It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here's Proof Big Brother wants to Rule Your Life

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Check out this ruling, it clearly shows that big Brother is going to rule your life. Yes even in your own home




Judge snuffs Out Smoking In The Privacy of Ones Home

A Golden couple can't smoke in the townhouse they own after a judge ruled last week that their condominium association can prohibit smoking in their four-unit building.

"This is my home, and I worked for it," Colleen Sauve said Wednesday. "I can't relax and have a cigarette in my own home. If I do, I'll get fined."

Sauve and her husband, Rodger, who are both smokers, filed suit in March after the Heritage Hills #1 Condominium Owners Association amended its bylaws to ban smoking. A judge recently ruled against them.

The association was responding to complaints from the Sauves' next-door neighbor, Penny Boyd, about smoke odor seeping into her unit.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Remember; You read it here first, now what do you think is this unjust or what considering it is in the Privacy of ones own Home?

Keep in mind even big corporations allow employees to just walk outside the main and door and smoke but not here they have to leave the property :shk:

Considering the fact this was only a four unit complex perhaps Penny Boyd had a personal vendetta against the Sauves.



[edit on 11/18/2006 by shots]




posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Lol that sucks....looks like they are slowly taking certain things from us. BTW whats with ur avater? Anything bout citco I should know about?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
thats not big brother keeping them from smoking.... its the condo assoc.

if you choose to live in a condo or town home, you live by the rules there...

thats simple...

big brother or the judge.... simply upheld the law that its the associations right to make the rules...




[edit on 18-11-2006 by elevatedone]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
They OWN the condo! Its not like its an apartment or townhouse. geez. Id tell them to piss off and torch the place collect my insurance money and bail. Screw them and the nonsmoking horse they rode in on.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
thats not big brother keeping them from smoking.... its the condo assoc.

if you choose to live in a condo or town home, you live by the rules there...



But I think you are missing the point here. When they moved in the rules did not state there was no smoking. Why did it take so long? My guess is the one individual who complained may have just moved in, not sure though.


Edit to add

What if the association had allowed pets and this rule banned pets would they then be forced to get rid of the pet?


[edit on 11/18/2006 by shots]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   


But I think you are missing the point here. When they moved in the rules did not state there was no smoking. Why did it take so long? My guess is the one indivdual who complained may have just moved in, not sure though.


So what he complained, let him complain all he wants, he don't have any rights over someone's private house.

This is a violation of the liberty. Everyone in the city should complain about this law because it's unconstitutional.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
shots, i agreed with the judge until your last post, now i'm torn. i am also a smoker, but my first thought upon hearing this story was "their in a condo building, and youre going to have smoke seeping from one unit to the next....so the judge's ruling is correct."

but when you mentioned that this could very well have been a new owner making the complaint, it reminded me of all the idiots out there who build or buy houses around pre-existing airports and then complain about the noise. maybe this person should have done a little more research before jumping in.

i dont know....it's a tough one to call in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

but when you mentioned that this could very well have been a new owner making the complaint, it reminded me of all the idiots out there who build or buy houses around pre-existing airports and then complain about the noise.


Good comparison for sure. This is kind of like the family that moves close to the Airport knowing all along there is going to be noise, then they start complaining to the city council demanding changes.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
In my opinion, the issue that needs to be dealt with is the construction of the building. I think they should be able to smoke in their own home, and both residents need to complain about the poor construction since the smoke is seeping into the other woman's unit.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I can't stand cigarette smoking. I'm glad they're banning it in public places. It causes countless diseases and 2nd hand smoking causes deadly illnesses as well. This is just a case of a couple owning 1/4 of a building. Cigarette smoke leaks through the building with ease, and quite frankly I'd be pissed off if my home reaked like nasty cigarettes because I lived next to a couple that chain smoked all day. It's selfish of the couple and shows the weakness on their part for not being able to quit. They're not considering the other 75% of the building that does not deserve to have their home, clothes, and hair stink like an ashtray. Those selfish people aren't taking health into the equation of the other 75%. And why should they? They prove they don't care about health since they smoke cigarettes all day and night.

