Bill Would Limit Smoking by Apartment Dwellers - & allows law suits if your smoke drifts

kxtv ^

[chance33_98]

Bill Would Limit Smoking by Apartment Dwellers

California smokers may soon have one less place to light up. A new law would make it difficult for apartment dwellers to smoke at home.

Assembly Bill 210 would make it illegal to smoke in any in any common area of a multifamily dwelling, including outdoors. It would also forbid use of tobacco products in any apartment not specifically designated a smoking unit.

If it becomes law, AB 210 would allow residents, landlords or homeowner's associations to sue tenants who allow second-hand smoke to drift beyond their apartments.

The bill's author says that the legislation is necessary because drifting smoke can be both a nuisance and a health hazard. "You can sue someone to force them to turn off their stereo at 2 a.m., but you can't sue someone to force them not to smoke, even though it comes into your apartment," said Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael. "There's something wrong with that."

Critics say it's not the government's job to tell people where they can smoke, and call the measure a violation of their rights.

The bill comes up for committee hearings later this spring. Assembly Bill 210 can be read in its entirety by clicking on the link below.

Full Text of Assembly Bill 210

[VRWC_minion]

Do they just walk right up to you and just start blowing it in your face?

No, I just get to walk behind them. That is bad enough. You have no clue how far your smoke travels. I know you think that the only smoke that can be smelled is what you see. That is the problem with smokers. If they knew how far, wide and disgusting their smoke really was they wouldn't be so rude.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

One other thing: My post applies to people who own their apartment/condo. For renters, the apartment owner should be free to set the rules about smoking, otherwise that would go against property rights.

[Protagoras]

As a nonsmoker then you have no clue what a smoker smells and doesn't smell.

I used to smoke, I am around smokers all the time. It doesn't bother me. It bothers some. They shouldn't go on private property where smoking is allowed by the owners.

Do you support the use of government power to force private property owners to conform to "no smoking" laws?

[Critter]

"130Million cigarette butts are picked up on the sides of Texas Highways each year... "

I'd like a source for this statement. I can't believe anyone actually counted them, or that anyone actually picks them up.

[HamiltonJay]

Man, XFiles and the Twilight Zone got nothign on you... you missed your true calling.

[CheneyChick]

I also suffer from asthma and I can't tell you how many times I've had smoke blown in my face by inconsiderate smokers.

That sucks. The only people who should be feeling targetted here on this thread and playing "victim" are the rude and inconsiderate smokers. I have consistently said that it is smokers who lack common courtesy that are the problem. The rest of you polite smokers are just being plain cranky and probably need a nicotine fix. So, go have a smoke, and b*tch about us non-smoker-goody-two-shoes, and get it out of your system. Come back when you can play nice.

We are just wondering what priority our right and desire for breathing clean air fits in with your freedom agenda....

Cheers, CC :)

[FreeTally]

We need to start a list of all the "conservative" things that are routinely advocated by "conservatives" on this site.

Here's a start:

“Conservatives” support the 2nd Amendment........ unless “reasonable regulations” are supported by a current Republican administration.

“Conservatives” support the 4th Amendment......... unless violations of such are deemed “just” because the intent of a law in question is to do away with “undesirables” and check up on the populace to guarantee compliance with the edict of the day. IOW, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

“Conservatives” support private property rights................unless an individual is engaging in consensual, non-violent activities which may be deemed “immoral” by a certain religion; unless a property owner wants to allow activities they do not like.

“Conservatives” support limited government................... unless Republicans currently occupy the White House.

“Conservatives” support the 1st Amendment in every situation concerning Judeau-Christian religion, but deny others the same freedom of speech if the words “offend” them.

“Conservatives” support State’s Rights..................unless the State is choosing to legislate in areas where the federal government has overstepped its power and made its own laws.

“Conservatives” believe all people are equal........... unless the people in question are Law Enforcement, who should be unquestionably held to a different standard than the average citizen.

