Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CA Town Votes No Smoking In Some Homes  
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1395 times:

I guess my question is where are the property rights involving the condos and townhomes?

http://www.nbc11.com/news/14307719/detail.html

Smoking will still be allowed in single-family homes and their yards, and units and yards in apartment buildings, condominiums and townhouses that do not share any common floors or ceilings with other units.

So if I read that correctly, even if you have a townhome or condo on the end, with only one wall that touches another townhome or condo you can't smoke in the place you are paying for and theoretically own. I'm not a smoker anymore but that seems like a pretty invasive law considering that most new code places have a firewall between units and none should be sharing a ventilation system.

25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1389 times:

Why don't they just make cigarettes illegal and be done with it? I am not anti smoking but isn't that their ultimate goal anyway?

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1384 times:

I am as anti-smoking as it gets, but this law is a completely impermissible violation of property rights. While I noticed that they attempt to use the common law of nuisance to justify the ban, this really does create a barrier to the free use of individual property.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1360 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
I am as anti-smoking as it gets, but this law is a completely impermissible violation of property rights. While I noticed that they attempt to use the common law of nuisance to justify the ban, this really does create a barrier to the free use of individual property.

I don't agree with the ban (and am a non-smoker), but from a practical standpoint, isn't this similar to many of the other restrictions condo assoc. already have in place? Again, I'm not agreeing with it or defending it, but especially if they're using the nuisance aspect, there is already a pretty strong precedent in place.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1326 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 3):
isn't this similar to many of the other restrictions condo assoc. already have in place?

Condo associations generally only make rules that apply to common areas, which would likely be included in existing smoking laws anyway as publicly accessible places. Further, even if a rule is made by the condo association, that is an agreement on self-regulation by a partnership of the condo owners, not a law enforceable by governmental action.

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 3):
but especially if they're using the nuisance aspect, there is already a pretty strong precedent in place.

Well, there is only so much you can say is actually a nuisance when it is happening within the walls of your home. While noise certainly counts because of how it travels, smoke seems a bit far-fetched.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1957 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1306 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Condo associations generally only make rules that apply to common areas

You sure? Mine tell me what color my carpet can be.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1294 times:

Let me get this straight:

In your California appartment, if you light up a reefer, they won't bother you, but lighting up a Marlboro could land you in jail.

WTF???  expressionless 


User currently offlineJohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2586 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Hey I say fire it up....

more job security for me.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
Condo associations generally only make rules that apply to common areas

Condo associations tend to be extremely invasive about what you can/cannot do within the confines of your own unit.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
this law is a completely impermissible violation of property rights.

What right do you have to smoke, in your home or elsewhere? Local government absolutely has the right to tell you to stop. We haven't had the "free use of individual property" in 200+ years.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
What right do you have to smoke, in your home or elsewhere? Local government absolutely has the right to tell you to stop. We haven't had the "free use of individual property" in 200+ years.

The right to do what you like within the confines of your home (as long as you are not hurting someone else) is the most basic of rights. If, in the US, such a law stands, the USA will no longer be able to pretend that it is a free nation - indeed it will be among the least free nations of the world. There is no country that I know of that tries to dictate what you do to yourself in your own home.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
There is no country that I know of that tries to dictate what you do to yourself in your own home.

Can you smoke crack in your own home in any place that you've ever lived or visited?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 11):
Can you smoke crack in your own home in any place that you've ever lived or visited?

Crack is illegal, period, regardless of where you are.

Tobacco is not illegal. You can smoke a cigarette right in front of the police station, they won't care. But for government to say that you cannot use a legal product inside your own home, when it's perfectly legal elsewhere, I think you would agree that this would be a huge stretch.


User currently offlineRobertNL070 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2003, 4532 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
There is no country that I know of that tries to dictate what you do to yourself in your own home.

Shush now. Wait until some local governments in Britain get to hear of this.

I am pretty anti-smoking, but I think this is a gross invasion of people's privacy.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 5):
Mine tell me what color my carpet can be.

Good heavens!



Youth is a gift of nature. Age is a work of art.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
Crack is illegal, period, regardless of where you are.

And yet, the government still doesn't allow you to do it in your own home.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
But for government to say that you cannot use a legal product inside your own home, when it's perfectly legal elsewhere, I think you would agree that this would be a huge stretch.

Still completely within local governmental power.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineToast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
the USA will no longer be able to pretend that it is a free nation

Free nation, it is, but freeEST - hasn't been for quite some some time.  duck 

You wouldn't believe what goes on in my apartment with the approval of local laws.  Wink

Seriously though, I don't smoke, but as DLX said above, government has no business in your home. I understand smoking may cause damage - it impregnates the walls with its stink and carries a higher fire risk. So what? As long as you restore the property to its original condition when you move out, if you want to call yourself free, no one, especially not a govenment official, should tell you what you can or can not do in private. This is a step toward the "nanny state" which Americans apparently revile so much.

Topple the government now!

 duck 


 Wink


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting Toast (Reply 15):
but as DLX said above, government has no business in your home.

That's not what I said.  Wink

Quoting Toast (Reply 15):
it impregnates the walls with its stink and carries a higher fire risk. So what? As long as you restore the property to its original condition when you move out

I don't want to live next to the higher risk of fire that my neighbor subjects me to with his cancersticks. I get to be free too, right?

Quoting Toast (Reply 15):
one, especially not a govenment official, should tell you what you can or can not do in private.

Smoke crack? Beat your wife? Get your kids drunk? Sacrifice animals?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineToast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Smoke crack?

Weed is legal here. What fuckwit would want to smoke crack, anyway?

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Get your kids drunk?

There are no legal age restrictions on drinking in private here. But if you force your kids to drink, it's a case of abuse, and is of course illegal.

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Sacrifice animals?

