Two Californicator cities to ban smoking in apartments/condos

[Chancellor]

More erosion of American liberties!

Two Calif. cities to vote on banning smoking in apartments - USATODAY.com

The owners of apartment buildings and condominiums certainly have the right to ban smoking on their property but for government to come along and do it is a theft of citizens' liberties.

Do people not see the slippery slope here? First a couple of cities ban smoking in apartments and condos; then it'll be banned in houses; then it'll be banned within city limits; then states will start adopting similar bans; then there will be a national ban; then the U. N. will push for a global ban.

[Mr. Jaggers]

All rights in property, whether in fee, tenancy, license or incorporeal hereditament, exist only by law. Nor are you free to do anything you wish with your property. The old shibboleth that "a man's home is his castle" was never true, for all property rights have always been subject to the power of the state and government authority, witness the myriad laws (state and federal statutes, municipal zoning ordinances, easements, rights or way, and use restrictions) that limit the rights of property ownership. Even a prescriptive right is only valid to the extent recognized by law. If you need further proof, just try putting on an addition to your house without a building permit and see what happens to you - not to mention your property. (As I write this, the owner of an office highrise in San Diego is having to remove the top three floors from his building because they encroach upon federal airspace.) There are some jurisdictions (e.g., Los Angeles, California) that even regulate the amount of water your toilet can flush! So if you think you’re king of your castle, you’d better start using a chamber pot for a throne.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am the king of my castle Jaggers, and that is the case because I refuse to bend to laws that have no constitutional authority, much like the ones mentioned above, which try to limit the rights of property owners.

People have a right to stand up to unjust law, its called civil disobedience.

Do you deny that right:?

[Milton Bradley]

But Democrats don't have a scary authoritarian streak,


These guys been hanging around with Republicans too long.


Both groups deserve to go extinct.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Milton Bradley But Democrats don't have a scary authoritarian streak,

They don't? Demoncrats are primarily responsible for most of the intrusive government regulations that erode our liberties.

These guys been hanging around with Republicans too long.

Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.

Both groups deserve to go extinct.

Agreed.

[Praxius]

This can not, or at least should not pass.

If it does pass, somebody down there gotta know something about rights.

Here's a simple concept...

The place you call home... your Dwelling place.... is a place where you call home. You eat, sleep, watch tv, have sex, drink your brains out, do whatever...... Most of which is not in view of anybody.

A home is something you can claim as a place where you can relax and do what you want to (Within reason of course) nobody has the right to tell you what you can and can not consume into your body where you live, behind closed doors.

Apartment and Condo complexes as being private companies can make this decision as they own the property, but the government has no say in the matter at all.

In order to even attempt to enforce this, what do they plan on doing? Knocking on everybody's doors with warrants to check for ashtrays?

You know.... for something that's still "Legal" there sure is a load of BS surrounding everything that involves it. We have illegal Pot, E, Shrooms and all of that stuff, yet there are no laws specifically stating where you can or can not do those things.

Yeah there are stupid laws out there now for getting permits for adding to your house, property taxes, and all that crap.... but that has nothing to do with what you choose to do recreational-wise.

I'm sorry..... I'll pay my rent and I'll keep the place clean and in once piece, but ain't nobody telling me what I can or can not do in my own home..... plain and simple..... esspecially when it comes to something that is still perfectly legal.

Actually there was a lawsuit between a landlord and a tennant for smoking, and the smoker won:

Montreal woman can smoke in her apartment: rental board

A woman who wants to smoke in her Montreal apartment despite her landlords' objections has won her fight to light up. In a July 4 ruling published Tuesday, Quebec's rental board said Sandra-Ann Fowler is allowed to smoke in her Ville-Émard area apartment even though her landlords tried to prevent her from using tobacco in the dwelling. Fowler's landlords, Olesia Koretski and Matthew Newland, tried to ban tobacco in the apartment by including a no-smoking clause in the application form used for the unit. Fowler filled out the form but did not sign it and said there were no non-smoking clauses in her first lease, signed in 2006, and the 2007 renewal. The rental board said an application form is not a binding document and tenants can't be held to its specifications. But the door is still open for landlords who want to ban smoking by including a clause in their rental lease. No one has challenged a no-smoking lease clause at the Quebec Rental Board.

Not the same situation, however it does show that smokers can still win a fight or two.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius This can not, or at least should not pass. If it does pass, somebody down there gotta know something about rights.

