Libs In CA Ban You From Smoking In Your Own Condo

[JeffWartman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmont,_California

hmmm 80,000 a year medium income is kinda wealthy.

Are you sure they are Dems?

You don't know much about anything, do you?

1) $80,000/year is not wealthy

2) Many of the wealthiest people in our country are Liberals

So what the hell are you talking about? With each post you sound more and more uneducated and unintelligent.

 

[Shattered]

Except the OWNER can make a stipulation you can not smoke. If no such stipulation exists then the city has no right, in my opinion , to legislate this. IT IS PRIVATE property. Same with Condos.

I agree the *city* has no right, if the owner does not make such a stipulation himself. But, the property is only private to the owner of the buildings - not really the tenants. I don't see it any different than a no dogs/cats rule.

 

[Edward]

For the record, I AM a smoker. Smoking in a confined space does intrude upon the rights of others. It's your choice to decide whether or not to enter a non-smoking establishment, or sign a lease with a non-smoking community.

You hit on the key here and that is that "smoking in a confined space does intrude on the rights of others." That is what is at issue here and not that you cannot smoke. If anyone sought to make smoking illegal and you could not smoke than they would be violating your rights because your smoking in general does not affect them or their rights. This is an issue of balancing the rights of everyone who live in a community and not putting the rights of smokers ahead of non-smokers. Even smokers with common sense (i.e., you) understand this. Who wants to live in a place where the rights of others to do something affects your rights but you can't do anything about it because their rights take precedence over yours. Who wants to live in a community where a person doesn't have to cut their lawn, or keep their property in good condition? Who wants to live in a community where a person doesn't have to dispose of their garbage in a sanitary manner and whose house smells so bad that you can smell it while you eat dinner? Who wants to live in a condo where a person smokes and where you are affected by their smoking? The answer is that no one does and this is the issue of personal responsibility which I am beginning to think conservatives do not understand.

As for your other.. Unhealthy food in your fridge does not affect your neighbor - unless it starts to stink so bad that they can smell it 2 dooors down, in which case you have another whole hose of problems.

You hit on the key to this issue and any other issue involving the rights of individuals in their home and the rights of those who live in the same vicinity as them. You can do whatever you want in your own home up to a point and that point is when it affects others. If you decide you don't want to mow your law and want to use your property as a dump for used vehicles, trash and other stuff because you want to make a profit than you had better expect the people of your community to take action against you and to force you to abide by certain conditions. This is no different. If you live in a condo and your smoking is affecting others than they have the right to prevent you from smoking in that condo. If you want to have sex with your husband every night in your condo that is your right but if your decision to have sex involves shouting at the top of your lungs "fuck me hard, fuck me fast" then you can expect the police to be called by your neighbors whose rights you are violating.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree the *city* has no right, if the owner does not make such a stipulation himself. But, the property is only private to the owner of the buildings - not really the tenants. I don't see it any different than a no dogs/cats rule.

It is Private Property. Plain and simple. The city has no legal right to legislate a legal activity inside the personal dwellings. If this flys then next stop IS your home.

 

[Edward]

Except the OWNER can make a stipulation you can not smoke. If no such stipulation exists then the city has no right, in my opinion , to legislate this. IT IS PRIVATE property. Same with Condos.

The city routinely makes laws and provides stipulations governing private property as is their right and as is the right of any community to do so and without that right than there is no purpose to government and we might as well deal with one another the old fashion way. If you smoke and it affects me and I don't like it I can come over to your condo and kick the shit out of you. If you keep a hundred cats and dogs, and don't bother cleaning your house than you can expect me to deal with the problem of the smell by coming over to your private property and dealing with you in a private capacity but if you want to live in a civilized community than the government has a right to provide stipulations on what you can do on private property. Condo's are generally owned by individuals and not by a specific entity which means that your neighbor is the owner of his condo just like you are. These laws apply equally to you as they do to them. I dare you to break any of the number of laws that govern your private property and you will find that the law will take precedence.

 

[Edward]

It is Private Property. Plain and simple. The city has no legal right to legislate a legal activity inside the personal dwellings. If this flys then next stop IS your home.

