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

Originally posted by JipStix
I absolutely hate smoking, the smell of it, the taste of it, etc...

But to tell someone they can't SMOKE IN THEIR OWN HOUSE?!

This is America. What someone does in their own house is their own business, and as much as I hate smoking, this disgusts me.

The government has NO RIGHT to say what people can and cannot do in their own house (aside from crimes like murder, rape, abuse, etc...).

This is just another shining example of an overbearing on-the-verge-of-tyranny government. This crap has to stop.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by JipStix]

I don't like telling people what they can and can not do in their homes either, but in this case, if what they do in the home affects others, then I am all for putting restrictions on it, or getting smoke free apartments.

I also care what happens with children in a home full of smoke.

Smoking in small, open areas within a shared condominium is equivalent to maintaining a smelting furnace in the backyard of your 6000 ft suburban mansion. It's all about scale. If your behavior infringes on the health and well being of your neighbor then according to the constitution, you have no right to do what you are doing. This article is deliberately misleading in that it defines "home" as the small, shared space in your small, cramped condominium. Everyone wants equal property rights. That's the problem. The reality is that not every deserves it. You either get a better job and move into a private home or you suck it up.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

If you wish to smoke in the comfort of your own home, get a better paying job and purchase your own house.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by cognoscente]

The point is, that smokers shouldn't have to be the ones to give up all of their rights...what with the supposed statistics that most smokers are of 'lower classes'. Given that way of thinking, why don't the non-smokers get better paying jobs and buy their own houses?

Smokers have just as much right to live in an apartment or condo shared housing unit, as non-smokers do, and do what they want. Since that's not okay, it should at least be up to the property's owner to decide what is okay or not okay to take place there, not the government. I think that makes me more mad than anything. They still sell the cigarettes, but they continue to ban 'appropriate' places to smoke. Once people stop smoking, I wonder where the government is going find something to take place of all that tax money that they've been getting off of it?

Sheep still arguing over points that have no scientific evidence? You get your information about how smoking is bad and second hand smoke can kill you from what? yahoo? myspace? just because the news told you. The truth is they are lieing. Another thing to keep you bitching about useless bull#. Your on a conspiracy site you should know this already. O and look at that im a non smoker yet i speak up for smokers, not really im speaking up for freedom.

Originally posted by cognoscente
Smoking in small, open areas within a shared condominium is equivalent to maintaining a smelting furnace in the backyard of your 6000 ft suburban mansion. It's all about scale. If your behavior infringes on the health and well being of your neighbor then according to the constitution, you have no right to do what you are doing. This article is deliberately misleading in that it defines "home" as the small, shared space in your small, cramped condominium. Everyone wants equal property rights. That's the problem. The reality is that not every deserves it. You either get a better job and move into a private home or you suck it up.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by cognoscente]

They even have signs telling people not to smoke in some parts near the building because it goes up into the apartments. Because others have complained about the same thing. I don't know why people think that walls stop smoke?

I think people really believe that non smokers are just complaining and it's not that big a deal. I think most people either live in really well insulated areas, or they are not affected by cigarette smoke the same way others are.

I think in private homes like you mentioned as long as there are no small children, then they can do what they like. (I feel bad for the pets however.)

Here in the midwest, everyone disregards the law and you will find people smoking in any bar. In the state i live in there are no laws telling the courts how to enforce the smoking bans, a few people got ticketed in the beginning but the tickets have since been dropped, THEY DONT KNOW HOW TO ENFORCE THERE OWN LAWS!

reply to post by LysCat


Well I have to say I completely agree with you there. However, I think the government is passing this bill on behalf of lobbyists and interests groups that actually represent people living in similar conditions, in condominiums just like the ones mentioned in the article. It definitely wasn't arbitrarily passed. I bet they get thousands of phone calls and equally as many civil disputes about this very issue between residents and landlords every year. If it's on behalf of the people, then constitutional law should be upheld. While I'm not certain, as I haven't been living this experience, I'm sure there is a long history to the passing of this bill. I'm not from the area so I wouldn't be able to tell. But for the sake of sanity I'd like to assume that this is the case, and that the creation of this bill has been a long process, the weight of which is predicated on extensive legal action by all concerned parties. I'm aware of how municipal issues quickly escalate and it really does have a lot to do with regular people. If there are a certain number of civil disputes, higher-up legislature will often take it upon themselves to settle it once and for all and stop wasting all of their already extremely overextended bureaucratic resources.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by LysCat
The point is, that smokers shouldn't have to be the ones to give up all of their rights...what with the supposed statistics that most smokers are of 'lower classes'. Given that way of thinking, why don't the non-smokers get better paying jobs and buy their own houses?

