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

[Protagoras]

All Government regulation is okay because it is government regulation that we have to follow. This is what we call "begging the question."

Actually, it's referred to as a circular argument or circular logic, which is to say, illogical.

The Bosco boy refers to everything as "begging the question". It's because he was "educated" in a government "school".

[Just another Joe]

JS, it's your rhetoric that is old.
All you can say is, "I don't like the smell.
I don't have any proof that it hurts me but I don't like the smell and I need big nanny govt to help me swarm the eeeeeviiillll smokers.
Get back to me when YOU have something new.

At least I can back my claims with studies.

[Protagoras]

That's is incredible absurd.

Hard to tell what this sentence means. Perhaps you attended the same "school" as Bosco?

[Centurion2000]

Positively she should buy a hepa filter, because inconsiderate smokers make it impossible for her to enjoy her surrounding. I see your logic, the victim should always bear the cost, and burden.

No, my logic is that you have NO RIGHT to clean air. You want clean air, move to where it is or clean it up. Quit whining about cigarette smoke and go find a real issue.

If you do not want others to 'bother' you, go buy rural property.

[Protagoras]

I have never said the state "grants" rights.

Pinocchio, is that you?

[VRWC_minion]

Show me.

[JesusSaves]

What are your claims Joey? Cheaper health insurance rates for non smokers? Man don't blow a gasket, you could die from a heart attack or stroke, and deprive yourself of a long lingering death in the cancer ward. You've paid into it all these years - you're entilted! Have one on me.....

HaHaHaHa.......

[Protagoras]

"The state creates the rights to begin with. Therefore the state can change the rights via majority rule"

Your post

[JesusSaves]

Oddly enough I have private property in the woods, partly in fact, because of @ssholes just like you. People that wouldn't give a crap about anybody but themshelves. Hurrah for you, and screw everbody else. That's pretty much correct isn't it, Creep-turion?

Go light one up, hacker.

[Just another Joe]

What are your claims Joey?

You don't want to know about the claims or the studies so why wast my time?
Just let me know when they come for something you like......So I can laugh at you, not with you.

[JesusSaves]

That's it joey, now you've got those caustic poisonous juices flowing. I know you would/could do it. Light up another on me, loser.

[Just another Joe]

Whatever.

[VRWC_minion]

Rights=shorthand for property rights. It doesn't "grant" individual's inherent rights. It does however create property and defines the rights and obligations associated with that property.

[Protagoras]

Nonsense. Another government school grad.

And nice dodge on the "shorthand" Pinocchio.

[Protagoras]

Light up another on me, loser.

"It's better to be quiet, and thought a fool. Than to say something that erases all doubt".

[stands2reason]

Begging the question is the fallacy of assuming as a premise the very conclusion intended to prove. Right? Begging the question*is* a circular argument.

[Great Dane]

Presumably littered extensively with cigarette butts..........

And paper cups, cardboard boxes, dirty diapers, used needles, used condoms, plastic bags, old tires......... need I go on.

[Great Dane]

I have never ever flicked a butt out the car window, I know some smokers do, but I have also seen people tossing fast food containers, strange how soooooo many people have no problem with all other kind of litter.

[Great Dane]

but he always takes it outside.

How impressive, when we go to non-smoking friends houses, we don't even bring our smokes.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

It's a good thing the people downstairs aren't seafood lovers. There are all sorts of stinks one could legislate against.