But they do you fucking moron. If you break the health code for instance they will come into your home, seize it, and condemn it and kick you out even if it is your private property. Why? Because the rights of the community and of your neighbors are being violated. The same goes for ordinances that prevent you from having a certain number of dogs or cats in your home, or the laws that require you to mow your lawn and to keep it in good condition. These laws and ordinances are put in place because we live in a civilized society where the rights of everyone must be balanced and if they are not than the only option left to those who are affected by your actions would be to use another method other than resorting to the community as a whole to deal with you. If you want to add a new addition to your house or build a garage you will find that the community does in fact require you to abide by certain stipulations even if you do not like it and the reason is very clear. Now, if this ordinance would ban you from smoking in your apartment or condo even though no one is affected by it other than you it would be a violation of your rights but so long as your actions affect others they can be prohibited.

For example, you have the right to freedom of speech, and that includes talking dirty to your wife as you have sex with her but if you talk so loud that your neighbors in the next condo can hear you and so can their children they have the right to call the police and you will be arrested if you continue to do so because you live in a community. I know you hate this concept and don't believe in personal responsibility but some of us do.

 

[Ninja]

Fair enough, Edward. However, our right to not breathe your car exhaust trumps your right to drive to work. Therefore, please only drive your automobile in the privacy of your home. Thanks.

 

[Edward]

I agree the *city* has no right, if the owner does not make such a stipulation himself. But, the property is only private to the owner of the buildings - not really the tenants. I don't see it any different than a no dogs/cats rule.

Cities do have city ordinances that govern the number and types of animals you are allowed to keep in your home and how they behave and how you are allowed to use them. These laws are no different than those that private property owners places on their tenants but these laws go one step further by advancing the interests of the entire community and not just those who reside in an apartment complex or condo association. This is something that is hard for some people to accept but it is the way it should be. It is the idea that we live in a civilized society. It is bad enough that our political system i so screwed up but if we didn't have these laws and ordinances than our system would be even worst than it is now because the recourse to the community as a whole would cease and individuals would have to solve their own problems with their neighbors.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't respond to people that can not string a sentence together without foul language, personal attacks and ludicrous claims about family members.

 

[Edward]

Fair enough, Edward. However, our right to not breathe your car exhaust trumps your right to drive to work. Therefore, please only drive your automobile in the privacy of your home. Thanks.

Great point, and cities and states do have laws governing car emissions. If my car is too loud or emits to much pollution than the law can step in and correct this problem. I would have no problem if the community decided that my vehicle falls into this category and to act accordingly to correct the problem. If that happens I would abide by that law because I understand the reasoning behind it. I don't want someone to have to take a baseball bat to my vehicle to solve the problem. This isn't the "lowest common denominator" but the "highest common denominator." You cannot single out a specific person or family and then take action against them because you think their vehicle is the problem instead you must have a system of laws and ordinances that govern a class of people otherwise it is discrimination and is a violation of the rights of others.

That you would provide this example only proves how ignorant you are. I have no problem with people telling me that I cannot drive a certain type of vehicle or for that matter store junk cars in my yard. Do you realize that it is illegal in most communities for you to store junk cars that do not work and which are in bad conditions in your yard? Why? The idea of property values and the rights of others to have a clean neighborhood to enjoy.

 

[Ninja]

Great point, and cities and states do have laws governing car emissions. If my car is too loud or emits to much pollution than the law can step in and correct this problem. I would have no problem if the community decided that my vehicle falls into this category and to act accordingly to correct the problem. If that happens I would abide by that law because I understand the reasoning behind it. I don't want someone to have to take a baseball bat to my vehicle to solve the problem. This isn't the "lowest common denominator" but the "highest common denominator." You cannot single out a specific person or family and then take action against them because you think their vehicle is the problem instead you must have a system of laws and ordinances that govern a class of people otherwise it is discrimination and is a violation of the rights of others.

That you would provide this example only proves how ignorant you are. I have no problem with people telling me that I cannot drive a certain type of vehicle or for that matter store junk cars in my yard. Do you realize that it is illegal in most communities for you to store junk cars that do not work and which are in bad conditions in your yard? Why? The idea of property values and the rights of others to have a clean neighborhood to enjoy.