The thing is however, we are not the addicts. Why should I let someone's addiction destroy my health? I just think that various people are of different means and measures and why don't we all get seperate areas, condo and apartment living are getting more popular, and there has to be a solution that can satify both camps.

Most of the condo's now are being built with "smoke proof section", but if you have an older one, or you live in an apartment, it's horrible. For years smokers were the ones giving an inch here and there, and having to put up with it, the pendulum is swinging the other way, because this is a strain on resources health wise. Why should that many innocent people die every year for something they don't do? Makes no sense.

Smokers have just as much right to live in an apartment or condo shared housing unit, as non-smokers do, and do what they want. Since that's not okay, it should at least be up to the property's owner to decide what is okay or not okay to take place there, not the government. I think that makes me more mad than anything. They still sell the cigarettes, but they continue to ban 'appropriate' places to smoke. Once people stop smoking, I wonder where the government is going find something to take place of all that tax money that they've been getting off of it?

I think the only solution is smoke free buildings. The smokers can find smoking buildings, and the non smokers find the smoke free ones. Problem is again the smoke free ones are hard to find, and then they fill up quickly, because there is a high demand for them.

Originally posted by XXXTheClown
Sheep still arguing over points that have no scientific evidence? You get your information about how smoking is bad and second hand smoke can kill you from what? yahoo? myspace? just because the news told you. The truth is they are lieing. Another thing to keep you bitching about useless bull#. Your on a conspiracy site you should know this already. O and look at that im a non smoker yet i speak up for smokers, not really im speaking up for freedom.

Smoking is bad for your health. I say this from personal experience as a non smoker who has had to endure smokers. It's not a myth, smoking is bad.

You probably are standing up for freedom to do what you want in your home, that's commendable. As a non smoker, I am standing up for the rights of children and non smokers to not have their health destroyed by smoke, and to not have to be one of those second hand smoke death statistics.

I don't like the government taking away rights, or telling people what they can and can not do. I assume those standing up for smoking rights, will stand for the rights of those who want to smoke other things in the privacy of their homes?

I say for the homes get buildings and apartments that are seperated, this will solve the biggest issue of all with the homes.

I just did some quick research. It took me five minutes. The problem here it seems is that most of you are assuming the government passes these laws arbitrarily. See my last post. This has been a long and arduous fight on behalf of the people, backed by ANR (Americans for Non-Smoker's Rights) as well as other advocacy groups and lobbyists, but not a bunch of aging legislators running some moral crusade on public health. The comparison to Hitler in the provided article was clearly inaccurate, and exceptionally biased. The government is freeing up bureaucratic resources because there have been so many civil suits and so many activists campaigning for this for years. This issue has apparently been raging since 1988. The second link provided below shows that as early as 1999 there was no indication at all that this movement was anywhere near successful. In the last 10 years, there surely must have been an exceptional amount of momentum to propel this all the way to the state theater. That it was passed today is nothing short of expected for something that the people have been wanting and fighting for so long.

www.no-smoke.org...
www.tobacco.org...
www.cdc.gov...

[edit on 30-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by Harassment101

The thing is however, we are not the addicts. Why should I let someone's addiction destroy my health? I just think that various people are of different means and measures and why don't we all get seperate areas, condo and apartment living are getting more popular, and there has to be a solution that can satify both camps.

How is someone smoking in a separate Apt. destroying your health. Tell us how that is. There is no way that someone smoking in another apt. right next to yours is harming your health in any way.

You are spreading hyperbole and you must know it. Re-read what you have said in your posts. You are acting like the kind of neighbor no one wants. You just want it your way and will argue it to death (pun intended). Tell me how this seeps past drywall. The parts per million are so small there is no way this can effect your health.

Second hand smoke is blown way out of proportion and it is just nuts to think it is effecting your health living next door. See how long you last running a car in your apt. Now you will say well cars are run outdoors and the effect is too small. Parts per million is the clue maybe you should get one, not a car but a clue.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
How is someone smoking in a separate Apt. destroying your health. Tell us how that is. There is no way that someone smoking in another apt. right next to yours is harming your health in any way.

Are you asking or telling me? I could go into details, but I don't like to associate with egg throwers, so I will pass.

I stand by what was said, second hand smoke does cause health problems, and it does go through the walls. Period.

You are spreading hyperbole and you must know it. Re-read what you have said in your posts. You are acting like the kind of neighbor no one wants. You just want it your way and will argue it to death (pun intended). Tell me how this seeps past drywall. The parts per million are so small there is no way this can effect your health.

