Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Belmont bans smoking in apartment houses
The San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Wednesday, September 12, 2007 | Jonathan Curiel

Posted on 09/12/2007 1:37:07 PM PDT by Reeses

The Belmont City Council has passed an ordinance prohibiting smoking in multiunit housing, a measure hailed by supporters as a landmark ban that will give residents relief from second-hand smoke drifting into their apartments and condominiums.

"It's to give people who are intolerant of second-hand smoke a chance to say, 'Please stop - you're violating the city's ordinance,' in the same way that if your neighbor has a loud rock band, you can say, 'Please stop,' " City Councilman Dave Warden said today.

The council passed the measure Tuesday night by a vote of 3-2. The ordinance also bans smoking in outdoor public places such as parks and stadiums, and in "service lines" such as those at ATMs.

Belmont's ordinance would be the first in the United States to ban smoking in multiunit housing, Warden said. The council must still approve it on a second reading Sept. 25; if it does so, as expected, the law will take effect Oct. 25.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: California
KEYWORDS: atf; belmont; foryourowngood; nannystate; nazis; pufflist; smokingnazis; tobacco; warondrugs; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
Socialist, artist, vegan, animal lover, anti-smoker... it sounds familiar.
1 posted on 09/12/2007 1:37:12 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reeses

This included weed too, right? Or is that OK for people?


2 posted on 09/12/2007 1:38:10 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
First multi-unit, then multi-inhabitant.

Incrementalism.

3 posted on 09/12/2007 1:39:30 PM PDT by weegee (NO THIRD TERM. America does not need another unconstitutional Clinton co-presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
This should be taken to court.

It should be up to the property owner to decide this, NOT the "city council" unless the "city council" owns the property.

Man I hate to see what America is becoming.

4 posted on 09/12/2007 1:42:23 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

The councilman quoted, Dave Warden, is actually fairly conservative. He’s a good guy. My husband used to work for him, and he was a great boss.


5 posted on 09/12/2007 1:42:31 PM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; SheLion; CSM

Puff


6 posted on 09/12/2007 1:42:54 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
"It's to give people who are intolerant of second-hand smoke a chance to say, 'Please stop - you're violating the city's ordinance,' in the same way that if your neighbor has a loud rock band, you can say, 'Please stop,' " City Councilman Dave Warden said today.

Wow, great analogy, Dave!

BTW, Dave - please stop micromanaging the lives of the serfs - in the same way that Stalin killed 20 million people, Warden, you commie slimeball.

Another great analogy! NOW we're rocking LOUD!

</sarcasm>

7 posted on 09/12/2007 1:43:24 PM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom
The councilman quoted, Dave Warden, is actually fairly conservative.

Sorry, on this subject he ain't no conservative.

8 posted on 09/12/2007 1:44:26 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom

Invasion of the Body Snatchers? ;-)


9 posted on 09/12/2007 1:44:50 PM PDT by an amused spectator (AGW: If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a research lab, you never know what you'll find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Weed is allowed. It's a medical treat-ment.

Once I was smoking a cigar in downtown SF in the afternoon, 50 feet from a hippie smoking a roach in broad daylight. A liberal socialist smoking nazi came up to me and furiously demanded that I move. The rope smoker was ignored.

10 posted on 09/12/2007 1:45:04 PM PDT by Reeses (Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Yep, it seems that these smoking bans are incrementally going to make it illegal to smoke anywhere.

So now they are up to multi-family rental units. The next step will be multi-family condos, even for owners of the condos. Then the next step will be rental houses. Then the next will be owner occupied single family homes.

They are doing this one step at a time. And to think it started as having smoking or non-smoking sections in restaurants.


11 posted on 09/12/2007 1:48:32 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

It seems that if this passes, someone first has to make a complaint and then the offender gets warned; after that, subsequent complaints can invoke fines of $100.00/occurrence.

Smoking residents should buy a case of candles and several boxes of incense, hang a wreath of pot pourri in front of the ventilation intake, get a year’s supply of cabbage and a truckload of garlic, start cooking and settle in for a busier evening than the worst Halloween you ever saw.


12 posted on 09/12/2007 1:51:02 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses

People hate freedom and demand tyranny.


13 posted on 09/12/2007 1:51:09 PM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Airplanes.


14 posted on 09/12/2007 1:52:07 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom
The councilman quoted, Dave Warden, is actually fairly conservative. He’s a good guy. My husband used to work for him, and he was a great boss.

He might have been a good boss, but that doesn't change the fact that he hates freedom and property rights.
15 posted on 09/12/2007 1:54:06 PM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

“It should be up to the property owner to decide this, NOT the “city council” unless the “city council” owns the property.

Man I hate to see what America is becoming.”

Amen, brother!


16 posted on 09/12/2007 1:54:23 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! "Read my lips....No new RINO's" !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reeses; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; metesky; Mears; ...

Nanny State Ping................

Don’t say you weren’t warned...........

Let me know if you want on/off this list —— it is not only about smoking.


17 posted on 09/12/2007 1:54:24 PM PDT by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

LMBO!


18 posted on 09/12/2007 1:55:21 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! "Read my lips....No new RINO's" !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

That’s right, airplanes had smoking and non-smoking sections. Then it’s gone from there, incrementally, making more and more places off-limits to smoking.

Funny comment from the person about being challenged on smoking in S.F. but nothing was said to the dude smoking pot.


19 posted on 09/12/2007 1:55:27 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom

Infringing on the private property rights, and legal contractual agreements of private individuals is NOT conservative.


20 posted on 09/12/2007 1:56:18 PM PDT by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson