California Town Bans Smoking in Condos and Apartments That Share Walls

reply to post by intrepid


Is that a trick question?

They have an obvious drug dependency.

reply to post by DerbyGawker


No more than any other country, I lived in the Netherlands for a year (love the dutch btw cool dudes).
They have the lowest drug related deaths in the whole of the Eu.

www.holland.com...

A little bit from this site.

The Dutch recognize that it is impossible to prevent people from using drugs altogether. Coffee shops are therefore allowed to sell small amounts of soft drugs. This pragmatic approach means that authorities can actually focus on the big criminals who profit from drugs and who supply hard drugs.

Another site with some decnt info.

www.opensocietyfoundations.org...

Their way is the right way.

DerbyGawker
reply to post by intrepid

 

Is that a trick question?

They have an obvious drug dependency.

No. It's a fact. Boymonkey beat me to it. I'm not debating inanity. And I'm not in the mood to teach. Get out of the classroom man. There's a BIG world out there.

intrepid

DerbyGawker
reply to post by intrepid

 

Is that a trick question?

They have an obvious drug dependency.

No. It's a fact. Boymonkey beat me to it. I'm not debating inanity. And I'm not in the mood to teach. Get out of the classroom man. There's a BIG world out there.

I'm confused, did you just agree with my assertion they have an obvious drug dependency then dismiss it by saying get out of the classroom?

They take tax payer money to make life easier for junkies. Just as our government takes tax payer money to subsidize rising health costs associated with smokers.

Neither government addresses the underlying external social pressures that lead people to try obviously life-ruining drugs.

www.drugabuse.gov...

"Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)"

Tobacco is a drug, with obviously destructive effects to ones self and society. Yet society has to foot the bill for smokers and accept their infringement upon the rights of non smokers?

The typical smoker demands of society just as welfare recipients do.

reply to post by DerbyGawker

boymonkey74
reply to post by DerbyGawker

 

edit on 22-11-2013 by boymonkey74 because: Can't be bothered....

I agree.

reply to post by boymonkey74


I'm not arguing which is better, I'm attempting to draw parallels between the Dutch model and the US with regard as to how efficacy is achieved.

The Dutch model excuses the behavior of offenders because it is more financially sound to supply citizens with dependency issues at the expense of the tax payer as the costs are less than those incurred through the traditional method of criminalization and the associated crime. But it does not solve the underlying issues that lead to and upon which dependency subsists.

Just as the current (yet changing) US policy treats sugar, caffeine, nicotine and alcohol (in order of least severe to most) addiction. Citizens who do not partake in the documented addictive substances must subsidize not only the drug its self with regard to HFCS but all the associated environmental, health and social costs of said drugs.

We allow corporations to profit from addiction, disease and death that they create. I'm not arguing that people don't have a right to these "natural" (arguably though not HFCS or alcohol) substances, I'm stating that businesses don't have the right to profit from it (another discussion) but more importantly "society" has no obligation to support your addiction, and should you feel they are obliged then surely they have the right to determine the conditions of that relief.

"I have the right to smoke (that which exists by no natural process, therefore it CAN NOT be a right) and you have the obligation to pay for the roads which the manufacturers use to push their drugs. You have the obligation to carry the burden of covering my increased costs to the new healthcare system. You have the obligation of paying more on your rental for the necessity to renovate after my smoke has permeated the walls."

It's astonishing just how much the right to smoke infringes upon the rights of EVERYONE. When you really try to even attempt to understand the broad implications of smoking any reasonable person would quickly recognize not only what a personal impairment smoking is, but they would have the fortitude to acknowledge just how much their addiction burdens society.

MmmPie
I see no issue here.

When you rent any kind of living quarters, the tenant agrees on certain terms. I've been to a plethora of my friends apartments that are rented, and none of them were allowed to smoke inside. Hell, a lot of them couldn't have pets unless they were service animals.

Renters OWN the property, they set the rules, tenants obey them.

Pretty simple.

Guess what? If someone doesn't agree with the rules, they can move.

This just sounds like people complaining because someone told them they weren't allowed to do something. Sounds pretty childish. Some people need to try being adults, instead of being the entitled brats they have become.

That or they're delusional and paranoid, and think that the government is trying to turn them into livestock. I guess my parents were secret government plants that were hell bent on taking away my freedoms while I lived under their roof. Maybe the people that run those neighborhoods that don't allow people to paint their houses or have their yards a certain way, are government freedom thieves as well? We'll have to keep are eyes on college dormitories as well, those shady RAs are up to some nefarious doings...

Sometimes rules can be a good thing.

Did you not read the article or are you just choosing to be obtuse?

It's not the property owners coming down with a smoking ban on their properties. I have no problem with an owner deciding his property will be smoke free.

This is the government coming in and deciding point blank, smoking is illegal in your residence, owned or rented, tenant or owner. This isn't about property owners. This is about government deciding a perfectly legal activity(smoking cigs) is now illegal in your own property, inside your residence. It's government telling us a completely legal activity is illegal within our homes.

And if you're ok with that, the government banning a legal activity with your residence due to the health risks to others, then you should be ok with government not stopping here, which is ludicrous. Screaming babies are bad for my health in the middle of the night, cause stress and loss of sleep. Should having babies be banned if your residence shares a wall? How about loud sex which also awakens neighbors? Smoke point blank is bad for your health. Maybe bbq'ing should be illegal as well. But why stop there. Kids can get a hold of alcohol when the parents aren't looking or are asleep. New law, alcohol is illegal in any residence where there's children under the age of 21. Fair in your opinion? Or how about that painkiller you take after ahving back surgery? We can't let children get a hold of those. Pain meds now illegal if you have children. And why stop at people? Now spraying raid to repel insects in your garden or on your lawn is illegal as it's a health risk to your neighbors dog.

Know what a slippery slope is? Read up on it. You'll then understand my post and the clear counter argument.

People like you who misrepresent the situation are really not helping the discussion.

DerbyGawker
They also have world class drug addiction because apparently people have a right to pollute their bodies at the expense of society.

that is directly because of their liberal form of government... they have the same problem in Canada, the State give you heroin.

drugs haven't come out of Holland in over 100 years... the United States and South America distinctly hold that position.

Holland is the Las Vegas of the Europe, and a monarcy... not a Republic

No wonder people shoot up schools and businesses. We're taking away every last damn vice there is under the guise of public health.

Cabin
reply to post by Diabolical

 

Smoking should be banned inside apartments, only on windows, balconies or outside. If somebody fell asleep while smoking, which is one of the major causes of different house fires (when self-inflicted) , this can kill numerous other innocent people living in the same house simply because some idiot wanted to be "free".

Freedom should not involve setting the lives of others in danger.

edit on 22-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

I vote to ban crossing the street, you could get hit by a car.

crossing the street is dangerous to your life and the lives of others...

Restricted
No wonder people shoot up schools and businesses. We're taking away every last damn vice there is under the guise of public health.

and that is exactly what Obamacare means and is about...

controlling others, everything down to what they eat or put in their bodies...

all in the name of lowering taxes for the collective society.

the signs are there what it will transform into if it allowed to persist, the soda ban, this smoking ban...

once this control is relinquished to the State then what are the limits...?

---

does legal physician assisted suicide mean Doctor Death (Kevorkian) was wrongfully convicted?

I vote we euthanize the helplessly sick and elderly... in the name of lower cost healthcare and taxes.

we should force the elderly to work and be scared of retirement until they drop dead on the job...

this is the extremes socialize medicine will lead to, as history has a tendency to repeat itself...

reply to post by DerbyGawker


Your argument doesn't work. Alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs in existence and is perfectly legal. I'd post some links on how damaging it is, but I'm on a smartphone. If society can function with alcohol being perfectly fine, then it can function with others legal as well. Holland proves this point with their lax stance on minor drug use. All america proves is that we can send record numbers of people to jail. Something kind of strange for a free country.

jtma508
reply to post by kingears

 

I can understand if you're a smoker this seems like a significant impingement of your personal 'rights'. But if you have the capacity, imagine it from the other side. Many of us non-smokers find the stench associated with smoke highly objectionable. Those of us that have lived in apartments adjoining those of smokers have been subjected to the 'rights' of those smokers. The relatively small spaces concentrate the smoke which continually seeps into our living spaces through utility/plumbing races, HVAC duct spaces, etc. What about our rights? Frankly, you could shove anything you want into your body and I could care less right up until the time it begins to directly affect my space. I know as a butt-sucker you can't truly appreciate this because you love the smoke. Can't get enough. But we don't all share in that love affair. I can recall numerous occasions of eating dinner, watching TV, etc. and then a wave of fresh stink begins to fill my apartment. And I'm not talking about one apartment.