 

[Edward]

I don't respond to people that can not string a sentence together without foul language, personal attacks and ludicrous claims about family members.

That is your fucking problem and no one elses. No one forces you to respond to others and for that matter it only makes sense for me to deal with you in this manner because you don't want a real conversation instead you want people to play nice and to talk and to debate you like good little bitches but when people have the courage to stand up to you and to use what you consider foul language than you get upset and throw a tantrum. I don't accept your terms of debate and you are not the discussion dictator. So fucking choose to respond to me or not because you don't matter enough to me for me to give a flying fuck whether you respond to me.

 

[Toro]

Does the ban include marijuana?

It is, after all, northern California...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I shall break my rule.

I must assume that your idea of reasoned debate includes unprovoked unproven liable against family members of people you disagree with. You do not know me, nor my wife and kids but that sure didn't stop you from calling her a few choice names and claiming my children were all bastards.

The person that can not carry on a reasonable debate, discussion or argument would not be me.

 

[Edward]

Does the ban include marijuana?

It is, after all, northern California...

I would hope that the ordinance includes marijuana as the affects of marijuna smoke are worst than those of cigerattes. Yet, if either were banned outright by the ordinance than it would be a violation of the rights and civil liberties of those who choose to smoke either. The question then becomes one of how it affects others in neighboring condos and apartments. If there is no affect at all than they cannot be prohibited from doing so but if there is an affect upon others than the law has every right to prohibit such actions.

Everyone seems so fixed on drugs as if it relates to this issue because in their narrow mind they think that liberals would tolerate those who use marijuana affecting their neigbhors while they do not do so with those who smoke cigerattes. It is the exact same principle. Your right to do something does not extend to the right to infringe on the rights of others. This is the principle of any civil society and without it no form of government can protect us or our rights. This is the last line of defense between complete tyranny and a civil society. It is bad enough that our system of government is based on the tyrannical principles but when that begin to affect local communities we are in deep trouble because we would only be one step away from complete tyranny. Local communities should have greater authority than the federal or state government when it comes to protecting the interests of its members because these members tend to be neighbors, friends, families and co-workers. This allows people to have more control and more of a say in their government and therefore these governments have more control over the lives of people and this upsets people especially conservatives who think they don't have to abide by the standards of a civil community and those on the liberal sides who think the same way (i.e., people who think that their right to view pornography extends to the right to view it from a public computer or at the local supermarket).

 

[Gunny]

That is your fucking problem and no one elses. No one forces you to respond to others and for that matter it only makes sense for me to deal with you in this manner because you don't want a real conversation instead you want people to play nice and to talk and to debate you like good little bitches but when people have the courage to stand up to you and to use what you consider foul language than you get upset and throw a tantrum. I don't accept your terms of debate and you are not the discussion dictator. So fucking choose to respond to me or not because you don't matter enough to me for me to give a flying fuck whether you respond to me.

I AM the discussion dictator. Ratchet down a bit, huh? You're making logical arguments, don't turn around and screw up the thread. It would be most appreciated.

 

[Toro]

That is your fucking problem and no one elses. No one forces you to respond to others and for that matter it only makes sense for me to deal with you in this manner because you don't want a real conversation instead you want people to play nice and to talk and to debate you like good little bitches but when people have the courage to stand up to you and to use what you consider foul language than you get upset and throw a tantrum. I don't accept your terms of debate and you are not the discussion dictator. So fucking choose to respond to me or not because you don't matter enough to me for me to give a flying fuck whether you respond to me.

Actually, it is your problem because the medium is the message. If you swear at people and tell them how stupid they are because they don't agree with you, people will think you're an arrogant jackass and stop listening to what you have to say.

Its not hard to figure out.

 

[Gunny]

I personally don't care for the slippery slope here, and anyone who says smoking hasn't gone down the slippery slope just isn't paying attention.

And as has been repeatedly brought up, this IS CA. It is legal to GROW a certain amount of pot in your yard. They also have the worst smog problem I have ever encountered from automobiles.

