Smoking Banned in Homes-California Adopts 'Hitler's Policy', page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 34 times

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 04:40 PM by the titor experience

Originally posted by skeptic1

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]

Your logic is highly flawed.

You state that it is your RIGHT to smoke as it is a legal activity. If legality is what you use to rationalise whether you can do something, then you must apply it to the ban as well.

This means that in this part of California, the law now states you cannot smoke in a condo/apartment. It is NO LONGER your right to do so as it is illegal.

A common response to this will be "but SMOKING is legal." Again, this is simple logic. As an example, there are certain areas where it is LEGAL to
drive at certain speeds, and certain areas where you cannot. Same goes for smoking - certain areas where you can, and cannot.

If you want to fill your lungs with over 1000 chemicals that bring you closer to your death, that is your choice. Just dont do it in the apartment block i live in - cigarettes are STILL one of the most common causes of fires.

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 04:43 PM by skeptic1

reply to post by the titor experience

I can see banning smoking in certain PUBLIC areas by law. But, apartments/condos are people's homes. They are PRIVATE areas where people live, and pay to live.

There's a big difference between banning smoking in PUBLIC areas by the city council and banning smoking in PRIVATE residences by the city council.

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:19 PM by dashar

Maybe its to totally get the nicotine out of the human system .

i would not like a herd of beef cattle fed on tobacco an grass the steaks will be terrible

harvest time 21st dec 2012..

they are farmers the elite. prob left in charge to over c the pop growth till the ufos return every 3600 years then demand everyone to be fit (quality ctrl ) ?????

i hope im wrong ..

if you pay rent then smoke,

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:25 PM by LoneGunMan

This is what I call the ratchet effect. It started with the war on drugs, everyone was duped into that so they go further with it and make it so they can take your property if you are a drug dealer, Everyone accepted that so they made mandatory minimum for sentencing, Everyone accepted that so they ratcheted it even further. Each time they work the ratchet it gets stuck there and wont go back. Then they made you accept pissing into a cup for a job, everyone went yay its only people using drugs.

Now this. Whats next?

The revolution is near...I can feel it. Can you?

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:28 PM by FritosBBQTwist

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by the titor experience

I can see banning smoking in certain PUBLIC areas by law. But, apartments/condos are people's homes. They are PRIVATE areas where people live, and pay to live.

There's a big difference between banning smoking in PUBLIC areas by the city council and banning smoking in PRIVATE residences by the city council.

Yes but once again they pay rent. They do not this property at all. I am sure they have certain rights that are listed, but since it is not THEIR place they do not set the rules.

Would you like it if you owned an apartment complex where all the rooms are filled with smoke residue, discoloration, and a bad smell? What if you are out on your balcony and the people below you are lightning up and you have to deal with their smoke? Maybe for a smoker it would not matter, but for someone who does not smoke it does.

Smokers understand the problems smoking can cause. Understandable.
Non-smokers understand the problems smoking can cause. Understandable.

So why would a non-smoker have to deal with something that is hurting their health, even if it is minuscule for the moment?

Not their property. They are causing damage to other peoples property. Also potentially making others deal with the smoke.

Am I going to get the same old argument about car pollution now?

These living quarters do not belong to probably any of these people (including the old lady in the video). I fail to see why people are getting up in arms with this? On top of the property not belonging to them, they live literally inside the same building/across the room/below the balcony of many others.

If I wore gallons of cologne would you want to smell it, regardless if it was a law for me to do so or not? What if this cologne did over the time damage to the area it was used in - the area not even belonging to me? Same thing as this entire thread.

I am getting sick of this "anti-smoking propaganda" group we always get classified as...after all, my pockets get filled with cash every time I get someone to quit!

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:31 PM by RFBurns

California is so concerned about clean air, then why dont they do something about the smog that overtakes cigarette smoke by 1000 fold?!!

California was never a good example of anything..except for making movies.

Cheers!!!!

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:31 PM by FritosBBQTwist

reply to post by LoneGunMan

History is prone to repeat itself...I guess it is not that hard to predict something that is 99% likely to happen eventually!

One day, chocolate rain will pour from the skies...I can dream

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:33 PM by FritosBBQTwist

Originally posted by RFBurns
California is so concerned about clean air, then why dont they do something about the smog that overtakes cigarette smoke by 1000 fold?!!

California was never a good example of anything..except for making movies.

Cheers!!!!

White roof project (not sure far this has got), carpool lane, emission tax on cars, solar panels, eh - they are far from reality but they are doing *something* about it...kinda.

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:34 PM by skeptic1

reply to post by FritosBBQTwist

It wasn't the owners of the buildings who banned smoking. It was the CITY COUNCIL!!!!

Hence, my point about the difference between a local government banning smoking in a PUBLIC place and banning smoking in a PRIVATE residence....which apartments/condos are. The city doesn't own or operate them.

I would have no problem if the landlord/owner banned smoking in his building; that is his/her right. My problem is with the city council banning it on private property where people pay to live.

[edit on 1/29/2009 by skeptic1]

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:39 PM by imd12c4funn

This should be challenged up to the Supreme Court.

Incidently, This law is made by a non-smoker I'm sure

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:43 PM by Enthralled Fan

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by FritosBBQTwist

It wasn't the owners of the buildings who banned smoking. It was the CITY COUNCIL!!!!

Yes, but have you considered that the owners of multiple dwellings, or rental homes approached the city council to pass the law?

I doubt this came about simply as a way to make a smokers life miserable!