I had a girlfriend that lived in the same apartment/condo complex as I at one point. It was a nice 'community'. There was a 'gentleman' in her building that had 3 separate smoking-caused fires from passing out while smoking over the course of 2-1/2 years. Each drove residents outside in the middle of the night and resulted in even more smoke-damage. There was nothing to prevent this guy from continuing in his thoroughly selfish and inconsiderate behavior because it was his 'right'.

Just another perspective...

i find the stench of your body odor offensive maybe we can ban you.

More news from behind the lines...

reply to post by Diabolical


Springfield mo is voting on a ban against outdoor smoking in certain public places. It will undoubtedly pass unanimously.

reply to post by DerbyGawker

I have absolutely no emotion regarding the closure of a business as they exist solely for the public good and when they cease fulfilling that obligation, it is time to dissolve them.

Are you sure you're a smoker, I think you have an agenda here. WHAT no- one has mentioned so far is the big elephant in the room.

ALCOHOL -

from jtma508 "There was a 'gentleman' in her building that had 3 separate smoking-caused fires from passing out while smoking over the course of 2-1/2 years. Each drove residents outside in the middle of the night and resulted in even more smoke-damage. There was nothing to prevent this guy from continuing in his thoroughly selfish and inconsiderate behavior because it was his 'right' "


"Business exist for the public good? " Which philosphy class did this come from. What about alcohol infusing intraveneuos pumping watering holes that exist for people to get smashed and go out and kill people, vomit, beat up other people....etc

Business exist for the PUBLIC GOOD....haha...I'm highly amused from this gem of yours

vonclod

Cabin
reply to post by Diabolical

 

Smoking should be banned inside apartments, only on windows, balconies or outside. If somebody fell asleep while smoking, which is one of the major causes of different house fires (when self-inflicted) , this can kill numerous other innocent people living in the same house simply because some idiot wanted to be "free".

Freedom should not involve setting the lives of others in danger.

edit on 22-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

that is retarded..and I DONT EVEN SMOKE, getting tired of the anti smoking nazis..by yours and their logic we better ban candles, stoves, cooking, alcohol, automobiles..etc it will never end..take care of your sorry ass and ill take care of mine i dont need a nanny state directing all

now for a solution that would be fairly simple..a charcoal can filter with a 4" or 6" fan pulling x amount of cfm will absolutly filter out all..and way cheaper than hvac whch just blows it outside
good day

edit on 22-11-2013 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

ya and people should not forget, it's being filtered through the smokers lungs!!

sure, it smells bad, but what doesn't?

where i live, they banned smoking in a bus hub, 50 double decker buses running in an enclosed area, at 1 time.
yeah, my stupid cig is gonna kill someone.

i tell my wife, i smoke because of air pollution, i don't get sick as much as she does.
45yrs of smoking. i built up some immunity.

and i hate anti-smoking laws.

tough #, non-smokers. ride a bike and sell your suv.

cali? maybe they should make the apts better, with more windows.

jtma508
reply to post by Restricted

 

Right. A freedom issue. But only YOUR freedom. You don't even consider the fact that the person living next to you has a reasonable expectation of freedom from objectionable odors you create. Does your next-door neighbor have a right to make homemade horseradish if the smell permeates your living space? Or is it more reasonable for them to take steps to prevent that from happening because the right thing to do is to show some consideration for your neighbors?

The problem is that people SHOULD be 'self-policing' and have a modicum of consideration for those around them --- but they don't. Doesn't matter if it's smoking, barking dog, crappy-ass middle of the night car alarms, loud music or whatever. Peoples' attitudes are al ME, ME, ME... and that's why we end up with laws like this. Didn't use to be this way.

ya well, why isn't that stuff against the law, too?

tobacco is legal, overtaxed and too bad for the people that hate it.

jtma508
reply to post by ArchAngel_X

 

Personally, I think this is fine. If we're talking about a public place where people can choose to enter or not, it makes sense. You don't like smoke? Don't go to the bar that allows smoking. Go to one that doesn't. But where we live and where we work? No.

I was on an Aeroflot flight from Moscow to London many years ago when that airline still allowed smoking onboard. You had to sit upfront and they pulled a curtain to separate the smoking and non-smoking sections. Non-smoking my ass. Even my clothes stunk after that flight.

bummer, eh?

while i can stop smoking for the length of a movie, 2-3hrs, can you not fart in that time?
did you get an inflight meal?
lol!