It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Smoking Banned in Homes-California Adopts 'Hitler's Policy'

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:27 PM

Originally posted by sadisticwoman

Stop polluting my air, and I'll stop imposing my views on you.

Sure, we need people working the low paying jobs- but they shouldn't have to work over 40 hours a week just to support a stupid habit. Smokers should be forced to go into rehab just as heroin users are. If people stop needing to work so many hours, that leaves hours open for more people to take, which helps alleviate unemployment.

Forced to go into rehab like heroin addicts?!?!? I use a rolling machine and it cost me $7.00 per week. If you buy premium Cigs by the carton its about $40.00 per week. You are not living in the real world, and this organic material polluting your air unless I am smoking in a closed room with you.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by sadisticwoman

under the impression? how does that justify anything?

I smoke roll-ups, cheaper and alot cleaner.

I spend a whoping £5 a week, oh dear god! an extra hour at work to smoke? oh no!

Dont justify your arguments with opinions on people you dont know, esspecialy millions of people.

I take it from your reply's you think that all smokers are dirty, rude, disgusting little rats that nibble at your feet when you walk to work.

Oh, and congratulations on walking to work, well done! alot of people do, i have never drived, dont use public transport, and not fot that good feeling of "helping save the planet from global warming" bolloks, and goin from "my assumptions", thats the type of person you are.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:35 PM
Once again, the rights of non-smokers should not trump the rights of smokers especially in their homes, whether that be a condo, an apartment, or a single family home.

Smokers have already been relegated to the corners of public society. There are laws about smoking even in the great outdoors. Now, limits are placed on smoking in our own homes? It is too much.

I go to great lengths and take great pains not to smoke around non-smokers. But, within the four walls I pay to live in, I will smoke (unless a non-smoker is here with me). All the BS about smoke seeping through walls and through electrical outlets and through doors and windows......that's all it is: BS.

Your rights don't trump my rights......not in my own home.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Trolloks
reply to post by sadisticwoman

under the impression? how does that justify anything?

I smoke roll-ups, cheaper and alot cleaner.

I spend a whoping £5 a week, oh dear god! an extra hour at work to smoke? oh no!

Dont justify your arguments with opinions on people you dont know, esspecialy millions of people.

I take it from your reply's you think that all smokers are dirty, rude, disgusting little rats that nibble at your feet when you walk to work.

Oh, and congratulations on walking to work, well done! alot of people do, i have never drived, dont use public transport, and not fot that good feeling of "helping save the planet from global warming" bolloks, and goin from "my assumptions", thats the type of person you are.

Every smoker I know is rude, yes, but I don't think every smoker in the world is. I just think they don't want to face the absolute stupidity of their addiction.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by sadisticwoman

Your posts smell so much of self righteous BS lieing it's not even funny "Oh I'll just that I DON'T do all the stuff he's mentioning so that I look like a saint!" whooo!
I want to see if he'll say something else so you can say that you don't do it either

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:38 PM
I think that all of the smoker's opinions can be summed up by The Redneck's post in another thread about smoking. He summed it up better than any of the rest of us could.

The Redneck's Smoking Post

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by sadisticwoman

Your posts smell so much of self righteous BS lieing it's not even funny "Oh I'll just that I DON'T do all the stuff he's mentioning so that I look like a saint!" whooo!
I want to see if he'll say something else so you can say that you don't do it either

You're only thinking that because I DIDN'T deny anything. I do drive on occasion, in fact, once a week. My fiance lives too far away for me to walk. And I do eat meat, drink milk, and so on.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by Question

i think weve found the re-incarnation of jesus christ,lol

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Does this have to do with Schwarzenegger being a obessive fan of Hitler?

Here in The Netherlands we are angry because we may not smoke in clubs and pubs anymore... and in Cali you may not smoke in your own fking home!!! WTF!!

Police state!

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM
See, guys, here's what REALLY happened:

John, Paul, George, and .. um .. Mark and Fred .. are sitting around at a government think tank problem solving meeting.

George is contentedly puffing on a Pall Mall and trying to blow smoke rings when the idea hits him. "Let's blame cancer on smoking!"

The others are at first skeptical, so George explains, thinking it out as he goes.

"Well, one of our issues is that the public is growing increasingly concerned about cancer, right? And we need an acceptable explanation, right?

Heads nod slowly. All present know that the rise in cancer is being caused by residual pesticides in the environment, chemical waste byproducts of modern manufacturing, bomb testing fallout, chemicals left in drinking water supplies resulting from having to treat and recycle sewage and polluted water, processed foods and food additives, etc. But they can't tell the public that; there'd be outrage and possibly demonstrations and upsets and who knows what.

