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.

 

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

page: 2
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Banned smoking in your own home.Jeeze whats next...

The sex police.

I can see it now sex will be restricted to the hours of 12 midnite to 2 am on everyother Tuesday night. Anyone caught comming in to work with a satisfied look on their face will be fined $1000.
The government has stepped way beyond physco




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Between the weirdos, the gangs, the homosexual agenda (sorry, but truth), the illegal immigration problem (sorry, but truth), the drought, the wildfires, the earthquakes, and the possibility of tsunami from earthquakes/volcanos from Oregon and Washington State.........

Sounds like just one more reason to LEAVE California to me.
 





posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Arnie's still the govner round that way right - he was forever chugging on a cigar... and that's worse than smoking in your own home THAT WAS SOMKEING IN THE WORKPLACE!!

They will be comming round each night to make sure your in bed by 9pm soon..



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Even if it is just apartments and condos, those are still people's homes.
And the sanctity of a person's home was one of the things the Founding Fathers sought to ensure.
I hate smoke and all that, but dang, this is just too much.
Expect a backlash on this one.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I made a thread which addresses my opinions on this. I found some pretty incredible facts stated on this thread. You should check it out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bottom of the line.... people need to stop the hate. This is discrimination, even though the law does not see it this way. You cannot call an overweight person fat or you'll get fired. Just wait until I remove the twinkie vending machine next week!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by interestedalways
I wasn't a real good student in school, but I sure think I remember something in the constitution protecting the privacy very seriously in one's own home.


The what...? Oh. THAT ol' piece of paper! Hahaha. Well, y'know it's irrelevant, eh?

Seriously, if they can seize property on mere accusation of drug involvement, why should this surprise us any more so? This is just more of the move to strip the Constitution of any real meaning or power.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Wait a minute!

Did the citizens of California approve this ban?

Enough is enough. What is it going to take?

Will you finally stand up and say "NO" if you have to start getting vouchers to have sex or to watch it on your TV or computer?

It seems that sex is the only thing that think that you care about so they will make that the last of on the list.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Saurkraut doesn't give people cancer, though.

The only time this would make sense is in apartments with poor ventilation or lots of children around. I mean, if I lived in an apartment with young children and I had a neighbor who smoked and the smoke seeped through the walls, either the person should stop smoking in the apartment to protect the health of my kids, or I should move. Either way, no one has to move, and I'm sure that the person would be allowed to smoke outside. Or if they want to keep smoking, they could provide an air filter for my apartment.

It is a health hazard for other people. People should be allowed to smoke, but shouldn't be allowed to endanger the lives of others.

Edit- Sex doesn't give people cancer if they live in the apartment next to it going on, either.


[edit on 1/29/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This is insane for a 1000 reasons!

But I couldn't help but think about what would happen if they suddenly out lawed smokes completely? I tried to quit once, my family and co-workers after a couple of weeks asked me to start back up. LOL

Can you picture millions of smokers all going through withdrawls all at the same time! Sheesh!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
reply to post by skeptic1
 


Keep your eyes peeled, cigarettes will be outlawed before you know it...

That is going to hurt EVERYBODY because many states get a good chunk of their income from "sin taxes" like this.



Highly improbable. your right about the "sin tax" but it is so much more than that. R.J. Reynolds alone is responsible for large endowments to the AIDS task forces, American Red Cross, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Cancer Services, Crisis Control Ministry,"Head Start", Goodwill Industries, Habitat for Humanity, Mental Health Association, National Black Theatre Festival, National Urban League, N.C. Special Olympics, Salvation Army, Volunteer fire departments and rescue squads and YMCA's. Thats not even mentioning the programs they were ORDERED to help by the masters settlement, and thats just ONE of the major companies.

What happens to an arch when you jerk out its keystone?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
The US just gets more lame by the day.

Smoking will be illegal one day, no matter how much taxes are taken from it. Then drinking will be outlawed. Then maybe cheesecake. How about soda? Thats not good for you either. Mcdonalds can kill you but you can eat all the disgusting stinky food in your home you want. While were at it Lets ban driving, it is pretty dangerous. How about suntanning? That gives you cancer too.

This country is turning itself and it citizens into a bunch of p-----s.
I wish i was born 100 years ago.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Why the hell don't these people just allow others to live their lives the way they want? We don't all need 24hr nursing!

It's a stupid law, created by idiot people with nothing to do to justify their employment other than making stupid decisions.


There's where California could save a few billion $ a year, fire all the pointless people in government creating such mindless work for themselves!

You know, I can't help but wonder if California is a "testing ground", it looks like their local government are doing everything they can to get people out in the streets to protest.
Are they trying to make their people hate them so much they feel they have to oust them from power? It certainly looks that way to me.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I love the sense of entitlement that non smokers have when it comes to smokers, but then again, most of these laws are pandering to the have-nots, as usual.

here's an idea, don't like something? leave! Its people like you that are the same as some of these immigrants who will come here illegally, squat on someone else's land and refuse to leave, then demand rights and a changed system because on top of it, they don't wish to integrate, but of course they want our money.

Frankly, what the non smokers need to do is drop the liberalism, and learn some old fashioned tolerance again. The reaction and answer you get from walking into a smoky bar and telling everyone to put out their cigarettes and never smoke there again becuase it bothers you should be approximately the same as joe plumber walking into a sorority house, and declaring clothes offend him and they should remove them all immediately and never wear them in his presence again. Yeah, fat chance.

