Posted on 03/11/2003 4:42:21 AM PST by 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
Government is charged with the responsibility of defending rights. Sometimes governments try to define guidelines under which they will defend rights. They may define conditions (under which people agree to the definition of the description of property) for purposes of defending property rights.
Which is not granting rights.
People are free to defend their rights in lieu of government living up to their responsibility to defend them. Or more often, when government itself becomes the usurper of those rights. The second amendment (among other things) addressed this inevitable failure by government.
Your perception of rights is fundamentally incorrect. From that mistake flows all of your other mistakes. And that explains why you are in favor of the ochlocracy that you perceive will allow you to violate the rights of others to further your own personal goals.
Agreed.
There are others.
Agreed.
None of them are granted by people or groups of people. (government)
Wrong. I have numerous rights established by people and groups of people. At my church I have the right to receive communion and vote at church meetings. At my work I have the right to certify financial statemetnts, represent taxpayers before the IRS, and I have the right to be your investment representative. In my town, I have the right to vote for/against taxes and vote for representatives. All of the aforementioned rights are granted to me by various groups.
Government is charged with the responsibility of defending rights.
Ok,
Sometimes governments try to define guidelines under which they will defend rights.
OK, so far.
They may define conditions (under which people agree to the definition of the description of property) for purposes of defending property rights.
Ok.
Which is not granting rights.
Ok, but they certainly have created property and defined both your rights and obligations for that property and retain the right to change those rights and obligations. Im not comfortable using the word "grant" either. But lets use other examples. Remember land grants from history class ? And a more up to date example, the government sale of frequencies for radio and cell phones ? Please explain how these get granted with being granted ?
People are free to defend their rights in lieu of government living up to their responsibility to defend them.
Of course.
Or more often, when government itself becomes the usurper of those rights.
This war was fought. It was called the civil war. We lost even when we had the full backing of the state we resided in. We do have the right and the obligation to be prepared to fight it again but I doubt you will find many nonsmokers or even smokers for that matter willing to take up arms.
The second amendment (among other things) addressed this inevitable failure by government.
So did the declaration of independence. The problem is without a state its next to impossible to maintain any rights to property.
Your perception of rights is fundamentally incorrect.
You have yet to explain to me how your perception can explain reality. Your perception ignores, Corporations, it ignores land grants, it ignores copyrights, it ignores deeds and titles, it ignores trusts. In short, yours ignores virtually the entire spectrum of property ownership in order for it to work.
From that mistake flows all of your other mistakes.
Ok.
And that explains why you are in favor of the ochlocracy that you perceive will allow you to violate the rights of others to further your own personal goals.
Big jump here. I disagree that the restaurant owner should be forced to change his smoking policies. So, its not my personal desire being accomplished even though I like the result.
Because a corporation is not property, it is a method of organising a business.
For some reason you avoid this.
I didn't avoid it, I ignored it, because it is off topic. Non sequitur
Those are not natural rights. They are the activites which you can engage in by mutual consent with others with whom you have voluntarily associated.
At my work I have the right to certify financial statemetnts, represent taxpayers before the IRS, and I have the right to be your investment representative.
Again those are not rights, they are things you have been given approval to do by people with guns or others with whom you have agreed to be associated. I can do all the things you just mentioned with any other consenting adults in the absence of force being applied by others not included in the transaction.
In my town, I have the right to vote for/against taxes and vote for representatives.
Voting is not a natural right. It is a condition imposed upon government to make them fulfill their obligations to those who allow them to have power.
All of the aforementioned rights are granted to me by various groups.
First is was apparent that you were incorrect about the origin of rights, now it is apparent that you are ignorant as to the nature of rights.
Also, its amazing that when I show you examples of how the state creates property rights you continue to ignore them and stay in denial.
Wrong. Tell that to Bill Gates. Of course stock in a corporation is property.
I can see your difficulty. You apparently don't know what property is.
I would live to agree with your property theories but so far you are unable to explain kust how they manage to describe current reality.
Irrelevant nonsense. The Declaration does not confer rights in any case. It is however off topic.
Also, its amazing that when I show you examples of how the state creates property rights you continue to ignore them and stay in denial.
You have shown examples of lots of things, they all have been however, non sequiters.
I stand by that, it is amazing that anyone could deny the statement.
Wrong. Tell that to Bill Gates.
Bill Gates would laugh at silly notions such as a corporation is property. It's like saying a private club charter is property.
Of course stock in a corporation is property.
BINGO, take off your dunce cap for a moment, you finally got it right. Shares of stock are representations of ownership amounts of companies organized as corporations. They are indeed property.
I can see your difficulty. You apparently don't know what property is.
LMAO, funny stuff coming from the perpetually confused. You went to a government school right?
Okay, change this then to the stock issued by the corporation.
No, they are living breathing examples that prove your theoretical basis is nonsense because if it were as you said these examples wouldn't exist.
I understand where your mistaken. You are confusing the theory used to establish this country with reality. In theory you are correct. In reality you cannot be mre wrong. Not only was the state (read individual colonies) supreme over the individual at the time of the signing of the declaration, we have since traded more and more of our natural property rights to the state for security and other so called benefits.
I once thought as you did. You believe that at one frozen moment in time we actually had a state where we existed apart from the state and (you are also confusing federal with state) that this state had no power or control over the property of its inhabitants.-Total nonsense.
The declaration was about continuing the the already eixting government(s) or colonies but without answerring to the King. In order to do that the authority of the individual replaced the King. A pure moment in time where you had property rights outside of a state never existed.
You have created a fantasy of the way things should be. Its not the way things are or ever have been.
Okay, so now that you played the semantic game to avoid the issue, just how does this stock exist as property if not for the state ?
Maybe you should just go have a smoke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.