California Town Bans Smoking in Condos and Apartments That Share Walls

DerbyGawker
ROFL what. *IF* meth was legal, do you honestly think a law against smoking in a public restroom would stop a tweaker from doing so? Do you know what meth is? Alcoholics won't damage an $8,000 AC unit for $3 in copper. Punishing them generally reduces reciprocity.ct

Legislating centrist morality isn't dumb. We made murder illegal because it's immoral, stealing as well. There will always be a socially acceptable baseline. However vices are winning because (for example) some leftist judge decided strip clubs was protected speech, because some other leftist judge gave persons rights, which then made corporations equal under the law. So a deviant minority of the populace can now corrupt the morality of the majority.

Cheap (or old) units do allow for smoke to penetrate. Legally speaking it is far "easier" to establish a universal law which includes all domiciles sharing a common wall banning smoking than to require new developments to protect against the problem (which would still leave older buildings to suffer the matter) as ex post facto laws are illegal which prevents the state from just mandating all old as well as new residences must properly separate units to shield them from passing smoke. So really this is their only option of legal recourse since the alternative would be to change the constitution and allow for ex post facto laws so that people can just smoke "in private" without affecting the rights of others.

edit on 22-11-2013 by DerbyGawker because: (no reason given)

Murder and stealing aren't moral laws, they effect other people negatively and directly. They are not the same thing as legislating against meth use. Do not even compare the two. Also who cares if smoking in the bathroom being illegal will stop the user or not? It is still illegal so if he gets caught, he gets fined or jailed. End of story. Why do people who argue for drugs being illegal cite examples of users breaking OTHER laws as evidence why the drug needs to remain illegal? If you break another law because of your bad drug habit, you go to jail because you broke THAT law. Drinking and driving is illegal, but it doesn't stop countless numbers of people from doing it every night, but we aren't making alcohol illegal because people drink and drive, no we just prosecute them for a DUI.

Why are you viewing the smoking issue as "needing legal recourse" to begin with? If your only option for legislating the issue, is a crappy law, then it doesn't need legislating. Leave it alone and let people enjoy their vice in the privacy of their own home.

SisyphusRide
reply to post by intrepid

 

oh they are working on banning the fast food joint too...

Liberals love you, they only want what is best for you, no matter if it infringes upon your freedoms.

like Bloomberg's ban on large soda's in New York lol...

people will only take so much, Texas is probably only second behind Virginia when it comes to a Constitutional state... Virginian's get angry when prices pass $3 a pack and they say/do something about it.

the soda ban and smoking ban in your own private property (which is sacred) will never fly here in a few lifetimes, not just my own.

California is going to end up looking a lot like Canada before too long... with an American design twist.

edit on 22-11-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

What freedoms are you referring to? You have no understanding of freedom. Having access to industrialized food "stuff" has nothing to do with freedom. Do you incorrectly presume that you have a right to the existence of a corporation that is artificial in nature and turns nature into the artificial?

Because this is how it really works. You have the right to go to McDonalds (if McDonald's exists) but you do not have the right to HAVE a McDonalds.

Preventing the existence of or regulation thereof an artificial entity does not interfere with YOUR personal liberty.

boymonkey74
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

You dissing Canada?

Intrepid Attack!!!

Why? He's right.You think it's bad down there. Try the tripe we have to live with. I'm surprised we haven't gotten the federal gov'ts notice on the proper way to wipe your ass. That would be funny if it wasn't true.

intrepid

DerbyGawker
Imagine what an organized society could bestow upon its self with ~$400 billion.

Whoa there dude. On this page you said that 100 billion was chump change. But 400 billion isn't? We haven't moved a comma here.

AND, who decides what an "organized society" is? Yours could be very different from mine. And his. And hers. And those folks.

$100 billion is dispersed to the respective states. ~$400 billion is pure economic potential, it may transverse state or even international borders. Whereas your $100 billion has a fixed potential per the respective state. I would much rather see my money go towards an enterprise of my choice than frivolously spent by the state.

