Posted on 08/31/2010 7:56:06 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
TACOMA, Wash., Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Officials in Washington state say they'll consider moving the health battle over secondhand smoke into a new and contentious arena -- people's homes.
The Tacoma-Pierce County Health Board will consider a proposal next month to classify secondhand smoke as a "nuisance" in multi-unit housing, The Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune reported Monday.
Backers of the measure say they want it incorporated in the state's landlord-tenant law.
"This is the last piece of the puzzle that needs to be placed," Nan Hogan, who helped write the proposed legislation, said. "We've got smoke-free motel rooms, smoke-free restaurants, smoke-free bars, smoke-free office buildings and even prisons. Why should we go home and have to breathe it there?"
Hogan is a member of the group People United for Smoke-free Housing.
In most multi-family structures, the group says, there is no practical way to seal one apartment from another.
(Excerpt) Read more at y100.com ...
The 18th Amendment was an ill advised notion, a question like this is asking for justifying or not on the expansion of an intrusive government.
My tagline is the answer to your question:
Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness
Whew. Take a break. I say that smoke bothered my pregnant wife, and because I care for my wife, I moved the family to another home. And you call me all those names.
You may be “Catholic,” but you are not a Christian. May you come to know the Lord and His grace. Maybe best to leave Rome and cling instead to Jesus.
Everything is right you say except for the fact that as a RENTER you didn’t own the place you lived. You pay for the right to stay there, and because of that, your lack of ownership, you don’t have a RIGHT to set the rules.
If you really can’t stand the smell of smoke, rent from a smoke free apartment complex...they do exist.
Every apartment I’ve heard of has its own independent ventilation system too—so I can assure you that, in spite of the smell, the measurable parts-per-million smoke rate in your apartment, was no health threat to your wife. However she and you didn’t like the smell (and probably was pondering how unhealthy it is....), and she was ill, so you were right to move. That’s what freedom is all about: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF.
The smoker didn’t swing his fist at you...as you VOLUNTARILY choose to move near to where the smoker lived. Oh, you didn’t check to find out if smoking was allowed there before you moved in? Sorry, that’s your problem—not the owner’s—who is the Landlord.
In a land of liberty, property rights should mean something—and not prohibiting legal activities on your own property (that is the landlord’s NOT the tenant’s) is one of those things. Smoking is, and always has been, fully legal to do—and its a FREE COUNTRY (so far), so if you don’t like the smell, then move on...
It’s true, that if the smoker was a decent person, maybe they would have (or should have) refrained from smoking on behalf of your wife. However, in looking to law enforcement—that is ultimately fines and guns—you are taking your own preferences and demands for common courtesy—to the level of violence (or the threat thereof) and force. Not one person forced you to live in that apartment...but, you are asking the law to force someone to stop a perfectly legal activity—for your own preferences.
You see, as someone who values liberty, I look to find out who is relying on force...which is what any law really is...and those who do, better have a reason which directly benefits everyone. Your not having smelly clothes, or, not feeling bad (when one is ill from something else) is not a “right” guaranteed everyone in the Constitution. A right to live where you choose (that you can afford) is....and a right of an owner—the landlord—to set the regulations in his apartment is also guaranteed by our system.
The science behind the terrible harmfulness of 2nd hand smoke (NOT 1st hand—that’s definitely harmful) is extremely sketchy too....as the amount and content varies literally infinitely and the exposure rate and time just cannot be measured reliably. (The original landmark EPA study on 2nd hand smoke was, actually, proven to be fraudulent too) If it could, than restaurants and businesses could just be told to keep their air-quality at a certain level—and places could allow smoking.
As it is however, the social-engineers who are working to ban smoking everywhere have another goal: Namely to change the behavior of free people, to that which they prefer. There’s is the same KIND of goal as the prohibitionists of the 1920s...to totally prevent a particular activity.
When I hear of “conservatives” going along with banning legal activities on private property....I know they don’t really understand or agree with the concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Rights are not the same thing as “doing what is right” after all, as a right is just the maximum thing people can do without directly harming others. So your neighbor CAN play loud music...in the middle of the day. So they can cook smelly food....as your right NOT to smell garlic (or, dare I say cigarette smoke) is not a part of your contract when you agreed to rent.
Libertarian27,
I think your libertarian analysis is way off.
In this case, the individual below Theo’s apartment engaged in behavior that caused harm to Theo’s wife. It wasn’t theoretical harm.
What if the neighbor had sprayed his grass with weed killer that drifted over and killed Theo’s flowers? Are you saying that the neighbor was exercising his property rights?
The neighbor’s property rights end at the edge of his apartment. Period.
“Laws restricting your freedoms can be good.”
Disgusting
I no longer smoke, but those of you who bought into the “second hand smoke” damngers have been sold by the same type of liars who “proved” man made global warming.
There is NO empirical evidence that second hand smoke is anything more than an “eye irritant” and in a well ventilated place, even this is suspect.
Happy nanny state to all.
Me, too! And 2 of my 3 closest neighbors are smokers. And the one who is not doesn’t care what we do.
PallMalls! Yeah, now thats a good cigarette.
If the smoker was there first, then you did the right thing. Moved out. It was her home. She shouldn’t have had to change her lifestyle for you. Did you check before you moved in if it was smoke free or not? Here in Tennessee when they place rental ads, they list smoke free or not. You have a choice.
Oh, brother! She had a right to do whatever she pleased in her home. You did the right thing. You moved.
So that rude woman walked into your home and blew smoke directly into your pregnant wifes face? How horrible! I bet you are like most nonsmokers. You just hated the idea of people smoking so you blew it all out of proportion.
If a Republican is a nonsmoker, he just doesn’t smoke. If a Democrat is a nonsmoker, he demands that nobody smoke.
While you are at it might see about banning cooking. There is a greater risk of fire from cooking than cigarettes. Might ought to do away with electricity, too. Those nasty electrical fires, you know. I don’t know how you will heat your water or home. To do so requires heat and heat is a fire hazzard.
I am no longer a smoker, having finally quit cold-turkey some seven plus years ago, but I am still a POLITICAL smoker, in that I am dead set against stupid laws like this.
NO ONE compels you to live in places which also house smokers. You are fully free to move on. Particularly if the smoker lived there prior to you moving in, you have NO excuses for being unaware that some folks smoke tobacco in the privacy of their own homes. If this is beyond your capacity to deal with, then just move along. Find a place where everyone thinks as you do. Then you can be happy as little clams until you find some other fault in your neighbors. I have seen too many like you. There is always some excuse for you to want to control your neighbor’s behavior. Always.
You are the one who said you HATE papists and smokers. Leaves us very little common ground, pal. Eat your yopios.
Thank God there’s a law restricting your freedom to punch me.
No, it’s not that I “hated the idea of people smoking.” I hate the smoking itself.
No, you haven't. You do not know me.
You wish me ill. Nice.
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.