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]

Therefore, so long as a majority want to ban your smoking they have that right. If you disagree, overturn the current government and create a new one.

[swarthyguy]

Someone somewhere may be enjoying themselves.

[Protagoras]

The current peoples of various states have instituted governments that in turn have created property rights and have created laws to protect those rights.

Where does it say that? BZZT, wrong.

Until the People decide to abolish this "new Government" it is has the power from the "Consent of the Governed".

It nowhere say that governments grant rights. BZZZT, wrong.

Those consenting to the "new Government" have consented to the laws of the "new Government" and by extension the bans on smoking.

You are demented.

Therefore, so long as a majority want to an your smoking they have that right. If you disagree, overturn the current government and create a new one.

You have flipped out. Under this bizzaro world interpretation 51% can murder 49% legitimately. You are demented.

[VRWC_minion]

Nothing about unalienable property rights is there ? Without the state there is no such thing as a property right. They only exist because the state creates them.

Granted the people created the state, but once they did the state is sovereign.

[Protagoras]

Amazing. And where are all the conservatives to slap this person on the head?

[VRWC_minion]

Then explain to me how you have a right to own real property ? Where does your ownership right originate ? Who keeps your neighbor from taking control of your back yard ?

[Just another Joe]

The state creates the rights to begin with.

We talking about ALL rights or property rights?

[Protagoras]

that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --

[Fraulein]

The current peoples of various states have instituted governments...

The current peoples? So we instituted the US government? Funny, I do not remember that.

[HamiltonJay]

Joe,

As a rental property owner, passing requirements that affect my property such as this are part of my every day doing of business. It comes with the territory... this holier than thou claim of personal property rights doesn't hold water.... There are dozens if not hundreds of things I have to ensure in my rentals that you as a private home owner will NEVER have to worry about. Its the way the world is. Sure these homes are my personal property, however if I want to rent them to others, I have to obide by the regulations not only for private homes, but also for rental units, that's just the way it is.

When I rent my house out its no longer my personal home, its my business property (a business asset) it makes me money, and it does that by providing housing for others and making more for me than it costs me to carry. I choose to rent that property and as such I have to obide by the rules governing such things. I am not forced to rent the property, so it is not a fundamental infringement on my property rights,but if I do, I have to do it by the numbers. These rules regulating what I have to do to qualify as a rental unit are not facism, they are the way the world is.

Now, laws regulate land use all over the place, some would argue all these laws are illegal and immoral... of course heaven help the neighbor who puts his chicken coupe in the backyard next to one of these in their subdivision... Unless you are one of the relatively few in this country who bought your land before the zoning changes placed the limits on its use, (and generally zoning laws are grandfathered, so that the new changes only affect the new owners) you really have no gripes since you bought knowing full well the limitations of the land use were in effect.

I am sorry but regulations on rental and commercial property are, in general, a good thing, and I say this as someone who has to personally deal with it. Are they all winners? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that the government has no right to do it, or that those rules infringe on my property rights. I have every right to own that home, however when I decide to rent it I have made a concious decision and as such I must obey the rules and regulations for rentals.

[Protagoras]

Where does your ownership right originate ?

Go back a little further, the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not steal.

[VRWC_minion]

Your understanding of property rights is not based on reality. The reality is that without the state there is no such thing as property. Your rights to property are defined by each state through its laws. Without those laws enforceable by the state you would not lay claim to property.

To test your theory against mine and show you how you are in error, please explain how a probate judge has the right to distribute your assets under certain conditions against your written will ?

[Fraulein]

Without the state there is no such thing as a property right. They only exist because the state creates them...Granted the people created the state, but once they did the state is sovereign.

Wow, spoken like a true socialist.

[VRWC_minion]

How does "thou shalt not steal" get enforced ? Without the state there is no enforcement except by brute force which doesn't work for all. Therefore, a majority of "we the people" create the state in order to bring order. We turn our power over the to the state.

[Fraulein]

Without those laws enforceable by the state you would not lay claim to property.

It is the other way around. I justly lay claim to property. The laws of the state do not grant me that property, or that right to property, but rather they serve only to help me defend it.

[VRWC_minion]

Wow, spoken like a true socialist

Now your getting to the truth of my statement. Its the state that decides who ahs what property rights.

Our states created laws protecting private property in many or most cases. Other states could just have easily adpted laws that didn't allow private property.

The declaration of independence could have been used to establish a socialist state.

[Fraulein]

Are you a Hobbesian? Or just a socialist? Trying to figure it out...

[Just another Joe]

I am sorry but regulations on rental and commercial property are, in general, a good thing, and I say this as someone who has to personally deal with it.

I agree with this statement.
However, when, for a minor nuisance, the government trys to step in to make the suing of another person easier, IMO, they go too far.
Aren't most of those other regulations concerning safety in one fashion or another?

[VRWC_minion]

Name a property that exists outside the state. Real property ? No. Personal property, No. Intangible property ? No. Corporate stock ? No.

Your belief that your property rights exist apart from the state is fantasy.

[VRWC_minion]

Neither. I'm just attempting to point out to you reality about the state and our relationship to property. I used to think as you did until I looked at everything analytically.

Without the state property doesn't exist.