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 05:45 PM by FritosBBQTwist

reply to post by skeptic1

Yeah I thought of this.

Like I said though, if a renter gets replaced by someone else, should that new person have to deal with the "third hand smoke" (Yes I know these terms sound funny but it is real none the less)? Would the owner of the complex have to put warnings for the rooms that people have smoked in for future renters?

I think this lawsuit should make the owners either have a smoke or smoke free area...and yes, one would have to be chosen to stop any sort of future disputes.

I see the logic behind this law but the only reason I would be against it is because I usually don't favor big government.

Guess it goes both ways if that were the case - you rent, you have to deal with it.

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 06:00 PM by mzrti

What if you are out on your balcony and the people below you are lightning up and you have to deal with their smoke? Maybe for a smoker it would not matter, but for someone who does not smoke it does.

So, not only do you agree with people being banned from smoking in their homes but you also think they shouldn't be allowed to smoke outside their houses on their balcony? Where do you expect smokers to go?

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 06:01 PM by AcesInTheHole

Originally posted by skeptic1
This is just ridiculous.

Smoking is legal. And, people should be able to smoke in their own homes. Hell, we pay for them. I don't care if you live in a house, a condo, an apartment, or a shack in the woods. It is your home, you pay to live there (either a mortgage or rent), and what goes on in your home (as long as it is a legal activity) is no one's business but yours.

Not sure I understand you there. According to the article it's NOT legal to smoke in your home in that town. So it's not a legal activity anymore. Methinks you should have voted against that one if you didn't like it.

Does anyone honestly think the politcal leaders care about smokers' protests? Did they care when marijuana was made illegal? Did they change laws because the pot smokers protested? Nope. And ciggarettes are much more harmful to your body, and don't even get you buzzed.

IMO it seems like nicotine is on it's road to becoming illegal. It's a drug with no medical purpose. When they want to illegalize a drug, they push the laws through wether the people like it or not. I would like to see ciggarettes stay. Just make the nicotine and other deadly chemicals in them illegal.

All these thoughts are coming from a smoker, too. Ask a smoker if they are a drug addict, most will say of course not. News flash, YOUR A DRUG ADDICT. Just because a relativly large portion of people use the drug, and the fact that it's socially acceptable doesn't mean your not an addict. Your addicted to a drug that is doing nothing but killing you slowly.

Honestly, if I lived in this town I just wouldn't follow the law. It's not like anyone will know what your doing anyway, unless they intentionally spy on you. No big deal. If the speed limit is 55, you can do 60 right past a cop and get away with it.

And Alex Jones, please stop using the arguement,"well, Hitler wanted to stop smokers," please. Hitler probobly got up and brushed his teeth and showered every morning, should we consider toothpaste and soap evil too?

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 06:16 PM by Tippys Dad

Just a question. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the founding fathers stated it was the DUTY of American citizens to rise up and overthrow the government in the event it became too powerful and infringed too much on individual rights. Am I remembering correctly? Would a law stating you can't smoke a cigarette in your own home approach the government trampling too much on individual rights? I don't know, I'm just asking.

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 06:22 PM by thinline

reply to post by interestedalways

the word "privacy" is never mentioned in the constitution.

I would go more with the 4th Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses...."

that was just my first thought, probably something better...

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 06:40 PM by The Bald Champion

This is BS! I'm in CA - they will NEVER be able to enforce this...

YAWN...

They can eat a deep fried purple one and then try to prove the "violation".

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 06:44 PM by LysCat

This is getting ridiculous. Where are smokers expected to go now? Are they even allowed to smoke on their balcony or will there be designated smoking areas? I mean come on people, smokers have rights too. We don't deserve to be trampled on because other people want everything. We've already given up public establishments, now they are taking away private homes as well?

What is going to happen to these people who smoke illegally in their apartments or whatever? Law Enforcement is bad enough, now they won't be able to respond when there is a murderer or rapist on the loose because John Doe was smoking in his condo.

If California wants clean air so badly, they should stop worrying about smoking and maybe turn their attention to the smog and the cars pumping that crap out and force people to buy electric cars? It'd help the air so much more then concentrating on smokers.

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 06:45 PM by Anonymous ATS

This is just the start of it! Yes, smokers have been hit first by the gestapo. At this point, it seems that the general public have not spoken up very loudly about the taxes, more taxes, more taxes - or the extreme tobacco restrictions.

More people will start to pay attention when they start taxing, taxing, taxing and banning alcohol, soft drinks, fatty foods, etc. It's just that they've come down hard on a minority group of people so far, so the bans & taxes don't affect the majority of people.

I saw on TV last week that New York state has a bill in the works that will add a sin tax to soft drinks (I assume somebody wants us all to stop consuming too much sugar).

As Glenn Beck says: Why do 10% of the people push around the other 90%?

Oh, by the way - one of our company's owners tried to ban candy from our workplace! Her reason? "People working here don't need to eat unhealthy things".

Our freedom of choice is fading away right before our eyes.

reply posted on 29-1-2009 @ 06:49 PM by 727eng

I agree that it would be impossible for the gubmint to ban smoking because of the tax revenue alone. The same would apply to alcohol. It is funny that we can legally purchase these items, taxed of course, but have all of these limits on them. As long as you are not bothering anyone, go ahead and light up. Most places I have traveled to are not as restrictive as CA, and like our Canadian friend pointed out, enforcement seems to be lax, especially where I live in Northern MI, Where the four food groups are tobacco, alcohol, fat and sugar.