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

[Critter]

"They have the guns"

There ya have it. The ONLY reason anyone complies. Our government has authorized itself to use deadly force to enforce any and every regulation on the books. That IS fascism.

And if you don't believe that Mr. Jay, try noncompliance for a while, and remain open for business after you are ordered to shut down. Resist the ineveitable arrest. See if you are allowed to live.

I can't get out of business quick enough to suit me. No amount of money in the world is worth lowering myself to obeying the mountains of regulatory crap that goes with business. It's unamerican.

I will never again invite that level of government interference into my life. I'm dropping out, and gov't can go screw. The sooner the rest of us stop participating in this fascist scheme, the sooner it will end up bankrupt, and then maybe we can get back to living like free men again.

[Protagoras]

People should move into a no smoking building if they don't like smoke. Or buy their own place.

[bluzcat]

I will let you in on a trade secret.
There is a deoderizer called "last resort" made by unsmoke.
It is officially a fire damage deoderizer, but it works wonders on smoking odors, "muslim" odors (curry can do a LOT of damage, and they dont ever open windows) and it can even eliminate cat urine, most of the time, as long as the pad and backing and floor are sprayed. And sealing with polyurethane is much better than kilz, if the urine has reached the floor.

if You ever get a lot of cig burns, most of the time it is only on the top of the carpet, then a good pair of duckbill scissors will do the trick, just cut the nap until the black is gone.

Another tip for smoked out apartments....spray the last resort on a furnace filter, let the fan run 24 hours. And of course, if you dont have an ozone machine, as a landlord, I highly recommend that investment. Another good remedy is odor blocks, placed on a blower fan, for 48 hours.

If you doubt the ability of my knowledge, consider this...I helped clean out the 55gal. barrels here in Kansas City, that Jim Robinson buried 2 Women in...We got the barrels with about 2 foot of sludge/liquid in them, to be cleaned so the jury could see thier "graves". the last resort worked to deoderize that odor, which I promise, was the worst odor to ever be on this earth.

And no, I dont work for this company, just giving a tip for free, after using almost every product out there at one time or another.

[Protagoras]

"Conservatives" like the poster in question will never allow you to be free, they will have you shot first. Of course they won't do it themselves, to messy, and the targets might shoot back.

[lewislynn]

Frnakly, it's the landlords problem if the party wall between apartments is not properly sealed.

Really? Is that too a fascist government regulation?

[HamiltonJay]

Smokers were for the most part considerate, until people like you emerged.

Now this is debatable... all the butts on the sides of roads and sidewalks, washed up on beaches etc, sure paint a different picture of smokers general consideration.

[FreeTally]

There ya have it. The ONLY reason anyone complies. Our government has authorized itself to use deadly force to enforce any and every regulation on the books. That IS fascism.

Yes, but some people will just never get it. Slavery equals freedom to them.

And the claim that people with views such as Protagoras are somehow "telling everyone what is and what isn't acceptable" is quite hilarious, as you both have pointed out indirectly. I or you can tell anyone anything we want, and they can say "Ok", or they can say "screw you". But, the wehn the government tells us "what's acceptable", they back it with guns and aren't afraid to shoot.

[Protagoras]

All that would require the landlord to spend his own time and money. It's easier just to ban smoking in the lease agreement. Of course that might cost him business, so the default position is to enlist the government to force his competition to have the same rules as him, at gunpoint if necessary.

Force to achieve business objectives is the number one reason that businesses embrace regulation.

[Fraulein]

Oops! Let me try again:

Members of the anti-smoking brigade are irrational, hysterical and extremely paranoid.

The only surprise is that they are not running around with masks and scarves wrapped around their faces like Michael Jackson.

The anti-smokers ask for courtesy and yet they are the ones who make no compromises. Segregated smoking sections in restaurants? Not good enough. Smoking only in the privacy of your own home? Not good enough. Smoking only outdoors? Not good enough. The list goes on. However, your cigarette tax dollars are always good enough. And take note of how many anti-smokers like to ride around in traffic with the windows down.