Krazysh0t
Murder and stealing aren't moral laws, they effect other people negatively and directly. They are not the same thing as legislating against meth use. Do not even compare the two. Also who cares if smoking in the bathroom being illegal will stop the user or not? It is still illegal so if he gets caught, he gets fined or jailed. End of story. Why do people who argue for drugs being illegal cite examples of users breaking OTHER laws as evidence why the drug needs to remain illegal? If you break another law because of your bad drug habit, you go to jail because you broke THAT law. Drinking and driving is illegal, but it doesn't stop countless numbers of people from doing it every night, but we aren't making alcohol illegal because people drink and drive, no we just prosecute them for a DUI.

Why are you viewing the smoking issue as "needing legal recourse" to begin with? If your only option for legislating the issue, is a crappy law, then it doesn't need legislating. Leave it alone and let people enjoy their vice in the privacy of their own home.

Are you kidding me with the "murder and stealing aren't moral laws"? They are the purest of moral laws, just because secular society has adopted and rationalized them through post-modern ethics does not mean they aren't.

The reason people cite them is because drugs impair rational thought. Why do people insist on applying rational logic to irrational decisions? Everyone knows what happens when you use meth. Smoking meth is what causes you to smoke meth in a parks restroom with children around. It isn't that you're a terrible person who happens to use meth, it's that meth MAKES YOU a terrible person. Do you ever think maybe if people didn't drink, they wouldn't get in a DUI?

Do you understand what legal recourse is? It's a remedy for those whose rights have been violated. It's so infantile to pretend like smokers have a right to smoke when they directly infringe upon anthers right to not be subjected to smoke.

Sure you can reverse the argument and say it's infantile for a non-smoker to infringe on the right of the smoker by not allowing them to smoke. Except that the latter scenario is not an absolute. It isn't that you can't smoke. It's that you can't smoke (IN CONTEXT) in proximity to someone who rightfully perceives it as an abuse of their rights in a common area as YOU the person engaging in an act (versus the non-smoker who is not engaging in an act) have the right to move to a non common area and then smoke. And to further elaborate on it. You have the absolute right to smoke as much as you want, of whatever you want with the caveat that your choices do not affect others.

So, you must be filthy rich to build a self-sustaining zero-impact impenetrable bunker where you grow your own tobacco, do not pollute the environment to do so and your exhaust does not mix with that of societies.

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that? Society is king. The individual is nothing without society, as society is nothing without the countless individuals. And you can whine all day about how it's some small majority but you're just lying to yourself because it takes a super-majority to elect enough people in government to agree on a singular issue such as this.

reply to post by DerbyGawker


If this argument was based in reality then we could have a dialog on it.

Btw, it didn't take gov't to make me change things in my life. I did research and cut out cholesterol and salt over 20 years ago. I'm in my 50's and my heart is just fine. Had a stress test 2 years ago. 2 feet and an excellent heart beat. I didn't need it legislated that I do this.

DerbyGawker

intrepid

DerbyGawker
Imagine what an organized society could bestow upon its self with ~$400 billion.

Whoa there dude. On this page you said that 100 billion was chump change. But 400 billion isn't? We haven't moved a comma here.

AND, who decides what an "organized society" is? Yours could be very different from mine. And his. And hers. And those folks.

$100 billion is dispersed to the respective states. ~$400 billion is pure economic potential, it may transverse state or even international borders. Whereas your $100 billion has a fixed potential per the respective state.

Do you know how the reader views that? As complete asswipe. You are dealing with a double standard there.

I would much rather see my money go towards an enterprise of my choice than frivolously spent by the state.

Would you? How about millions of other voters? Speaking for them too? You are but a small portion of society. There are many others, with differing points of view.

boymonkey74
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

You dissing Canada?

Intrepid Attack!!!

oh no man... sorry dude, two of my favorite life molding bands are Canadian!

actually include the Guess Who... so that makes 3

isn't Canada socialist government?