You should like you want people to lay down and take stuff that is bad for them. You sound like the type of neighbour who wants to throw eggs at people and then have them shut up and take it. I sound like the type of neighbour that will stand up for the rights of myself, and others who don't want or appriciate second hand smoke making them or their children sick. I am just that type.

Why do you do look up some health statistics and let them tell you how it goes through the walls. Do that and then come back to the thread. You are wrong, the smoke is small enough to pass through the walls, and cause health problem, for many people. That is a fact.

Second hand smoke is blown way out of proportion and it is just nuts to think it is effecting your health living next door. See how long you last running a car in your apt. Now you will say well cars are run outdoors and the effect is too small. Parts per million is the clue maybe you should get one, not a car but a clue.

It's not blown out of perportion, I think some people like to think it is to support their habit, but it's not. The fact that you are calling people nuts for standing up for their rights for something that has been proven time and again to be harmful, says a great deal about your mentality.

Cars and cigarettes, right. Why don't I not humour this part of the post. Please go do some research, don't take my word for it. I will vouch for my own personal experiences and state, this does affect your health. Period, but go do the research yourself.

reply to post by skeptic1


you're correct unless someone else has to breathe your smoke. the sauerkraut analogy isn't good for this reason

Originally posted by Harassment101

Originally posted by JipStix
I absolutely hate smoking, the smell of it, the taste of it, etc...

But to tell someone they can't SMOKE IN THEIR OWN HOUSE?!

This is America. What someone does in their own house is their own business, and as much as I hate smoking, this disgusts me.

The government has NO RIGHT to say what people can and cannot do in their own house (aside from crimes like murder, rape, abuse, etc...).

This is just another shining example of an overbearing on-the-verge-of-tyranny government. This crap has to stop.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by JipStix]

I don't like telling people what they can and can not do in their homes either, but in this case, if what they do in the home affects others, then I am all for putting restrictions on it, or getting smoke free apartments.

I also care what happens with children in a home full of smoke.

You don't give a crap about that child and neither does the government. You only care about you and what you think. If you cared about that child you'd be more concerned about it growing up in a world without freedom.

We can keep the child healthy. We could keep everyone healthy. We could lock everyone up in a facility, like a prison, if we wanted where your diet is regulated and your exercise is regulated, but without any freedom what F'in good does health do you?

Look, would you put a kid in a car? Do you know how many die in car accidents? For all I know the next time your drive down the road you'll accidentally hit my child and kill him when he runs across the road! Therefore WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!! WE SHOULD BAN DRIVING! HOW MANY MORE CHILDREN HAVE TO DIE! Right? Come on you can make the WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN argument about anything. Look, I'll do it back words for you even!

If we don't have cars then I can't get to work and I won't make any money and I can't afford to buy groceries for my children and they ALL STARVE! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! WE MUST LEGALIZE DRIVING! Uh yeah. What about the children? They die in the end either way don't they?

Look, every week a different study comes out. Eggs are good, eggs are bad. Alcohol is good for the heart, it's bad for the heart. Alcohol is good for cancer, it's bad for cancer. Marijuana has medical benefits, marijuana doesn't have medical benefits. If we let them do this with cigarettes than the government will have complete control from here on out because they can hire a scientist to make up whatever study they want. Now i'm not saying smoking doesn't kill you. It does, but the point is once they know all they have to do is say IT KILLS! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? to make you stop doing something then the system owns you!

It might be a lie next time. By the time the study gets peer reviewed it could be ten years later and the damage already done. Don't you people get it? It's just one big propaganda game. It doesn't have to be smoking. It could be fast food or potatoes chips or what kind of clothes you wear. Look, they're not selling enough cars so, New study shows your car emits too much exhaust and is killing your dog! You need THIS CAR! Not selling enough shoes? Study shows most shoes DAMAGE YOUR CHILD's FEET! Need more tax money? New study shows SMOKING KILLS YOU! SIN TAX! See how this works now?

[edit on 30-1-2009 by tinfoilman]

The real culprits,disease causers and misery generators are your car folks!,smokers,drinkers,homeless fellers........are just excuses to aim your fears and insecurities at....the marginalization of undesireable people is an earmark(?)...of YOUR fascist society

How about you all calm down and actually research the issue? This isn't about fanatical legislature working for the cause of some moral crusade to correct your personal lives. They couldn't care less. But apparently tens of thousands of Californian citizens, lobbying on behalf of their interests, actually do. There is just way too much political rhetoric here, way too much talk of freedom and liberty and not enough reasoning. This is ATS. Let's be critical, and objective and actually deny ignorance for once. The full contributory extent of this thread's liberty toting smokers is limited to some rather heavy Jeffersonian oratory. This is about private property rights and externalities affecting public health. Where is the consideration of the source of this article? So far it hasn't been addressed. What about the intentionally misleading definition of "home" as provided by the article?

