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]

You are in need of remedial education. Your bizzare interpretation of the origin of rights is astounding

It is you who has a bizarre understanding.

Lets start with stock. Please explain how you can have an ownership interest in an entity that is itself a fictional being created by a state ? There are many ways to hold title to land. There is joint ownership, tenants in the entirety, there are quitclaim deeds and warranty deeeds. Each of these forms of ownership and transfers have been created by the state. Please explain how you hold title to land when the rights and obligations under the title itself are created by the state ?

When you are done with that, please explain how a community property state requires that half your assets belong to your spouse while the other states don't.

[Protagoras]

The subject is the origin of rights, not the minutia of title law. Property rights are not granted by governments, they are granted by God.

Alternately, for non believers, they exist naturally.

[VRWC_minion]

Please catch up. I have covered that. Your ancestors gave up much of their rights when they created the states we live in. Presently, you do have three ways to inforce your rights. First, you have the right to overturn this current government and replace it with a new one. But you might need a few more folks than just the smokers.

Second, you have the rights reserved to you under the constitution which require you to be reimbursed by the state for any taking of your property. This is what I think the smokes best option is but they don't want to be bothered. all they want is to smoke and really don't give a crap about the owner's rights.

Finally, you have the right to petition the legisislature to pass laws. This is what the nonsmokers are in essence doing. Therefore, the majority is overriding your right to smoke in a public and private place.

[Walnut]

I understand what you are saying.
I'm saying I think it goes with the territory

[HamiltonJay]

Oh I completely agree it comes with the territory... didn't mean to suggest otherwise.

[VRWC_minion]

Property rights are not granted by governments, they are granted by God.

FWIW, I have never seen a corporate charter that was signed off on by God let alone seeing anything in the bible on how to establish a corporation under God, nor I have seen a deed where the grantor was God.

You think I have a bizarre view on property rights ?

Take a deep breath and relax and let yourself have a moment to comprehend that your so called rights were subordinated to the state (with the restrictions provided for in the constitution) BECAUSE your ancestors felt that was the best way to pursue Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Its a conditional contract but its a contract just the same. Just because you don't like the terms of that contract made by the founding fathers on your behalf doesn't make that contract void. Each day that the masses don't rise up and overthrow the government is the same as ratifying its past acts.

[VRWC_minion]

nor I have seen a deed where the grantor was God.

Correction, except for the Hebrews.

[Walnut]

we are on the same page.
Just as long they don't make any more rules. enough is enough. I think we can handle it on our own.

[Protagoras]

You think I have a bizarre view on property rights ?

You have a bizarre view of the origin of rights in general. And property rights are among them.

I keep reposting the opinion of the founders in their own words, but no amount seems to get through to you.

I'll go repost it again,,it gets so boring to repeat the same things over and over.

[Protagoras]

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

[kdr3]

Fascism

[Protagoras]

Thanks for the link, but I already have looked it up. The definition is different in lots of places based on which group is doing the defining. And the contexts are different as well.

[Great Dane]

would the landlord have a form that had the question on it "Do you smoke?" yes or no. Right something like the insurance form that asks if you smoke , and if you don't the policy is cheaper? I know how I would answer

I wouldn't be surprised if that question starts showing up on leases, next questions will be...... do you cook with garlic and or curry, do you use perfume, the list will get ever longer, until there are no tenants to rent to. :-}

[Great Dane]

#283....... If only all former smokers were like you, thank god there are quite a few formers with some rationale left.

My reason for buying an Ionizer....... grandchildren not liking smoke, same with the favorite son-inlaw. :-}

[Great Dane]

I am only "impolite" because I DARE to point out that smokers' "rights" don't extend past their personal space.

As soon as you step onto public space, it no longer belongs to just you, as opposed to what you believe, the world is NOT your oyster.

[VRWC_minion]

You refuse to acknowledge what the founding fathers did AFTER they declared indendence.

Step 1. Declare independence using individual rights as justification

Step 2. Create a new government via a contract called the constitution.

But look, I'm willing to learn. Help me here. Answer my questions about where the state creates property rights and how do these get created by your understanding that they don't come from the state.

Also, using your understanding why do the states constitution even have a clause to remiburse you for taking property when in your understanding that the state has no right to do so ?

Also, apply the same logic to searches ? Why have a clause that denies the state that if all your property rights are superior ?

While your at it explain how a state has the right to even impose a tax on your property ?

You won't be able to explain these and you will continue to ignore the fact that the same folks who wrote the declaration of independence created a new contract for you.

[Illbay]

Since we all share the same air, I submit that isn't true.

Unless you want to propose an alternative measure, that requires apartment management, restaurant owners, etc., to provide oxygen masks.

Someone here mentioned some restaurants that have installed high-tech air filters. That's a recognition of exactly what I'm saying: You don't have the right to foist the consequences of your personal choice on me.

[Protagoras]

It is not possible to create a contract for me.

[Great Dane]

#291........We lived in a townhouse until we bought a house, the owner asked us if he could use our unit to show prospective new tenants, because it was so clean and nice looking, I don't think he would have asked that if the smoke smell was unbearable, we lived there for 10 years, it was not painted when we moved in, 4 years later it was, it didn't get painted when we moved out, didn't need it, before we moved we had the landlord over to check the condition of the unit.... he happily signed off on it.
At one time we lived in an apartment, when we gave our notice, the landlord asked why, too small we said, his response: We have bigger apartments,you have done a wonderful job with this place, we will pay for all materials needed if you can do the same in another........ Moral: not all smokers are costly and irrisponsible.

[ladyjane]

A few years ago the man who lived below us in our condominium went off the wagon. He would sit for hours chain smoking. You could see the smoke in our apartment it was so thick. If I opened the windows it got worse because heat and smoke rises. Because my daughter has asthma, and because the house and my clothes were beginning to smell, I asked him to open his windows. Of course he refused. He knew my daughter had serious asthma but felt he had his "rights". It' s one thing to want to smoke, it's another to do it knowing that you're hurting other people - especially a child. Fortunately his wife finally threw him out.