Posted on 05/22/2024 7:15:13 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
The Supreme Court has issued a conditional order calling on the Environmental Protection Ministry, Public Security Ministry, and Health Ministry to take action on the issue of environmental disturbances caused by a person smoking in his home, when the smoke enters the neighbors' homes, Israel Hayom reported.
The court has instructed the ministries to enact guidelines on the matter, or enforce the matter of cigarette smoke pollution entering other apartments in a different manner.
The government now has 60 days to respond to the order.
The Supreme Court's decision follows an appeal submitted by the Avir Naki organization and six individuals who were harmed by cigarette smoke entering their homes and who are represented by attorney Amos Hausner. ....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Israeli Supreme Court.
“the issue of environmental disturbances caused by a person smoking in his home, when the smoke enters the neighbors’ homes...”
Wow, those houses must be right on top of each other.......what else can the neighbors smell (and hear for that matter) I wonder, cuz I can think of something more obnoxious than cigarette smoke. Lol!
CABBAGE would bother me-—also spicy Mexican food smells.
Ban cigarette smoking, but don’t stop potheads from their dope use....BRILLIANT !
This is new in Israel, but nothing’s new under the sun. I remember when Rush was deriding this craziness, back in the day. I wonder if the neighbors can smell flatulence, too, or boiling cabbage. How about onion and garlic breath. If I don’t shower for a week, will I be slapped with a court order?
You can draw a very bright line from the successful weaponization of anti-tobacco sentiment, and the destruction of rights, specifically those of commercial property owners such as the owners of cafes, restaurants, bars, stores, environmentalism, and the knock-on effects on civil liberties during COVID-1984.
In 1995, California was the first state to enact a statewide smoking ban for restaurants. I worked in NYC when the idea to ban smoking in bars and clubs gained steam, and ultimately passed in 2002. It sparked a citywide debate, with the pro-ban people gaining the upper hand. I mean, how can you defeat leftist-based emotional argument of "I won't die of secondhand smoke and my clothes won't smell"?
And there was much rejoicing. Except...what really happened was a sort-of violation of the Takings clause. What all the anti-smokers et al achieved was the sanctioning of the state to tell commercial property owners what can and can't happen on their property, without compensation.
NY has moved beyond bars, clubs, offices, and public places to outdoors. Other municipalities have enacted similar takings, erm, bans. Nobody fights for commercial property rights anymore. Marx and Engels are laughing in hell.
Second-hand smoke is what economists call an externality - an indirect cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of another party's (or parties') activity. Guess what else is an externality? Air pollution, specifically exhaust from motor vehicles. The same folks who complain about the smell of smoke are likely driving cars with an internal combustion engine. This may be only one example of an externality, but the whole environmental movement rests on "the need for government to regulate industry to make the air clean." You can draw a straight line from the “ban smoking indoors” movement to Greta Thunberg.
The whole concept of negative externalities, which worked so swimmingly in the anti-smoking crusade, got weaponized in Covid. When the shots that were granted EUAs rolled out, many people refused to take them. We then saw the pro-shot talking heads brandish anti-smoking arguments - remember "The bottom line: We’re going to protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers." Regarding masks, we got Mandatory masking? What smoking bans can teach us
Despite well-documented health consequences of indoor smoking, efforts to ban the behavior were met with intense political resistance and an all-too-familiar civil liberties debate, just as we see today. But science, combined with social and political initiatives that were responsive to public concerns, eventually spurred a large-scale shift in public opinion around smoking bans. From this experience, three lessons can inform how to improve adherence to universal masking -- a life-saving public health measure: 1. Frame masking as a workers' rights issue, 2. Mandates are necessary because they work, and 3. Don't lose sight of the last mile.
I don’t smoke. I also don’t like smelling like a chimney (or nowadays, like a pot dispensary) after a night at a club or restaurant. But I love liberty, and that isn’t always clean and antiseptic. The anti-smoking campaign that gave the government an inroad into whittling away rights under the guise of public health has continue unabated.
Second-hand smoke is a cost of freedom.
I guess charcoal grills are to be banned as well
Let’s include farting and bad breath while we’re at it...
“CABBAGE would bother me-—also spicy Mexican food smells”
Especially on the way out 😂
Nice metaphor!
If your neighbor’s cigarette smoke drifts into your apartment, crank up your stereo and play loud music.
We have freedom to smoke and the freedom to play loud music.
The studies of the faux dangers of second hand smoke were no different than the studies of the faux benefits of the vax.
Limburger cheese, and Eskimo-style cuisine (month-old fish with fresh worms; see Nanuk of the North for details).
Cabbage and turnip greens smell makes me vomit uncontrollably, but I would NEVER tell someone what they can do inside their own home.
We have a Vietnamese family 2 doors down. That puts their back patio no more than 60 yards from mine.
Occasionally in the morning their cooking something out there that smells like fried rotten seafood to me. Very pungent. I don’t know how they eat that shyte.
I’m sure that if no more the 5 feet from point of origin it’d be rank enough to knock a buzzard of a gut wagon.
Go ahead ... play that loud music. Your smoke generating neighbor will make a phone call. Armed Agents of the State will show up at your front door will the power to deprive you of both life and liberty if you refuse their orders to "turn it down". Or even look cross-eyed at them.
Seig Heil ...
“The studies of the faux dangers of second hand smoke were no different than the studies of the faux benefits of the vax.”
I’ve wondered that too. I know that I don’t know enough to make an argument defending it, but second-hand smoke has broken up many a marriage.
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.