"Okay, so we blame smoking. Tell 'em it's their own fault, have them feel guilty instead of angry when they get cancer."

"Fine," argues Paul, "but what about the revenue losses from tobacco taxes?"

George thinks. "Well, we can offset those with the money we can bilk from the big tobacco companies after making them the scapegoat for cancer. And the public won't object because it'll be a health issue."

George continues, in his excitement waving his lit cigarette around. Fred, the only non-smoker in the group, accidentally inhales some smoke, which causes a coughing fit and provides George with another brilliant idea.

"Wait, how about this .. after we have everyone firmly convinced that smoking causes cancer, we'll introduce the idea that people breathing smoke from other people smoking can cause cancer, too!"

Mark and John don't think this is going to fly .. after all, the American public isn't THAT stupid any more .. but they're overruled by the rest of the group. George's second idea will help with two other goals - getting people to fight each other instead of the government, and being able to chip away at American personal freedoms without public backlash. It's just too good!

As we all now know, the plan worked and exceeded their wildest expectations. Smoking has become one of the biggest "look no further" explanations for many cancers and the overall increase in cancer as well as COPD and other respiratory problems, smoking has become a major public health issue that has non-smokers up in arms against the smokers who are "poisoning and sickening" them and their families, and the resulting fears have allowed the government to take away more and more personal rights and freedoms from smokers while the non-smoking public applauds and cheers instead of complaining. Millions of dollars have been bilked from the tobacco companies in the name of "reparation," and taxes have been repeatedly increased on cigarettes while non-smokers and even most smokers haven't dared to complain too much about the rising cost of their "nasty habit."

Any serious investigation into the real causes of cancer has been neatly sidetracked and diverted, cancer sufferers are sometimes viewed as "getting what they deserve" instead of pitied because their own indulgences caused their illness, and cancer treatment is generating billions of dollars in revenue for the health care and pharmaceutical industries without anyone even suggesting that the real culprits - the agencies and companies responsible for letting thousands of carcinogens get into our water, food, air, and soil - pay for their mistakes. They're neatly off the hook and sitting pretty while the anti-smokers vote to take away more and more rights and freedoms from smokers, oblivious to the fact that those same laws will someday be used as precedence to take away more of their freedoms. After all, once laws that say people can't smoke in their own homes are accepted, what will be the next thing that people can be prevented from doing inside the "privacy" of their own homes? I'm sure it will be something.

Everyone's happy except the tobacco companies - this round's designated scapegoat - and the smokers.

Far-fetched fantasy, you say? Well, then, ask yourselves two questions:

1. Why hasn't anyone asked the tobacco companies to remove the carcinogenic chemicals from cigarettes?
2. If smoking is such a major cause of cancer, why hasn't the incidence of cancer decreased as the number of smokers has decreased and fewer people are exposed to second hand smoke?

Edit to add:
While you're thinking, ask yourself this one too: If butter, animal fats, and coconut oil cause high cholesterol and heart disease, then why do both conditions continue to be MORE prevalent as the consumption of "bad" fats decreases in favor of margarine and vegetable oils?

Don't you get that they're lying to you about so many things?

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Heike]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:06 PM

Originally posted by LoneGunManNo you just think its fair that the Government has the right to ban it from peoples place of residence. Smoking in an apartment next to you is in mo way going to effect your health. Its about the parts per million and you are getting much worse outside air than the deluded cigarette smoke causes. If what you are saying is true then smokers would last more than a few years from all the smoke we inhale. A lot of non-smokers are getting duped into standing on a soap box that is made of a house of cards. This has everything about control and has nothing to do with the real world results of second hand smoke.

This is a false statement. Smoking from others in neighbouring apartments can and will affect the health of another individual. The point is it becomes conjested in the other apartment and builds up over time. You can talk parts per million and all the other things in the world, and I will always be able to back up what I am saying with real life examples, including my own.

It's not about being duped. Here is just one such story.

A retired Vancouver actor wants a court injunction to prevent his next- door neighbour from smoking in their West End apartment building.

In a statement of claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court, Mina Erian Mina, 74, says that since October 2006 his neighbour, Christine Jestadt, has "created a nuisance" with her smoking.

Mina says the smoke has come through electrical wall sockets, windows and other access points in his suite in the Performing Arts Lodge (PAL) building on Cardero Street.

