anyone. I don't "hate" smokers, just the dangerous smoke belching from their mouths and into other peoples' bodies and environments.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider Who claimed "smoking is evil?" A disgusting and dangerous act is not necessarily "evil" in a religious or philosophical sense. The "example" is a strawman argument.

The same people pushing this egregious legislation.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider According to the article, the "hatred"--in the form of death threats against public officials--came from the pro-smoking side. I don't wish death on anyone. I don't "hate" smokers, just the dangerous smoke belching from their mouths and into other peoples' bodies and environments.

Goody, advantage our side.


Death to tyrants.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Goody, advantage our side. Death to tyrants.

What advantage? A 9' x 9' prison cell for the murderers? That's a shortcut to even stricter anti-smoking legislation. Go for it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Decider Oh, I thought this thread was about the disgusting and dangerous habit of smoking in crowded apartment and condo complexes. "Evil" deserves its own thread in the religion/philosopy forums--it's not an argument here.

Actually, much of the argument is about evil/vices, etc.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Decider said: Property owners MUST adhere to many health and safety codes regarding chemical storage, environmental protection, sanitation, physical safety, plumbing, electrical systems, ventilation, etc., etc., etc. Whether or not you oppose such regulations doesn't invalidate them. Only the judicial branch can do that. Good luck.

LOL.....

I reserve the right to disobey unjust laws, and the right to petition to remove them, and the right to civil disobedience.

If it were my apartment, and I lived in that state, I would burn the sucker down, or have it destroyed accepting the loss, leaving the land "green".

That would be good, wouldn't it? LOL

Decider said: You don't have that "right" if smoking is deemed a public health hazard.

Who is doing the "deeming", and do I respect their "deeming" of things? No.

Makes no difference to me what they deem.

Decider said: According to the article, the "hatred"--in the form of death threats against public officials--came from the pro-smoking side.

No kidding?!? Is it any wonder? Not to most people.

It has to do with this little thing called property rights, individual rights, and role of government as set forth by the Constitution.

Decider said: I don't wish death on anyone.

I wish I could say the same.

Decider said: I don't "hate" smokers, just the dangerous smoke belching from their mouths and into other peoples' bodies and environments.

You have the right to "not be" where "they are".

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready All I was trying to point out Techno, is that BILL CLINTON set the groundwork for LEGAL action, by, of course, Executive Order, the powers traditionally held by Kings, and has the same technical meaning as a Kings proclamation. Executive Order is an obvious sign of tyranny in our nation. I find it funny that none of the "champions of democracy" such as Obama, Clinton, Biden, Edwards, only want to trust "democracy" when it "doesn't interfere with their installation of a communist authoritarian federal government". Democrats, USED TO BE the champions of social individual rights, while Republicans USED TO BE the champions of economic individual rights..... Now they are both authoritarian based parties, Republicans fascists, Democrats Communists, and they both have a goal of empowering the Executive branch to the point of rendering the peoples intrests, conscent, voices, moot. The biggest mistake ANY voter could make that values individual rights, in this coming election, is to vote for ANY of the front runners from either party. Clinton, Biden, Obama, Edwards are all major party puppets, whereas a vote for Mike Gravel would be safe. Romney, Giulianni, McCain, Brownback, Huckabee, Thompson are all major party puppets, whereas a vote for Paul, or possibly Tancredo would be safe. I wish all people would simply take the time to investigate the facts, and then present them objectively.

Even so, and correct me if I am wrong, does not the Consitution permit states or cities to create laws to govern their self based on local demands for such regulations? So what do the Presidents have to do directly with this city or state law? As the new laws being debated did on come down from the Federal government.

As I understood Ron Paul's thinking he supports the rights of states to govern their self in a manner seperate from the Federal Government and so I doubt if he would step in to reverse that smoking ban as something unconsitutional. Unless the Consitution was amended to include smokers as a "class of people" who cannot be discriminated aganist.

The Consitution comes close to doing that because tobacco is part of the Native American religion as wine is to the Christians. But needless to say people use those products for other then religious reasons as well.

I do not favor any federal anti-smoking bans or special taxes.

The "right to privacy" in you own home is important, and if you rent a home those rights should stand firm as that is the same as if you were buying a house. So I appose that city and state law as well on those grounds.

The only good thing is that, as a smoker, I no longer can be forced to serve Jury Duty. Twice I used my smoking habit as a medical reason to get out of jury duty and they approved it.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready LOL..... I reserve the right to disobey unjust laws, and the right to petition to remove them, and the right to civil disobedience. If it were my apartment, and I lived in that state, I would burn the sucker down, or have it destroyed accepting the loss, leaving the land "green". That would be good, wouldn't it? LOL

Arson and murder is not "civil disobedience." The judge would listen to your "right to disobey unjust laws" defense and then give you a long prison sentence.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Who is doing the "deeming", and do I respect their "deeming" of things? No. Makes no difference to me what they deem.

That's OK, just as long as you know the legal consequences--fine or jail.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No kidding?!? Is it any wonder? Not to most people. It has to do with this little thing called property rights, individual rights, and role of government as set forth by the Constitution.

Again, if you choose vigilante justice, you also choose the legal consequences.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You have the right to "not be" where "they are".

And smokers have a right to move to smoke-friendly jurisdictions to pollute their neighbors' environments.