Here's a better idea.. how about, you let people have a choice in the matter. citizens, business owners, and so on. If you want to have a smoking business, you can, and if someone doesn't like it that works there, they can find a different employer, not insist that everyone kowtow to them. But no, most people are far too selfish for that nowadays.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I disagree with this policy, as well, coming as it does from the city council and not the homeowners' association or the apartment complex owners.

However, the Nazi connection is irrelevant. Everything Hitler did wasn't bad and connecting everything one doesn't like to Hitler to prove it's wrong is wrong-headed.

Although the autobahn wasn't Hitler's idea, he did bring it to fruition and it did lead to our own interstate highway system. I'd also like to see the US adopt the German attitude regarding speed limits.


In 1919, Lt. Colonel Dwight D. Eisenhower accompanied the Army's first transcontinental motor convoy from Washington, DC, to San Francisco, thereby forming an image in the future President's mind of a system of cross continental highways that eventually led to the concept of the National Defense Highway System. During World War II, Gen. Eisenhower saw the advantages Germany enjoyed because of the autobahn network. He also noted the enhanced mobility of the Allies when they fought their way into Germany. President Eisenhower established the Highway Trust Fund to create a funding mechanism that enabled the United States to build a national road network similar to the German Autobahn.

www.globalsecurity.org...



...[T]he claim that the Autobahn was conceived by the Nazis is a myth.

Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons, the Nazi regime pressed ahead with the construction of the Autobahn system. The Autobahn also possibly served another purpose: the road connection between various regions within Germany could make military defense and logistics much more efficient and rapid in response.

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 2009/1/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I posted this on another thread that just started on the smoking debate. all the smokers on ATs already know my views so :

"This will be my only post on this thread, because you can only read so many posts by smokers insisting it's their right to smoke, and it's actually your car that is causing cancer, and that they are so polite when they smoke, and that you should be the one standing in the cold so they can smoke indoors, and they can smoke around their kids because they pay for the cigarettes and it's their kids, did I miss any of these rather telling reasons for smoking?

And they will keep going in circles about the smell of your perfume and the car you don't have and how it's your whining thats the problem, because if you would just sit there and let them smoke all over you things would be fab!

Peace out! "

"



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
There is one major problem with this thread.

www.iht.com...

The smoking ban only applies for apartments and condos.

I do think smokers are getting hit with the hammer, but only in a fair sense...

A renter does not own an apartment or condo. You are simply renting it. Therefore, all the smoke residue is clinging upon the real owner of the property that these people are renting, causing damage.

I do not see anything wrong with this ban. They do not own these buildings and they are damaging the property of others. Do not like it, get YOUR OWN HOME.

Smoking is perfectly legal in Belmont California in YOUR HOME still. That is, unless every single living quarters is privately owned by people outside of the area. Maybe if people would DO A BIT OF RESEARCH about articles people post rather then jumping to conclusions we would not have such a freak out fest.

TC - you need a new article because the one you posted does not portray the truth.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


It is our right. Tobacco products are legal. It isn't like we are breaking the law.

I do my best to accomodate non-smokers. If one is in my home, I won't smoke. If one is in my car, I won't smoke. If I go to someone's home that doesn't smoke, I won't smoke. I don't blow smoke in people's faces. I am not rude to non-smokers just because they don't smoke. I don't inconvenience non-smokers just because I smoke. I am courteous to non-smokers; in fact, I bend over backwards for them. In fact, if I do smoke anywhere in public, I have to do so in a little glass cage or in a totally separate area or outside. That's fine.

But, you know what? My courtesy towards non-smokers ends at my front door and anywhere outdoors. Non-smoker's rights are no more important than my rights.....especially in my own freaking home (whether it be a house or a condo or an apartment).

And, the whole apartment/condo thing was pointed out earlier in the article.....




[edit on 1/29/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


My bad
I usually read a few of the starting posts and a few later ones in threads, guess I missed it!

Do you think you deserve the right to smoke in something that is not legally yours and cause damage? Discoloring and remnants of chemicals on the walls? While I still think the law is perfectly legit, another approach could have been letting the owners of the complex decide?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlickSpeed
This is insane for a 1000 reasons!

But I couldn't help but think about what would happen if they suddenly out lawed smokes completely? I tried to quit once, my family and co-workers after a couple of weeks asked me to start back up. LOL

Can you picture millions of smokers all going through withdrawls all at the same time! Sheesh!


Didn't they make a movie out of that? I think it was "28 Days" or something like that.

Anyway I don't think it would be a pretty sight. Wonder what they would try to use for a substitute.

Oh well, there goes the war on drugs.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
reply to post by skeptic1
 


My bad
I usually read a few of the starting posts and a few later ones in threads, guess I missed it!

Do you think you deserve the right to smoke in something that is not legally yours and cause damage? Discoloring and remnants of chemicals on the walls? While I still think the law is perfectly legit, another approach could have been letting the owners of the complex decide?




Letting the owners decide, I have no problem with at all. It is their property and they can make whatever decisions they wish to make regarding it.

My problem is with the city council or whoever make this decision about privately owned property. They don't own it, either, do they???? They made an arbitrary decision about a legal activity in places where people pay to live. Those types of decisions should be left up to the landlord, not the local city council.

And, unless my lease says otherwise, I do feel that I have the right to perform a legal activity in my home.

[edit on 1/29/2009 by skeptic1]



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join