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

[Just another Joe]

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...

I realize that.
Using anecdotal evidence (my observations of the people around ME) smokers are "generally courteous".
I also realize that the majority are smokers I do NOT know. You did bring up the subject of cigarette butts as litter and the unintended consequence of a bill such as this, if adhered to, would be an increase in the amount of that litter.
It may be unenforcable but there are people out there that will try to have it enforced. If you doubt that you are again mistaken.

[Protagoras]

I can keep up quite well, and it makes you uncomfortable when I point out your subtle attempt to change the subject.

You wish I couldn't keep up so you could get away with it unchallenged.

[Protagoras]

Don't bother trying to get the neos to accept that there are laws that exist out of neccessity

Like banning smoking on private property?

[Protagoras]

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

Where did ya go?

[Just another Joe]

Like banning smoking on private property?

You should have added, "whether the owner of said property wants to or not."

[HamiltonJay]

For the last time, since you obviously have a comprehension issue, I don't agree with this bill, and never have. I only got involved in this conversation because I objected to comments made here by those who tried to equate business laws with facism. Which is nonsense.

[HamiltonJay]

My attempt to change the subject? I suggest you follow the history of the post where you claim this. I think you really need some ginko.

[Just another Joe]

I only got involved in this conversation because I objected to comments made here by those who tried to equate business laws with facism.

Would you put this in the category of 'business law'?

[HamiltonJay]

Joe,

My comments have nothing to do with this bill... its a dumb bill... its unenforceable and I certainly never suggested that it would reduce litter. All I did was respond to a statement made here by someone that "most smokers are considerate" (i believe were there exact words). That's all my statement back was, that this claim I believe to be debatable due to the sheer volume of litter that cigarette butts represent.

It was never meant as a defense or justification of this bill... since I don't even agree with it. Just a response to a claim that smokers are generally courteous, nothing more nothing less.

[GirlShortstop]

I have a friend who lives in an upstairs condo with avid smokers downstairs. They sit on their patio and smoke like chimneys and the smoke drifts up into her place. Her condo absolutely stinks.

One simple question to round out this story with some facts:
who, exactly, is holding a gun to this person's head and forcing him/her to suck her thumb and cry over the issue of a "stinky apartment" and remain a tenant?

Think about the violation of rights if a law like this passes.   The solution was presented nicely and deserves consideration:          
Maybe we can criminalize everything that bothers anyone else. The only problem then will be who gets to be the jailers.

[HamiltonJay]

Nope, because right now its not even law, its a bill proposed by some joker in Cali... If it is passed though, it does become law. If it does become law, then yes it becomes part of the framework landlords will have to operate under... or around if you want.

Being in business means you deal with the laws. Is this Bill stupid? Will it continue the problem with low end housing in Cali? Yes, will it solve anything no... will it likely change anything? Nope.. but if you do business at it affects you you deal with it... its part of doing business.. you work within the laws, no matter how stupid they may be. Personally though if you are operating a business California is the last place on earth I would go.. unless of course its a service for illegal aliens and the yuppies who support them.

[Protagoras]

I don't agree with this bill,

You have said that several times, but the only objection you have voiced is that it is "unenforceable". I have asked you several other times if there was any others, but you have demurred.

equate business laws with facism.

You have tried that strawman several times also, it remains just that.

[Protagoras]

framework landlords will have to operate under... or around if you want.

Oh my laud!!! say it ain't so!!! Advocating non compliance?

[VRWC_minion]

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

If a state legislature passes a law to restrict property rights then yes I support it. If the federal gov't does it then no.

[Im4Starr]

Your questions indicate that smokers have no idea either that they have no sense of smell left and that they have no clue how awful their smoke smells.

The ignorance of the smoker as to how bad this smells is the reason smokers and nonsmokers are at opposite ends. This ignorance is the root cause of their inconsiderate behavior.

I asked why you feel the way you do. Since you haven't answered, it makes it difficult for me to respond without making an assumption. My assumption is that you don't care for the smell of smoke. With that in mind, my next assumption is that you don't approve of smoke from a chimney, smoke from a camp fire, BBQ's etc. I must also assume then, that you would be in favor of banning every kind of smoke.

What are your thoughts on people who don't bathe or shower regularly or people who don't use deodorant at the gym (aside from the French)? Surely the "ignorance of these people as to how bad they smell is the reason that" you'd be at opposite ends from them...and that "this ignorance is the root cause of their incosiderate behavior"? No?

So I'll ask you again...instead of making this an 'us against them' fight, why not use intelligence, reason and common sense to form some sort of a basis for your opinion.

[Protagoras]

Typical. Come onto a smoking tread, insult smokers, make your statement about your pet peeve, and then split when asked to take a stand on the real issue.

No one would post to a thread entitled "I don't like smokers, do you?"

The issue isn't your personal agenda, it's about private property.

[Protagoras]

If a state legislature passes a law to restrict property rights then yes I support it. If the federal gov't does it then no.

HEY! we have a response!

If a state legislature passes a law to restrict property rights then yes I support it.

Your postition is that property rights only exist at the pleasure of the state. A typical "conservative" position.

[HamiltonJay]

No, I have not demured, I have decided not to waste time listing out the inate issues with a foolish and unenforceable law. Listing out every problem with this idiotic bill is pointless, and not worth the time. The bill is a joke, and I have never suggested I support it or otherwise... your desire for me to list out my every objection to the bill is pointless.

[Sunnyvale CA Eng.]

"OK place garlic in crock pot and set to high ,open windows and go for a weekend trip and see how they like that smell.

Replace garlic with a sinus melting curry stench and you would have my neighborhood. I would complain but here in CA I would probably be arrested for assumed racist hate crimes.

[Walnut]

I don't think anyone wants legislation for courtesy