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet” and “Thou shalt not steal” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.

-John Adams 1787

nevermind

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Jesus is a socialist....

intrepid

DerbyGawker

intrepid

DerbyGawker
Imagine what an organized society could bestow upon its self with ~$400 billion.

Whoa there dude. On this page you said that 100 billion was chump change. But 400 billion isn't? We haven't moved a comma here.

AND, who decides what an "organized society" is? Yours could be very different from mine. And his. And hers. And those folks.

$100 billion is dispersed to the respective states. ~$400 billion is pure economic potential, it may transverse state or even international borders. Whereas your $100 billion has a fixed potential per the respective state.

Do you know how the reader views that? As complete asswipe. You are dealing with a double standard there.

I would much rather see my money go towards an enterprise of my choice than frivolously spent by the state.

Would you? How about millions of other voters? Speaking for them too? You are but a small portion of society. There are many others, with differing points of view.

Yeah, no. There are no interpretations of organized society. Society is society, it's the "general consensus" which is ascertained through the requisite votes required to elect the requisite leaders to agree on an issue to such a degree as to come to a general consensus and enact the appropriate legislation.

Therefor, "society" within context of this incident has clearly asserted their supremacy by banning smoking in commons.

With regard to the 100 vs 400. It's not a double standard because your 100 is effectively 2 billion per state whereas 400 billion in raw economic potential could in theory be applied entirely to one state, even one city. So stating that 400 is greater than 2 is not a double standard.

DerbyGawker
With regard to the 100 vs 400. It's not a double standard because your 100 is effectively 2 billion per state whereas 400 billion in raw economic potential could in theory be applied entirely to one state, even one city. So stating that 400 is greater than 2 is not a double standard.

No. That would mean 8 billion per state. Even though it doesn't work that way. Basic math.

ETA: I'm assuming RI is the smallest state. Their annual budget is $8 billion:

www.wpri.com...

8 billion. A lot for RI but it's the smallest state. Pittance to California. Then there all those in between.

2nd edit: I can't stand college dogma that doesn't take reality into it's equation. Cripes.

boymonkey74
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Jesus is a socialist....

actually Jsus is like this... "all am I, I am all"

and the only nation I dis on that is a part of NATO is England

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Make a thread about it...I dare you

intrepid

DerbyGawker
With regard to the 100 vs 400. It's not a double standard because your 100 is effectively 2 billion per state whereas 400 billion in raw economic potential could in theory be applied entirely to one state, even one city. So stating that 400 is greater than 2 is not a double standard.

No. That would mean 8 billion per state. Even though it doesn't work that way. Basic math.

\

No because the 2 billion is derived from the 100 billion in average state collected revenue, whereas the 400 is *not* collected and individuals are free to do with that extra 400 billion in economic potential as they wish as the money from not buying cigarettes, not being taxed (charged more) through insurance to subsidize those who do smoke, to not having to pay increased premiums to cover fire risks from smoking for yourself while simultaneously subsidizing the costs of others in your premium, the list goes on and on.

The cumulative $400 billion in all associated costs for tobacco use would no longer be collected and would be in play in the economy capable of being spent wherever versus 2 billion per state.

Even though absurdity has overtaken some of the argument here, I still say none of the governments business to violate contract law and property rights.

It is economically viable to either separate dwelling units such as "building "A" - non-smoking, building "B" smoking. For you non-smokers this doesn't mean having your government using the power of the gun, it means ask for it in the market place.

For existing dwellings convince property management to modify new leases if costs, insurance and property value can be enhanced - if case is made - there you go - all without trampling upon others using power of the gun.

Same for condo's, convince owners association and have valid for all new sales.

In the same vein bar and restaurant owners should be able to declare establishments however they want as long as informed consent exists - other words you may choose based on being informed to be a customer or employee, or not. As it is this is illegal.