It's California: it will very likely pass.

Here's a simple concept... The place you call home... your Dwelling place.... is a place where you call home. You eat, sleep, watch tv, have sex, drink your brains out, do whatever...... Most of which is not in view of anybody.

Well, no, not according to liberals and, most especially, not according to Californicator liberals.

A home is something you can claim as a place where you can relax and do what you want to (Within reason of course) nobody has the right to tell you what you can and can not consume into your body where you live, behind closed doors.

Leftists and rightists would both disagree with that.

Apartment and Condo complexes as being private companies can make this decision as they own the property, but the government has no say in the matter at all.

Well, I would agree with that in principle but these Californicators obviously don't agree.

You know.... for something that's still "Legal" there sure is a load of BS surrounding everything that involves it.

That's an interesting comment coming from a Canadian.

[5010]

I can relate. There are human smoking bans in parking lots at medical facilities. Of course, autos are allowed to smoke in the same places.

In this respect we've become 2nd class citizens to machines.

Recently a Dallas councilman stated that the saggy pants issue is equal to crime and the trinity river improvement issues. What?! Dallas is getting very poor crime reports and he considers that the same as someone showing their boxers in public?

If you think we've gained much since they stopped making stupid fornication laws, think again. These things must be fought forever.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: 5010 I can relate. There are human smoking bans in parking lots at medical facilities. Of course, autos are allowed to smoke in the same places.

Considering that there are often people with oxygen tanks going from the parking lot into the facility, I can understand a ban on smoking. There's a risk (however slight) of causing someone's oxygen tank to explode. Car exhaust causes no such risk to oxygen tanks.

In this respect we've become 2nd class citizens to machines.

See above.

Recently a Dallas councilman stated that the saggy pants issue is equal to crime and the trinity river improvement issues. What?! Dallas is getting very poor crime reports and he considers that the same as someone showing their boxers in public?

I think the councilman was stereotyping, i.e. that all people wearing those saggy pants that are five sizes too big and sitting half way down on the person's buttocks are gang members and criminals.

If you think we've gained much since they stopped making stupid fornication laws, think again. These things must be fought forever.

We've gained nothing and the left is just as inclined to pass laws that infringe on individual liberties as the right is.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Well, Mr. Enready: I'm not worried about you, for I'm sure that you have a very large chamber pot.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Chancellor It's California: it will very likely pass.

A state which is also one of the most pro-marijuana? Proceeding with further restrictions like this seems a bit hypocritical.

Well, no, not according to liberals and, most especially, not according to Californicator liberals.

Their loss.

Leftists and rightists would both disagree with that.

I honestly don't care if the upsidititydownist disagree with me, it what I believe to be true. I don't expect anybody to agree with me.

Well, I would agree with that in principle but these Californicators obviously don't agree.

Apparently so. Even if I say something shouldn't and won't happen.... always have been shown that pretty much anything can happen in the US.

That's an interesting comment coming from a Canadian.

Oh yeah? Please elaborate.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius A state which is also one of the most pro- marijuana? Proceeding with further restrictions like this seems a bit hypocritical.

Well, there are different pressures from interest groups, so I wouldn't lump them together so very closely.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

I live in California. The nothern half of the state is mostly Republican and the down south the population is mostly democratic.

Reagan was the orginator of the anti-smoking movement.

The law might have been allowed because of the fire hazards connected to smoking, and fires can spread quickly in mult-living buildings where as in a single dwelling place it is just you own stuff that would burn down, in most cases.

They ran a advertisement on TV here in California that showed cigarette smoke going from one apartment out the window and then blowing into the window next door where this new born infant was in it's crib.... the smoke went directly to the nose of the baby. That ad ran over and over for months on prime time TV.

After the brainwashing job, someone made that law.

For some "unscientific" reason people are paranoid about 2nd hand smoke and even the smell of cigarettes.

But here is a good experiment. Place the lawmaker inside a closed garage. In one garage he would be subjected too 2nd hand smoke from 10 people puffing on cigarettes. In garage "b" he would be subjected to fumes from only one tailpipe of a car that is with it motor turned on.

Which represents the greatest hazard? Would you ban cars from parking under or near the windows of an apartment or smokers? If you had to pick one over the other?

Point is: They do not really care about health they just want votes from the anti-cigarette group because they are easyer to brainwash.