The beauty of the Democratic process is when the people acre about something enough, we can actually do something about it. The government IS us. You would be surprised how many bills are passed on behalf of extremely motivated and genuinely concerned citizens lobbying their fellow congressmen and district representatives for something they truly believe in.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by tinfoilman


You don't give a crap about that child and neither does the government. You only care about you and what you think. If you cared about that child you'd be more concerned about it growing up in a world without freedom.

Actually I care about freedom, the freedom to have a smoke free future. I have fought for that and will continue to, I will also fight for the right to have our rights. What future will a child have if they get sick from second hand smoke and die early?

All freedoms and rights are important, it's not just about having rights, it's about quality of life, which second hand smoke takes away from.

We can keep the child healthy. We could keep everyone healthy. We could lock everyone up in a facility, like a prison, if we wanted where your diet is regulated and your exercise is regulated, but without any freedom what F'in good does health do you?

Or you could quit being disrespectful and destroying the health of another person with your drug habit of smoking.

Look, would you put a kid in a car? Do you know how many die in car accidents? For all I know the next time your drive down the road you'll accidentally hit my child and kill him when he runs across the road! Therefore WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!! WE SHOULD BAN DRIVING! HOW MANY MORE CHILDREN HAVE TO DIE! Right? Come on you can make the WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN argument about anything. Look, I'll do it back words for you even!

I would use a car seat. They do die in car accidents, but see the word, accient, smoking is deliberate and preventable.

If we don't have cars then I can't get to work and I won't make any money and I can't afford to buy groceries for my children and they ALL STARVE! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN! WE MUST LEGALIZE DRIVING! Uh yeah. What about the children? They die in the end either way don't they?

Right so drama person, cars have nothing to do with the inconsiderate nature of second hand smoke. Smoking can be illiminated, or put into seperate areas.

Look, every week a different study comes out. Eggs are good, eggs are bad. Alcohol is good for the heart, it's bad for the heart.

Until eggs start coming through the walls, from the egg throwing poster in this thread, then it's not a problem. Eggs are a choice, as is alcohol, smoking is not, if I don't smoke and my neighbour does, and it comes into the home, then I become a smoke, and I get all the benifits that go with it. This is not acceptable.

Alcohol is good for cancer, it's bad for cancer.

Again alcohol is a choice and therefore does not fit into this category.

Marijuana has medical benefits, marijuana doesn't have medical benefits. If we let them do this with cigarettes than the government will have complete control from here on out because they can hire a scientist to make up whatever study they want. Now i'm not saying smoking doesn't kill you. It does, but the point is once they know all they have to do is say IT KILLS! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? to make you stop doing something then the system owns you!

Since in this case it's true, why not think about the children, and why not all work to pass laws that protect them inside and outside the home. If you have kids of a specific age, no smoking in the home. Or you must have a smoking room, which is literally a built room where smoke can not leave. For the apartments, let's seperate them.

It might be a lie next time.

Yeah but this time it's the truth. I am happy to work with smokers, cause I don't like to see rights taken away, but when your right can kill another, then it's a different story.

By the time the study gets peer reviewed it could be ten years later and the damage already done. Don't you people get it? It's just one big propaganda game. It doesn't have to be smoking. It could be fast food or potatoes chips or what kind of clothes you wear. Look, they're not selling enough cars so, New study shows your car emits too much exhaust and is killing your dog! You need THIS CAR! Not selling enough shoes? Study shows most shoes DAMAGE YOUR CHILD's FEET! Need more tax money? New study shows SMOKING KILLS YOU! SIN TAX! See how this works now?
[edit on 30-1-2009 by tinfoilman]

Shoes, potato chips, and other things are choices, if someone wants to wear bad shoes, God bless them. If they want to eat potato chips, or even McDonalds everyday, as long as it does not affect me, or others, then so be it.

Originally posted by cognoscente


The beauty of the Democratic process is when the people acre about something enough, we can actually do something about it. The government IS us. You would be surprised how many bills are passed on behalf of extremely motivated and genuinely concerned citizens lobbying their fellow congressmen and district representatives for something they truly believe in.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by cognoscente]

This is a good point, we the people can make a difference when we try. It's nice to see that some things do work, and that people are finally being listened to, non smokers have come a long way, I know some don't think it's for the better, but then they who experience it, know it.

That's it! I am going to file to have old woman perfume banned from inside spaces. It is dangerous to my health as it causes allergies and breathing problems for me.



[edit on 30/1/2009 by toochaos4u]