These non smokers are not going through this much effort to just annoy smokers, the smokers and their addictions are harming people. Period.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:13 PM
reply to post by Harassment101

How can you not understand that the problem here is cheap construction, not smoking? If smoke can cross over from one apartment to another, then so can other scents and fumes. This is quite simply unacceptable, period. The apartments should be constructed so that air doesn't pass from one to the other. Problem solved.

Besides, the odor may be unpleasant, but the amount of cigarette smoke that might pass from one abode to the next via such restricted means wouldn't be any more "harmful" than cooking odors or air fresheners.

Some respect for reality would be a real breath of fresh clean air in this thread.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Heike]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Revealation
I'm not defending smoker's but thier freedom and civil liberties.

I'm sure this set of Smoke Stacks alone,produces more smoke and kills more people in a single day, than all smokers throughout history from begining to end.

Imagine how many of these around the country are pumping out thick, toxic,acrid plumes of smoke daily and people want to flap about a smoker in their house. Get real.

The hypocracy and double standard.

[edit on 30/1/2009 by Revealation]

I don't know if it's deliberate ignorance, but let me try again. I don't live near a smoke stack, if I did I would a) move, and then b) attempt to pass legislation to get the filthy thigs cleaned up. I do however live beside a smoker who's addiction is causing me to become ill.

I am being very real, because someone's addiction is not only blocking my ability to enjoy my apartment, but it's causing me ill health, so you can post all the other unrelated, unrealistic comparisons, and at the end of the day it's the human factor that counts.

Some persons addiction is affect me, there addiction is a personal choice that they have chosen, but I am sharing the ill affects. I would no more share the benifts of a crack addicts smoke, than I would for a nicotine addicts habit, but that is what is happening, and I do resent it.

The reality is these smokers do cause harm to others, and it's not propoganda.

Does the smell of tobacco smoke drift into the place where you live—from an open window, an open balcony, bathroom vents, cracks in walls, ceilings or through plumbing vents? If it does, you are not alone.

In an in-house, unpublished survey conducted by the Clean Air Coalition last year, one in three tenants in rental situations reported that they smelled tobacco smoke drifting into their apartment but didn’t feel they had much power to do anything about it, and only about one in 10 reported they have talked to the landlord very or somewhat often about the problem of drifting smoke.

Consider Darla’s story. Darla suffers from respiratory illness and lives with her husband in a non-profit housing unit. Her neighbour, Samantha, smokes, and this smoke drifts into Darla’s unit. This makes Darla very sick, causing her to cough, wheeze and gasp for air.

Darla and her husband would like to live in a building free of second-hand smoke, but few smoke-free rental options exist. They are also unclear about their rights with regard to second-hand smoke protection in their current living situation.

Another example. That address this issue.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Yarcofin
I just want to know how they plan to enforce it.

people snitching on their neighbors and lodging complaints - thats how - I moved off the left coast recently and being an old leftist rebel from way back I can tell you from experience - the political left and right have this in common: both species want to control our lives and I have watched the so called "progressives" on the west coast out do other each other in promoting insane laws just like this new one banning smoking in your own home...don't ask these same law makers to give up their cars though - 50,000 a year dead from traffic accidents and lung disease from breathing their stinking fumes is A-OKAY - its the cigarette smokers who need to be subdued....pulease....

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
Disclaimer: I only read the first page of this thread.

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. I am so sick and tired of these little rules non-smokers keep inciting. Smokers have been nothing but accommodating to non-smokers. You took away our section of the restaurants, you took away the bus, you get the ENTIRE airplane...and we have to smoke in a little glass room in the airport like we're some kind of zoo exhibit.

Now these fascist rules are being pushed into our living spaces? I know that some apartment places only rent to non-smokers...whatever. But for a whole city to make a law over ALL apartment complexes and condos?

Most of the time people OWN their condos!

I am trying to be sympathetic to the smokers in this thread, I really am, but we took away your spaces, because your addictions are killing us, or causing us ill health. You are not accomodating anyone, you have an addiction that helps to kill 50,000 people per year who did not ask to die, and it cause illness and ill health in thousands upon thousands of others. That's the reality.

I don't for the record like to see people's rights taken away, I don't like people being told what they can do in their own homes, but when their addiction causes me problems, then that's a problem. If it was just harmless smoke that would be one thing, but it's not. It causes a number of problems for non smokers. These laws came about because you had resteraunt workers who were dying, because of their jobs. People who had never smoked, but were dying anyways. The same for workers who had never smoked, but had lung cancer non the less.

I don't want to pay for someones crack habit, meth lab, anymore than I want to pay the price for someone else's smoking addiction, which is a choice.