[Osborn F Enready]

Jaggers said: Well, Mr. Enready: I'm not worried about you, for I'm sure that you have a very large chamber pot.

Yea..... :rolleyes:

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul Reagan was the orginator of the anti-smoking movement. .

This is funny, because I recall someone stating that the "anti-smoking" agenda was merely a "liberal," "Democrat" thing.

Grandpa h.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Technosoul The law might have been allowed because of the fire hazards connected to smoking, and fires can spread quickly in mult-living buildings where as in a single dwelling place it is just you own stuff that would burn down, in most cases.

On my side of the coast (Oppostie East and a bit North where Cali is) everybody keeps citing that smoke damages the paint on the walls, saturates things into smelling like ciggs, etc..... which isn't a health or damage issue.... just a preference thing.... and if they hate the smell, one can easily wash down the walls before they move.

They ran a advertisement on TV here in California that showed cigarette smoke going from one apartment out the window and then blowing into the window next door where this new born infant was in it's crib.... the smoke went directly to the nose of the baby. That ad ran over and over for months on prime time TV.

You know, I believe I seen that commercial..... I love how they made it seem like smoke doesn't eventually evaporate, and infants are a magent for it.

We're was all this concern when I was an infant? There wasn't any.... and I seem fine thus far....

For some "unscientific" reason people are paranoid about 2nd hand smoke and even the smell of cigarettes.

Agreed.

But here is a good experiment. Place the lawmaker inside a closed garage. In one garage he would be subjected too 2nd hand smoke from 10 people puffing on cigarettes. In garage "b" he would be subjected to fumes from only one tailpipe of a car that is with it motor turned on. Which represents the greatest hazard? Would you ban cars from parking under or near the windows of an apartment or smokers? If you had to pick one over the other?

This has also been my argument.... where I live, you are not allowed to even smoke out in the open air on a public deck/patio for fears of 2nd hand smoke.... yet not even 3 feet away is the busy street with high levels of traffic on it all day, and while you sit there on the patio without worry of 2nd hand smoke and you can eat in peace, you're inhaling loads of exaust from cars that nobody seems to care about.

Must think it only affects the enviroment and not people or something.

I guess the oil companies can afford better marketing defenses then tobacco companies.

Point is: They do not really care about health they just want votes from the anti-cigarette group because they are easyer to brainwash.

That and it's an easy target for taxing, restricting, and overall making it look like they're actually working.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno is wrong, and needs to look up the facts.

At the FEDERAL LEVEL, President Bill Clinton issued an "Executive Order" in August 1997 that restricted smoking in all federal executive branch facillities to enclosed, seperately ventillated areas.

Executive Order: 13058 - Protecting federal employees and the public from exposure to tobacco smoke in the federal workplace

Executive Orders of Bill Clinton

It is that "Executive Order", also known as the same power held by a "Kings Proclamation" that has set precedent for Federal Level anti-smoking legislation.

Some other information on the Constitutional Treason of Big Billy:
Dereliction Of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton


Just more disinformation being spread, and I can't let that stand.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Praxius Apartment and Condo complexes as being private companies can make this decision as they own the property, but the government has no say in the matter at all.

The courts will decide whether "the government has no say in the matter at all." You may be right, eventually, but in California smokers are not a protected minority.

And whether or not this new law survives a court challenge, every apartment and condo complex owner will get the message loud and clear: the days of "smoking" in such close-knit residential communities are numbered. They best factor that reality into future apt/condo developments.

Quote by: Praxius A home is something you can claim as a place where you can relax and do what you want to (Within reason of course) nobody has the right to tell you what you can and can not consume into your body where you live, behind closed doors.... In order to even attempt to enforce this, what do they plan on doing? Knocking on everybody's doors with warrants to check for ashtrays?

According to the article, numerous tenant complaints motivated the cities to act. Those tenants are also voters with rights to homes "you can relax" in without second hand smoke or smoke-filled hallways or fire danger from a sleepy smoker in bed.

Quote by: Praxius We have illegal Pot, E, Shrooms and all of that stuff, yet there are no laws specifically stating where you can or can not do those things.

Sure we do. You can't smoke pot or ingest shrooms anywhere legally.

Quote by: Praxius I'm sorry..... I'll pay my rent and I'll keep the place clean and in once piece, but ain't nobody telling me what I can or can not do in my own home..... plain and simple

I expect the same message is being delivered to the city lawmakers in California in the form of death threats. According to the article some smokers want to cap those guys. When vigilantes start threatening murder, that alone tells me the law has some merit. I personally don't respond well to murder threats.