It's not like this couple owned a home detatched from anyone else's home. That would be a very scary issue if something like this ruling involved a single home.

*I am allergic to cigarette smoke so I clearly am biased.
*



[edit on 18-11-2006 by LooseLipsSinkShips]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I live in a condomnium like those people and the people all over and aside me smoke... and I don't smell anything... so the building have a poor architecture or people are complaining about nothing at all.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
I live in a condomnium like those people and the people all over and aside me smoke... and I don't smell anything... so the building have a poor architecture or people are complaining about nothing at all.


It could be that the people who live all over and aside of you don't smoke the same cigarettes or as many as the people quoted in the article. There are many circumstances one can not account for in your comparison.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
I can't stand cigarette smoking. I'm glad they're banning it in public places. It causes countless diseases and 2nd hand smoking causes deadly illnesses as well. This is just a case of a couple owning 1/4 of a building.


Well I can not stand the smell of exhaust gases from your car or city buses either. Not too mention it hurts like hell when hit by one
Does that mean we should ban all buses and cars too?



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
big brother or the judge.... simply upheld the law that its the associations right to make the rules...


You have to take this decision and then this new city ruling then combine the two and it clearly shows you big brother is out to rule you one way or another.

U.S. city to ban all smoking



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
A lot of smokers that I know make the decision to smoke outside (on their patio or balcony, etc.). If a person is a smoker, it could be that their friends, family, acquaintences, etc. are not smokers and I would think that they would want to keep the living area clean. But then some people prefer to smoke inside their homes and this shouldn't be an issue.

In most apartments, condos.... there are filters that handle the output of air from clothes dryers. Maybe buildings need to be constructed better so that any type of air is filtered outside in this manner.

I've talked to apartment managers who say that when Middle Eastern people move out of apartment units, they have to strip and re-carpet, re-paint the unit because the smell of curry is so intense that it permeates the wall structures.

Even though I'm not a smoker, I still feel that people should be able to smoke within their homes if they wish, and that society needs to accommmodate this by utilizing improved construction methods and techniques.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
When they moved in the rules did not state there was no smoking. Why did it take so long? My guess is the one individual who complained may have just moved in, not sure though.

Maybe, but I think his vote does not account for 75% of the votes...


Think of it this way:

Some guy moves to the United States, where making alcoholic beverages is legal.

Some time after, the United States changes the constitution and it becomes illegal to make alcoholic beverages.

Now that guy cannot drink alcohol because it became illegal to bought it. It wasn't illegal when he went to US, but it wasn't illegal either to change the law, and that was what happened.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Most likely when the couple purchased the home, they were fully aware that they were bound to the community rules. But it is a strange situation. Neighborhoods have covenants that you must follow or you can be forcibly made to comply or sell your property. But these convenants usually in my experience, are exterior related. Fences, sidewalks, colors, that sort of thing. But when it comes to interior, I don't know, makes me feel kinda wierd.

How do you enforce the no smoking rule? When the neighbor complains again, whom is to investigate? It would almost have to be a police officer. He/she would have to come to your home and smell for smoke


The neighbor who complained should have first talked to the neighbor. Explained that smoke was somehow seeping into the unit, and to see if there was anything to be done about it. Like maybe not smoking in a certain room. Or redirecting some venting that the two units probably share.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline

How do you enforce the no smoking rule? When the neighbor complains again, whom is to investigate? It would almost have to be a police officer.



Good point!

How is the officer going to get in when you consider the fact smoking is considered legal. That would require a search warrant which as we all know can only be obtained when you are suspected of doing something that is illegal by law.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Everythingyouknowisalie
BTW whats with ur avater? Anything bout citco I should know about?


Many Americans are boycotting Citgo as a result of the insults he threw at the US. Military bases and others have discontinued using it as a source.

Tons of info Here



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I don't know that it's proof that big brother wants to rule my life, but it is proof that neighborhood associations have a lot of power to do what they want for their neighborhoods.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join