“Conservatives” believe only non-Republicans lie.

“Conservatives” believe it was illegal for Janet Reno to campaign against State abortion laws, but it was perfectly fine for Drug Czar John Walters, a federal employee, to campaign against a Colorado State marijuana initiative.

[Critter]

Smokers are rude, for smoking outdoors while you walk behind them? Don't you have anything better to bitch about? Sheeezus.

[Southack]

California seems to be doing more than merely flirting with fascism. The state has the most draconian "3 strikes" law, passed an overt ban on gay marriages 3 years ago, banned smoking in bars/restraunts, sued energy companies for not providing enough cheap energy, is constantly forcing housing developers to build free subsidized housing in exchange for large building permits, darn near bans more guns than the rest of the U.S. combined, etc.

If the state starts purchasing a bunch of railway boxcars, then watch out!

[HamiltonJay]

Comes directly from a report by the Texas Department of Transportation... you can find some more interesting info on cigratte butts and their impact at www.cigarettelitter.org

[Just another Joe]

My point wasn't the fact that smokers are/aren't courteous. My point was that you brought up the fact that there were/are many cigarette butts out in the world.
If you think that making a smoker leave their place of residence to smoke will cause that number to go down you are mistaken.
All it's going to do is raise that number because the smokers that do butt their cigs in an ashtray and wait to dispose of them are still going to do that. However, the smokers that don't are now going to be smoking out of their residences a lot more and causing a lot more butts in the real world.

Irregardless, this thread is about govt intervention on private property to make suing a person easier because of a minor nuisance.

[finnman69]

Frnakly, it's the landlords problem if the party wall between apartments is not properly sealed.

Really? Is that too a fascist government regulation?

Actually it is. There are very strict NATIONAL codes regarding fire separation and party walls within mutli unit residences. The idea is that if there is a fire in one unit, it will be contained so that until the fire department arrives, the spread of fire to other apartments is prevented.

If you can smell smoke through the wall, it's possible the wall is not properly constructed or sealed. If there was a real fire, the smell of smoke would be the least of your problems. You could be killed.

And if you question the importance of enforcement of fire safety standards, just recall the recent nightclub fire in Rhode Island.

[Critter]

13% of the litter is from cigarette butts eh? Well ban the other 87% cuz that's messier. hehehe

[RMDupree]

The rest of you polite smokers are just being plain cranky and probably need a nicotine fix.

Hey! I resemble that remark! :)

Love you anyway, my dear FRiend! Sorry I got so touchy about it.

[Protagoras]

This isn't a cigarette thread, it's a thread about laws forcing landlords to do the government's dirty work of banning smoking on private property.

[HamiltonJay]

Joe,

I never said anything about banning smoking reducing litter... I don't even agree with this stupid bill... its uneforceable and nonsense. The message of mine you responded to was a direct response I made to another that claimed that smokers were "generally courteous" to those around them... my repsonse had nothing to do with this bill helping litter or not.. it was only a response to the claim smokers are generally courteous.

Which by the litter they generate is a very debatable stand. That is all, its hard to put for the claim smokers are largely courteous, when the visual evidence of their "coureousy" can be seen being flicked from car windows and into storm sewers constantly.

[HamiltonJay]

Well technically its all roadside litter, so technically I am sure nearly all of it is banned by law... littering is a crime you know :)

[JebBush2008]

You can call the cops and the cops will tell them to turn it off or they will be arrested for violating noise ordinances.

And now you can call the cops and the cops will tell them to stop smoking or they will be arrested for violating the noise ordinances.

[HamiltonJay]

Finnman69,

Don't bother trying to get the neos to accept that there are laws that exist out of neccessity and need and not out of government oppression... such a concept is foreign to many around these parts.

[HamiltonJay]

Actually Pro, if you care to follow the thread in its entirety there are several sub discussions going on, like in most threads. Keep up.