Using coercion of the government is a bad road and we all know it.

Seems I would have a basis for suing the government entity based on loss of use of my property for a perfectly legal activity reading the absolutist type law written by this locality as it supersedes my lease or purchase contract made in good faith.

boymonkey74
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Make a thread about it...I dare you

nah I'll pass...

but there are deep roots to my and the UK's division, not only because I am a God fearing American, and Richard Dawkins is a citizen of England... I happen to be Hungarian, the only nation to side with Germany at the outbreak of two world wars.

so my predisposition is on a genetic level...

reply to post by Phoenix


Thank you! Star for you! This is what I've been getting at, people in this thread seem to think it is ok with the government telling you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home (or put into your body).

Phoenix
Even though absurdity has overtaken some of the argument here, I still say none of the governments business to violate contract law and property rights.

It is economically viable to either separate dwelling units such as "building "A" - non-smoking, building "B" smoking. For you non-smokers this doesn't mean having your government using the power of the gun, it means ask for it in the market place.

For existing dwellings convince property management to modify new leases if costs, insurance and property value can be enhanced - if case is made - there you go - all without trampling upon others using power of the gun.

Same for condo's, convince owners association and have valid for all new sales.

In the same vein bar and restaurant owners should be able to declare establishments however they want as long as informed consent exists - other words you may choose based on being informed to be a customer or employee, or not. As it is this is illegal.

Using coercion of the government is a bad road and we all know it.

Seems I would have a basis for suing the government entity based on loss of use of my property for a perfectly legal activity reading the absolutist type law written by this locality as it supersedes my lease or purchase contract made in good faith.

And if the largest agro-polluter had a contract that allowed them to pollute for 200 years and we found evidence they give millions cancer every year, should we not violate the contract?

Typically property managers rotate residencies to allow for adjoining units to be remodeled together as not to disturb other tenants as what you suggest would require working on the adjoining walls insulation and other things. I talked about the logistical implications a page or two back. Private clubs allow for smoking in my state as with most I do believe.

Calling it "coercion" is over the top, there won't be an undercover anti-smoking unit. The reality is that as long as your neighbor doesn't inform on you (which means you aren't violating their rights) then the likelihood of this ever appearing in court is non-existent unless you openly defy it in view of police.

Certainly you have a basis for suing, will the court find in your favor is the real question: www.fas.org...

"When Congressional Legislation Interferes with Existing Contracts: Legal Issues"


Quote: "On the other hand, government needs latitude to address new problems, so contracts generally are said to confer no immunity against future legislation."

Sums it all up.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Wow they are the worse reasons to hate England I have ever seen.
So your descendants were Nazi lovers and you hate the place because you hate a guy who was born there
I don't like an American so I will hate the whole USA lol.


Back to the OP no Government should tell anyone what to put in their own body or do something in their own home like the poster above says.

kingears
So if I've got this right, if my block of 6 flats (apartments) was located in San Rafael, California it would be against the law to smoke in my own home? As a smoker i feel this is absolutely ludicrous. Glad i live in old blighty

How is this going to be policed? Are they relying on people to 'grass' up their neighbours if they suspect them of smoking? Are they going to provide an outdoor shelter for those smokers to use?

If they tried doing this in the UK there would be uproar, and even if a law was passed it would be flouted the same way the law against smoking in work vehicles is. (This carries a £50 fine, £30 if paid within 15 days.)

King

edit on 22/11/2013 by kingears because: (no reason given)

But you don't own your apartment. You are "borrowing" it from your landlord. It is not your own "house". I don't know the rules on condos however, but from what I understand that is definitely your property.

I agree that smokers should be able to smoke wherever they want ( Casual smoker of a few years here ) but I also agree it does not need to be allowed inside. Plenty of apartments have a balcony, or a grassy patch outside where you can step outside for a smoke. Besides, have you seen the damage that cigarette smoke can do to walls? It's nasty, and if I owned my place I wouldn't want to damage it like that.