And for those comparing it to fast food, drinking, and whatever else, remember that these habits or addictions, in the privacy of their homes, don't stop others from enjoying their homes.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by TrolloksHypocritical. The whole smoking image and rules around it is starting to seem like the blalck/white divide in the 1950's, apart from instead of black people being looked down upon and having to wait for white people to do anything before they do, its now smokers.

Again I am really sorry that smokers feel like second class citizens, and no one wants to have their rights taken away, but I also do not want to have my rights taken away to have a healthy life because of second hand smoke.

If I am outside, I have a choice and can move away, when clubs use to smoke, I could choose to stop going, but in my home, there are limited choices, and everyone have to be able to enjoy their homes, smokers and non smokers alike.

I hope that maybe they can find better ways in the future, like creating fully ventellated sections in homes or apartments, something where smoke can not get through, but until they do, then everyone's rights have to be considered.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:46 PM
reply to post by sadisticwoman

It's unfortunate that you don't care about peoples rights, I'm sure you like your rights and wouldn't like them taken away. Believe it or not this country was founded to be a free country, but people like you continue to call on the government to take away those rights. Don't you realize that you and your anti smoking buddies contribute to giving the government more and more power to control and regulate our lives? People don't need to live by your standards, just as you don't have to live by theirs that is why they call it a compromise. There are so many differences how there, race, religion, languages, etc and how do we live together peacefully as possible? Compromise. You may feel that people shouldn't be allowed to destroy their bodies, well you aren't allowed to decide what people do with their own bodies. It's not your concern what people do with themselves, sorry but that's just how it is and how it should be. I don't like sitting next to smelly overweight people that won't shut up during a two hour flight, but does that mean that they should lose the right to fly in an airplane and that everyone has to remain silent on the flight as well? No, you just move on.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Heike
Is this what they've been doing in the schools? Have they snuck all this misinformation and disinformation and propaganda to y'all in the name of education? Because I haven't seen it in the news ...

Smoke goes through walls? Umm, no. In poorly built or connected buildings it may travel (a little bit) through airspaces used to connect wiring, plumbing, and ventilation, but that's cheap construction. Smoke can get through very small spaces around doors and windows but it can't pass through solid walls.

Really let's look into this a bit more. Speaking of misinformation and disinformation.

Second-hand Smoke from Neighbouring Units a Real Problem
The Ottawa Council on Smoking and Health asks Housing Developers and Landlords to Go 100% Smoke-Free

With National Non-Smoking Week just around the corner, the Ottawa Council on Smoking and Health is raising awareness about the infiltration of second-hand smoke (SHS) in multi-unit dwellings.

"Our organization receives calls and emails weekly from people living in apartments and condominiums who are being involuntarily exposed to SHS from neighbouring units," says Pippa Beck, President of the Ottawa Council on Smoking and Health. "It is ironic that individuals are protected from SHS in workplaces and public places, yet many people come home to smoky apartments and condominiums. We believe that everyone has a right to the same protection from SHS at home-whether they live in a single family home or in a multi-unit dwelling."

Laurie O'Nanskie lives in an apartment in Ottawa and literally has to seal herself up in her unit each night to prevent the smoke from entering her home. "I tape the crack under my front door and block off the vents, but still the smoke finds its way in. It's awful. I've talked to the landlord on numerous occasions but nothing has been done about it," says O'Nanskie.

Smoke "damages" buildings? Oh please. I used to be an apartment manager. The lady who had 2 dobermans living (and toileting) in her infant's bedroom in the NO PETS complex .. now, THAT was damage. We had to rip out all the carpets and part of the floor and re-paint everything before we could rent that unit again.
Most apartments have to be repainted and the carpets replaced (or at least cleaned) every time someone moves out anyway. And I promise you, once an apartment has been properly cleaned and repainted, you will NOT know it if the previous tenant was a smoker. And smokers don't do half the damage to properties they live in as CHILDREN and PETS. If I owned a complex, I'd be tickled pink to have all smokers if none of them had any kids.

There was a house a few years back, beautiful home, they had to sell it for under $100,000 because the resident had been a cigar smoker, the smoke had seeped into everything, and the new owners were going to have to tear everything out, and just gut the place to make it livable, and even then they still had trouble selling. That house should have been selling for well over $350,000. Just to give you an idea.

Anyway, where and when did you acquire the inalienable right to never have to be offended by smells, and how come I don't have it?? The guy behind me in the grocery store who has pukeworthy B.O., I don't get to say anything to him. The gal down the hall who burns the really awful smelling candles, the scent of which comes through the air cycling vents even if both our doors are closed, I don't have anything to say about that.