Quote by: Praxius ..... esspecially when it comes to something that is still perfectly legal.[/b]

Lots of "legal" substances in the home are subject to legal codes. Homeowners can't store certain chemicals anywhere and anyway they so choose. If chemical odors drift onto someone else's property, the government can intervene. If unsafe usage of chemicals threatens neighbors, the government can (and will) intervene.

[grandpa]

Quote by: The Decider The courts will decide whether "the government has no say in the matter at all." You may be right, eventually, but in California smokers are not a protected minority.

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

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Techno is wrong, and needs to look up the facts. At the FEDERAL LEVEL, President Bill Clinton issued an "Executive Order" in August 1997 that restricted smoking in all federal executive branch facillities to enclosed, seperately ventillated areas. Executive Orders of Bill Clinton It is that "Executive Order", also known as the same power held by a "Kings Proclamation" that has set precedent for Federal Level anti-smoking legislation. Some other information on the Constitutional Treason of Big Billy: Dereliction Of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton Just more disinformation being spread, and I can't let that stand.

The first reports issued by the Surgeon General came out around about 1964. Then When Reagon was in office he appointed a Surgeon General who forced cigarette companys to post warnings on their products about the health risks which first read "Cigarette Smoking May Cause Lung Cancer". That is when Reagan quit smoking and ate jelly beans to help his self overcome the habit. His bowl of jelly beans on his desk became famous. And under his direction they started the "education for prevention" idea, and started to brainwash Americans with advertising and other means.

Clinton later did as you reported concerning federal buildings on federal property. (by then everyone had been brainwashed with all the "Reagan era education".

(and I was talking about the governmentally inspired advertising, not the laws that followed).

Those actions that Reagan spearheaded came about just as the environmentalists were making headway at getting industry regulated for health reasons, having regulated cars with smog checks.

Fearing more regulatons from the (partly left wing) environmental groups the big companies making chemicals, paints, bug sprays, fosil fuel products, jet airplanes, cars, and comupter chips (and others) joined together to form a think tank organization and lobby group. One company being G.E. of which Reagon was once employed. They kept their actions as top secrets. They formed a plan that they hoped would distract the left wing environmentalists from protesting industry. One of the ideas was to sway people to believe that most illnesses are caused by smoking cigarettes (later they added 2nd hand smoke). Breathing problems, cancer, heart attacks, birth defects, etc. The environmentalists feel for it hook, line, and sinker. Including Clinton.

The other part of the plan was to teach companies to put up displays about how environmentally friendly they are, and how they work in harmony with nature and so forth. To promote recycling cans, plastics, and the safe disposals of household products that are hazards. Oh yeah, and "plant a tree".

All those projects aimed at making people feel they can personally do something to save the environment and to keep them busy so they do not protest fosil fuel or industrial polution problems.

The plan worked because the government could pretend to be affecting laws to promote clean air and so forth with those anti-smoking measures, while they really did little to prevent the sales of tobacco, so that it could remian the 'deamon of all your medical ills". (like they did in banning D.D.T. and etc. before the environmentalists were de-railed.)

At the time I had a top secret clearance where I worked, as memos and letters crossed our desks in the secrurity/safety department where I worked. I was tempted to expose the plot back then but everything was stamped confidential. (unlawful to copy or to remove from site). Having been trusted with keeping company private stuff private I keep my mouth shut.

Both the Republican and Democrats got on the anti-smoking bandwagon, true. But the big push to bring attention to smoking as a polution behind many illenesses started in the Reagan White House years. Republicans did the same thing with pot and the war on drugs, because that is their mode of conduct. The Clintons were just sheepe following Shepherd Reagan.

When a class action law suit made IBM pay out millions for damages to those who made computer chips (exposure to toxics) that event triggered the movement by big companies to sidetrack the people concerning about health in the workplace and the environment.

They had banned D.D.T. (the environmental lobby did), lead in paint, created laws mandating smog devices for cars and smog testing, and a special kind of coating they must use on the outer surface of jets and space vehicles was in danger of being banned, which the military depended upon. (but lucky for the D.O.D contractors they would not permit or issue a clearance for safty inspectors to enter their work areas from outside the company, claiming to be doing thier own "self checking).