This anti-smoking hysteria which took off in the 1990s has given rise to what are called "new problems," which are newly-founded complaints against smoking that were not typically problems in the past, or which were not problems for previous generations. Non-smokers in the 1930s and 1940s, for example, got along just fine, and none of them were dying off in droves due to second-hand smoke. Of course, they were not exactly a generation of overly-sensitive and self-righteous wimps either.

Today's wimps go crying to daddy, Mr. Big Government.

All anti-smokers, democrats or not, nonethless appear like democrats with their condescending snobbishness, and arguments from purity.

Such ridiculous anti-smoking laws help convince them that the world really does revolve around them. That's reason enough to oppose them.

The only sobering thing about these threads is that one can quickly see that the anti-smoking brigade acts solely from its own self-interest, and that all their attempts to "save and rescue" the lowly smokers from themselves is simply BS. Of course, that too is taken from the playbook of the democrats.

[Critter]

"so the default position is to enlist the government to force his competition to have the same rules as him, at gunpoint if necessary. "

Precisely. Try smoking in your apartment, after the ban goes into effect, and then try resisting the eviction order. You WILL end up dead. And then, you wil be villified post mortum, as an extremist. But just who is the extremist? The guy who refused to be bullied in his home, or the people that came to do the killing? America has it all wrong these days, and doesn't even know it.

[CheneyChick]

People should move into a no smoking building if they don't like smoke. Or buy their own place.

"No smoking building" - do they make those?

She did buy her own place - its a $350K condo. She feels trapped, and she was there first. (And that isn't high-end living - that's the cost of living here. A single structure home is hardly an option anymore on one income.)

[CheneyChick]

It is so unfair that all smokers are being painted with a broad brush because the actions of the selfish minority of smokers.

I totally agree. I have friends who smoke, and they are considerate, nice people.

[Protagoras]

"AMERICA IS AT THAT AWKWARD STAGE. IT'S TOO LATE TO WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM, BUT TOO EARLY TO SHOOT THE BASTARDS"

Claire Wolfe

[Protagoras]

"No smoking building" - do they make those?

There is no law against it, yet.

She did buy her own place - its a $350K condo. She feels trapped, and she was there first. (And that isn't high-end living - that's the cost of living here. A single structure home is hardly an option anymore on one income.)

So she needs a law to force her will on others because she can't afford to live in a place that costs more than $350K? Maybe she should have read the association aggreement more carefully before she put down her meager third of a million bucks.

[Fraulein]

Yes, but that would defeat the purpose of such laws, and of her wishing to shirk all responsibility onto somebody else...

[HamiltonJay]

I comply only enough to stay in business.

And thus you prove exactly why legal business frameworks exist in the first place. If everyone did the right thing all the time the threat of force would never be needed for anything. Reality is, all it takes is a few schysters and what was once the right thing to do, is now the required thing to do.

You think workplace safety regulation, or food quality regulations, grew out of some facist desire for power? No, it evolved over time as people got fed up with dad or mom or Jr. being killed or maimed at work... or watching mom or dad or junior die from eating some poisoned canned food product? Certainly there is no inate "RIGHT" to safe food or safe products... so any regulations mandating it is facism by your interpretation.

I don't agree with all business regulations, despite how you wish to characterize me. However its part of doing business... no one forces anyone to go into business, if you do, you have to play by the rules... its the way the world works.

[Im4Starr]

WHATS NEXT GRILLED BURGERS/
But that's a fire hazard.......

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, there's a law in California (where else) that prohibits BBQ'ing beef outdoors because of the 'carcinogens'. And, if that's not enough, there's another law in CA that says that beef and vegetables cannot be cooked on the same grill. So if a vegetarian wishes to dine with their non-veggie-exclusive friends at a steakhouse, the restaurant *must* cook the beef separately from veggies. Heaven forbid if the beef touches the veggies.

[Protagoras]

Precisely.

And I predicted early on in the thread that the "conservatives" would show up enmasse to defend this BS.

Just like smoking laws in resturants, and minimum wage laws, and any other use of government power to attain their goals.

[HamiltonJay]

Thanks for the tips, will definatley keep them filed away for next time they are needed.

[Fraulein]

Heaven forbid if the beef touches the veggies

Yeah, but I hear California is really big on fruitcakes.