Do either of these things cause you ill health? They are unpleasent, but do they cause ill health? No likely.

So where do you get the right to live without ever having your precious delicate nose assaulted by the smell of cigarette smoke?

I get the right because this type of addiction, like any other drug use, is harmful to my health, I have the right to live, work, and exist in a smoke free enviornment. I did not choose to be a smoking addict, and do not wish to partake of the benifits that go with it. That's where my rights come from.

And don't start with me about the health issues again. It's BUNK.

You can tell that the the numourous non smoker with the breathing problems, the headaches, the insomnia, the coughing and hacking, and other problems this causes. The only bunk here is denying the issues that smoking causes.

You've been brainwashed. "Second hand smoke" is less dangerous than the fumes of most cleaning solutions. Funny how all of my parents' generation who grew up in homes with their parents smoking and started smoking as kids, their cancer rate was LOWER than ours is now when people "know better" than to smoke in a home with kids.

No it seems that you are trying to brainwash people, when there really is a problem with this addiction and the problems that are caused by it.

According to the TV ads we "know better" than to eat butter now, too. But ain't it odd how butter consumption is way, way down but cholesterol and heart disease just keeps going up? It's even funnier that I'm overweight, use real butter and coconut oil and eat all the stuff they tell us NOT to (like red meat) but my cholesterol is great! My skinny old doctor is annoyed because mine's better than his.
Last time I saw him he was mumbling something about oatmeal under his breath as he walked away...

Again all unrelated, because my neighbours butter use does not directly affect me, and until it does, I will not worry about it.

Canola Oil is FDA approved as a PESTICIDE.
Ask someone old how great movie popcorn tasted 30 years ago. That was COCONUT OIL, now demonized for the simple reason that we can't grow coconuts in most of the US so American's can't make money off coconut oil.
Meat is not bad for you unless the animal it's coming from has been pumped full of drugs and hormones and fed an unnatural diet all of its life.

Again unrelated, because my neighbour choosing to eat meat is not directly affect to my health. Although I agree with some points about how these animals are treated, but that's another topic.

Please wake up! At least half of what you think you know is a pack of lies designed to make you buy what they want you to buy, and the entire medical/health care industry in the USA is invested in keeping you - not healthy - but alive and SICK, dependent on their drugs and treatments to live - or so you think. Wake up! They aren't telling you the truth about anything, least of all about the "dangers" of cigarette smoke.

What I know is personal experience and that is not a lie, living it is a truth. Cigarette smoke is dangerous and unhealthy for some people, and if you are one of those people, you have a right to not be affected in this way. Why should you have to be ill, and unwell due to someone else's addiction?

And, I remind you again, if the cigarettes were just tobacco and paper without all the added chemicals and stuff (like sugar) that shouldn't be in them, they'd be much less offensive and much less toxic. So why aren't we collectively trying to have all those nasty chemicals banned from the cigarettes instead of banning tobacco itself? In some respects the smokers are as much the victims here as anyone. Do you think we WANT all those chemicals? No! We just want the tobacco, but "natural" cigarettes cost 2x to 3x as much.

Why don't you work on that. Victims who choose their deadly habit. You are addicts and I do feel sorry for your addiction, and I understand it's a hard habit to break, but again, it's still a choice.

You're on ATS for crying out loud. Please tell me you have some capacity left to think for yourself?

Yes please tell me you have the ability to think.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:48 PM
That should say think and do the research.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:50 PM
It is hardly accurate to call it "considering everyone's rights" when your chopping away one side's rights.

That is NOT considering everyone...period.

It is called Favoring the Rights of Some Over Others.

Have you folks out there in California even considered that it is all that daily smog you people breath in day in and day out 24/7/365 and not your neighbor's cig smoke that is causing not just the health problems, but obvious corrosion of the cheap thin constructed walls in between your apartment and the other? How about the corrosive nature of sea water and the moisture from that salty sea water?

Last picture I saw of the skyline of LA, SF, SD, SB, and many other cities and towns, all have that thick layer of greyish/red exaust smog.

Take a drive up onto the nearest lookout hill and see for yourselves.

I think your Hitler Gov there will find that banning smoking in people's own homes and in their own cars wont solve a damned thing about the real problem out there.

But hey..maybe that will be the way we finally get off of fossil fueled cars because then it will be very clear that the health problems are not sourced from smokers, but from all that exaust smog!!

Hmm..there may be some benefit from this ruling.


new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in