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

To: libertarian27
You are putting consequences on property owners for personal enjoyment. You have a right to pursue enjoyment, you don't have a right to enjoyment, especially on someone elses property.

Which sidesteps the rather obvious fact that a smoker's "pursuit of enjoyment" has a way of stinking up the neighbor's apartment, whether that neighbor wants it to or not. At the very least, it stinks his own place up and leaves it stinking even after that smoker moves out -- he imposes consequences either on you (who have to render it less offensive), or on the person who moves in after him.

Any way you slice it, the smoker's actions impose consequences on others. Including you.

Now, it's your right as a landlord to allow that to happen -- but you cannot deny that those consequences actually are imposed.

Your non-smoking tenants have to choose between the smell, and the expense of moving to a different place.

Or ... folks may not rent from you at all, because your place stinks.

75 posted on 09/01/2010 10:11:29 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: r9etb
When all is said and done: This is not about smoking - never was.

Well, no, the anti-smoking crusade actually is and always has been about smoking. We can agree that the anti-smoking crusaders go too far.

Though, as a non-smoker, I have to admit that I quite enjoy the benefits of their success, and a lot of places get my money now, that never would have when they were full of smoke.

And you've got to acknowledge the "why" of their crusade: under most circumstances smoking is not a "private" activity -- it affects everybody in the room, whether they want it to or not. The anti-smoking crusaders chose not to tolerate the very real consequences that smokers were imposing upon them.

76 posted on 09/01/2010 10:19:50 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

To: r9etb
Which sidesteps the rather obvious fact that a smoker's "pursuit of enjoyment" has a way of stinking up the neighbor's apartment, whether that neighbor wants it to or not.

That's the case for everything when you rent the use of the property of someone else. Cooking odors, loud kids, barking dogs, spraying cats, hard of hearing tv watchers,etc.

At the very least, it stinks his own place up and leaves it stinking even after that smoker moves out --

It places an odor on my property - I allowed it, if he pays his rent and doesn't destroy the place he'll get a good reference and his security deposit back for his stay at my property.If he doesn't he won't, plus a judgment for that non-paying rent thing...

he imposes consequences either on you (who have to render it less offensive)

That's my choice, or at least it used to be my choice until laws like this get passed

, or on the person who moves in after him.

That is THEIR decision, I am not Queen and they are not my surfs, I am a landlord and they are tenants who are free to rent the use of my property or not.

78 posted on 09/01/2010 10:43:27 AM PDT by libertarian27 (Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

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