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

[HamiltonJay]

I have advocated nothing, acknowledging something exists, does not mean one advocates it. You may not like me, but that's because I am a realist, not an ideologue. The concept that this bill is enforceable is a joke.. and the stretch made by those who claim jack booted thugs will be deployed to enforce it equally comical.

If you pay someone over $600 to do work for you, you are required by law to file a 1099... it doesn't and ain't going to happen.. that's the law. Most people don't even know its the law, and there are no jack booted thugs running around rounding up everyone who hired a babysitter last year.

[VRWC_minion]

Yes, if the state passes a law.

Where did ya go?Busy pissing of smokers.

[Protagoras]

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.

LOL,, great stuff. You get a 10 on the avoidance scale.

You have time to post a score of times, and even the answer that includes the above evasion, but you don't have time to post more than one objection? And that one doesn't object to the law on principle.

Great stuff, the only thing missing from that post is a laugh track.

[Protagoras]

Busy pissing of smokers.

The only agenda, as I previously pointed out. Did it ever occur to you that no one cares about your personal vendetta?

BTW, pissing on smokers is at least as rude as smoking. Oh, it read "of" smokers. LOL

[HamiltonJay]

No the only thing missing is the proof of the claim and stand by you and your ilk that business legislative frameworks are facism.

The debate here never was is this bill moronic, that point was conceded long ago, in fact I never argued otherwise.... so your push to list out why its moronic and unenforceable is infathonable.

Hey buddy I agree with you...OH REALLY? THEN PROOVE IT? what nonsense.

[Protagoras]

The concept that this bill is enforceable is a joke..

No one has addressed that except you, it's a given.

I'm quite sure you oppose the WOD for the same reason.

[Fraulein]

Okay, imagine this:

I am a vegetarian. I think that meat stinks. Yes, it smells, particularly when being cooked, and I find it personally (and perhaps even morally) offensive. I do not believe that I should have to smell dead animal flesh while I am eating in a restaurant. In fact, I find the entire practice barbaric. I also do not believe that you have the right to cook meat in your home insofar as the smell (of death) wafts into my apartment. I should not have to live amongst the smell of a simmering carcass. It causes me undo emotional distress, and sometimes even makes me sick.

Furthermore, eating lots of meat is not good for your health, and could lead to heart disease. And I think you should pay a tax for the dead animals that you eat.

You get the idea. What say you?

[Protagoras]

Hey buddy I agree with you...OH REALLY? THEN PROOVE IT? what nonsense.

Still no other objections.

I oppose it because it is a violation of private property rights, just like the smoking laws in resturants. If you agree with that, just say so.

[Fraulein]

More news just in from California:

Judge rules feds can prosecute California medical marijuana users

[Just another Joe]

Busy pissing of smokers.

That's all minion's agenda is on this type of thread. Anything to do with tobacco, his only agenda is to bait the smoker.
He's admitted to it more than once.

[Protagoras]

Anything to do with tobacco, his only agenda is to bait the smoker.

Yes, but now we have got him/her to advance the opinion that property rights exist only at the pleasure of the state. A very "conservative" position.

[Protagoras]

The thread was pulled. Discussion on the WOD is no longer allowed it seems.

[Just another Joe]

you work within the laws, no matter how stupid they may be.

Here is where you and I would disagree.
I do understand that you have nothing against smokers, other than they can be a nuisance at times according to you, but I have to agree with Protagoras, the only reason that you have given that you don't like this bill is that it's unenforcable.
Nothing about property rights, nothing about personal property, nothing about a bill making it EASIER to sue another person, just that it's unenforcable.

Property rights are essential to the existence and operation of a free market, and, for a business, these rights include the right to determine which amenities and services to provide on your premises.
If a business decides not to reimburse employees for commuting costs, the business is well within its rights to do so. If a business decides to provide a lounge for its employees, it may do so. If a business decides to validate parking for a customer, it may do so. The freedom to smoke on the premises is like any of these other amenities-it is within the purview of the owner to provide it.
The freedom to permit smoking is part of the property rights a business enjoys that permit it to serve its customers effectively in the marketplace. The only difference between the freedom to smoke and the other amenities mentioned is that smoking is deemed socially undesirable.
The social undesirability of smoking does not give the state carte blanche to run roughshod over property rights.
A free society-that includes property owners-can decide for itself what is undesirable behavior and employ its own arsenal to combat it, without the aid of state coercion.

[Just another Joe]

Yes, but now we have got him/her to advance the opinion that property rights exist only at the pleasure of the state.

Actually, in the discussions I've had with him it's been the 'majority', not states that can allow property rights.

[Protagoras]

Well said

[swarthyguy]

Next coal grills, and aromatic cooking.

I think America just wants smokers to turn over their money to the state authorities and go kill themselves.

Wait til we see HMOChips implanted that'll monitor your bodily acitivity, diet, and intake of controlled and non controlled substances.

The soul of the NaziFascistTotalitariansSocialEngineers thrives in America today. No jackboots for the nanny state.

[HamiltonJay]

Ok, here we go, this is a legislation on Rental Units... not homes.. so no, we don't agree on it simply being an infraction on property rights. One might be able to make the case for an owner occupided multi, but that's about it.

Rental Units have to meet requirements your home never will, in terms of safety and livability. That's reality.. when a property is a rental its covered by laws your personal property is not covered by... does that make those regulations illegitimate? No it doesn't..why because that rental is now part of a business and covered by other regulations... That's reality.

This bill in particular is stupid, its not enforceable in the broad sense, landlords are not going to retrofit buildings to be compliant, its that simple, and most likely existing structures will be grandfathered in some manner just as they are for fire and safety compliance generally. At best it will affect new construction, which are always subject to laws and codes anyway, particularly rentals, so it certainly is not some massive oppression of private property.

Secondly, this is a BILL, not a law, and given California's inability to house its population currently it is highly unlikely that this bill will ever become more than that.

Thirdly, even with rental properties, most code enforcement doesn't come through draconian inspections or fines, in fact in most areas, particularly smaller multis (4 or less) rentals are not even inspected for compliance unless a complaint is lodged.

Fourth, Marketplace, if this bill ever became law at best it would be used on large multi complexes, these large complexes would take 1 of 2 tracks, retrofit or become all smoking or all non smoking. Thusly creating a segregation of smoking and non smoking housing, but hardly removing smoking from the landscape. Since retrofitting is honestly not likely to happen for a non safety (insurance) reason, you will see segregation occurr. After all if everyone's a smoker is anyone there going to complain? And if everyone's a non smoker, there is no reason to complain.

Rental Properties are just like Commercial properties... they aren't "private homes"... they have to meet requirements that your house or my house doesn't have to. Its not facism that commercial, or rental properties over X units properties need to have sprinkler systems... its not facism that a rental property needs to have fire escapes etc... its part of doing business.

This Bill if passed would create an idiotic rule that would not be able to be enforced, it would not stop smoking and it would not stop the affordability of housing in Cali. It also would not stop smoking, and would be nothing more than at best a boom for tighter build new apartment complexes.

You seem to think the state has no right to pass such a law, I say the state government can pass it... but that doesn't mean its going to be anything more than toilet paper. Renting is a business... there are many failed landlords who thought its wasn't.

[swarthyguy]

Control Freaks are our jihadis.

[Protagoras]

Actually, in the discussions I've had with him it's been the 'majority', not states that can allow property rights.

Ah, the ochlocracy love affair. However, it is not limited to that, I didn't misstate his/her position.

Post #173

[Protagoras]

Control Freaks are our jihadis.

An anti-property rights rally.