Are there laws that prevent it in the US? Not here. Muslims often sacrifice their sheep at home or in the street in front of it. Disgusting to be sure, but since killing animals per se is not illegal, why would it be at home?

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
Beat your wife?

That's again a case of abuse. Of course you can't do it, wherever you are. Except, of course, if you happen to be in Guantanamo...

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
That's not what I said.

Sorry, I meant Cfalk.

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
I don't want to live next to the higher risk of fire that my neighbor subjects me to with his cancersticks.

Do you actually inhale the smoke of someone smoking next door? My neigbor smokes, and I never, ever smell it when my front door is closed.

As for the fire risk, it goes up whenever you light a candle (legal), fry an omelette (legal), or try to light a fart (legal but dumb).

[Edited 2007-10-10 14:36:05]

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):

What right do you have to smoke, in your home or elsewhere? Local government absolutely has the right to tell you to stop. We haven't had the "free use of individual property" in 200+ years.

Absolutely not. Forbidding legal activity inside a home constitutes a taking.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 8):

Condo associations tend to be extremely invasive about what you can/cannot do within the confines of your own unit.

Even so, that is a private agreement to which the party has to attest.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting Toast (Reply 17):
Weed is legal here.

don't change the hypo. But, you are implicitly admitting that there are things that government says you cannot do, even in your home. Perhaps your earlier statement was a bit overbroad?

Quoting Toast (Reply 17):
As for the fire risk, it goes up whenever you light a candle (legal), fry an omelette (legal), or try to light a fart (legal but dumb).

Just because other things are legal doesn't require government to make this legal too.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
Absolutely not. Forbidding legal activity inside a home constitutes a taking.

Good luck with that one! Your property has not been "taken" when someone says you can't use it for smoking.

Also, if you forbid legal activity... is it actually legal activity? Think carefully.  Wink
There are plenty of things that are legal in certain places and not legal in others.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
Absolutely not. Forbidding legal activity inside a home constitutes a taking.

If it's not a physical taking, doesn't there need to be a total economic wipeout? Neither are satisfied in this case.

Quoting D L X (Reply 16):
I don't want to live next to the higher risk of fire that my neighbor subjects me to with his cancersticks. I get to be free too, right

In one of my old apartments I had a neighbor that smoked in his apt., I never smelled it or anything. As a renter or condo owner, I would be more unhappy if people were always outside smoking by the entrances to the buildings, and littering all over the place.


User currently offlineToast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
But, you are implicitly admitting that there are things that government says you cannot do, even in your home.

Well, yes, of course, some things are illegal, period. However, ruling that an otherwise legal activity can be made illegal in your private home is absurd. Especially given that this law would be limited to one type of housing in one single town.

The article says the ruling passed on a vote of 3 to 2. In other words, one single guy decided, so you should shut up and comply? If I smoked, I'd continue doing so. They can't prove you're doing it anyway - the cops can't enter your house at whim to see what you're up to, can they?


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1288 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 10):
There is no country that I know of that tries to dictate what you do to yourself in your own home.

Not disagreeing with your premise Charles, but the US has a long history of legislating what is/isn't legal w/in your home. It was only five years ago that a Supreme Court decision overturned one of the most intrusive of those laws.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11274 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

Quoting Toast (Reply 21):
Well, yes, of course, some things are illegal, period.

And what difference does that makes?

I'll give you another example - if you want to turn your garage into a living room, you have to get the state's permission. If you don't get permission and you do it anyway, or if permission is denied and you do it anyway, you are breaking the law and may be subject to civil penalties. Construction is legal... unless you don't have permission to do it. See the parallel here?

Quoting Toast (Reply 21):
The article says the ruling passed on a vote of 3 to 2. In other words, one single guy decided, so you should shut up and comply?

No, 5 people voted into power by their consituents decided. If you are one of those constituents and you don't like the decision, vote them out and vote people in that will change it. That's a republic.

Quoting Toast (Reply 21):
They can't prove you're doing it anyway - the cops can't enter your house at whim to see what you're up to, can they?

If they have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed in your home, they certainly can. (In the US. I believe the standards are lower in Europe.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39854 posts, RR: 74
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

I am sure non-smokers in the apartments in Belmont are happy with this.
Who wants their apartment to smell like a cheap motel?
Smokers need to consider the fact that the smell of their bad habit carries in to other units. Non-smokers should have the right to not smell someone else's bad habit in their own property.

Cfalk:
Marijuana smell does not linger forever like cigarettes.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

I say make smoking and non-smoking buildings. This law is a bit overboard but I can see where they are coming from.

I was run out of an apartment because the people below me were chain smokers.. It took months to get that stench out of all my stuff after I moved. I shouldn't have even had to move in the first place, I was there first and I didn't stink.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Rolling Stones No Concerts In UK? posted Tue Jun 12 2007 11:29:41 by RootsAir
Our Town Loses First Soldier In Iraq posted Thu May 3 2007 05:12:30 by Falcon84
No-No Stores In Grade School posted Tue Jan 9 2007 03:25:32 by Airlinelover
Is Bledsoe The Biggest No-load In The NFL? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 02:00:15 by Jetjack74
What If There Were No Religions In The World posted Sat Sep 30 2006 08:58:22 by EK156
Smoking In Cartoons posted Tue Aug 22 2006 09:39:00 by Nighthawk
ESPN: USA Is No Good In Team Sports posted Fri Mar 17 2006 16:54:36 by CometII
85% Of CA Homeowners Have No Earthquake Ins. posted Fri Nov 18 2005 15:23:18 by Pope
That Song With No Words In The Chorus posted Sat Oct 15 2005 19:15:24 by Newark777
Senate Votes No On Independent Katrina Comission posted Wed Sep 14 2005 21:03:10 by Tbar220