Most of all, whiney-ass non-smokers sicken me. The leader of the pack here is so damned fat her ass will die from choking on a ham sandwich or her heart's inability to pump blood in her fat, nasty bloated body long before second-hand smoke.

 

[Toro]

I'm all for banning smoking in public places. I'm a non-smoker and I despise breathing in the wretched excretion of another's disgusting habit.

I'm not convinced about condos and apartments though. Seems like if they're not harming anyone, they should be able to do what they want. Tobacco is, after all, not illegal.

 

[Edward]

I shall break my rule. I must assume that your idea of reasoned debate includes unprovoked unproven liable against family members of people you disagree with.

Why thank you for letting me know that you shall break your own rule. First, I really don't give a fuck what your rules are or whether you choose to break them or not. Second, it is libel and not liable and it is not libel to call a bitch a bitch or a bastard a bastard. But there is something seriously wrong with a system of government that allows someone like you to vote for someone who I have never met to represent you even without you having met me. This is the core issue and the one that needs to be addressed since it is the very issues that is at the heart of this problem. A local community is more able to make policy like this one because people know one another but the more removed someone is from the person who their votes affect the more likely that person is upset an they have a right to be upset. You can't grasp this because you fail to understand the issue of representation and self government which requires that we have a civil community where people know one another and where decisions can be made. I would be far less likely to call your children bastards if I actually knew you and your family but then we would be able to talk about the issues face to face and would be able to come to a conclusion and I wouldn't be upset if your vote has a negative impact on my family because I would at least have had the opportunity to debate with you and my neighbors face to face.

You do not know me, nor my wife and kids but that sure didn't stop you from calling her a few choice names and claiming my children were all bastards.

And your point would be? I don't want to know you or your family and for that matter if I did I would tell you to your face the exact same thing I have said here. You are an asshole and you don't know me either but you sure as hell jump to a conclusion about the appropriateness of my action. So get down off your high horse fucker and realize that some of us don't play by your rules or listen to your asinine comments and simply accept them as is. I don't give a fuck that this offends you or upsets you because I am not you and you are not me and I will always put myself and my family first. Let me say it again: I will call your wife whatever the hell I want whether you like it or not and if you are upset about it and think this is wrong you can go to hell. Because you apparently think that your rules are the only ones that matter.

My # 1 rule is to tell you and those who you love what I think (even if I haven't met you) because your opinions and votes affect those whom I love (whom you have never met). You may not call my wife names but your fucking vote affects my wife more than me calling yours a whore so when it comes down to it I wil defend my wife and my children by telling you and yours exactly what I think of you. You are so ignorant that you cannot grasp this one single difference. It is one thing to call another person's loved ones a whore and entirely another to cast a vote that negatively affects another persons loved ones without having met them and then expect them to play nice with you.

The person that can not carry on a reasonable debate, discussion or argument would not be me.

You are an arrogant ass. How dare you, you don't even know me or my wife yet you feel like you can cast a fucking vote that affects us without even bothering to discuss it with us personally. How dare you think it is wrong for me to call you names because I don't know you yet have the audacity to cast a vote that affects me and my wife even though you don't know me. You think it is okay to fucking cast a vote that affects people you don't even know or haven't even bothered talking with and yet you get upset when people would call you and your family names when they don't know you. That is the height of hypocrisy. Like I said, the best form of government was outlined by Thomas Jefferson because it requires people to talk, and to discuss things with those people who are their neighbors, friends, family before they cast their vote but our system of government allows people who don't even know me to vote for someone who I have never met to represent them and when I get upset and call them names they feign outrage.

You casting a vote without knowing those affected is arrogance and the fact remains that this upsets you. Cast your vote motherfucker and when you say: "I don't know you but that doesn't matter since my decision and my vote can affect you and your loved ones but it is wrong for you to call my children bastards" I will respond by saying, "you and your children are bastards." If that offends you than maybe you might consider not fucking supporting a system where you can vote for someone to represent you that people in your neighborhood have never met an who you have not met but so long as you think it is your right to do so without meeting others than I am glad to fucking call you names without having met you. Do you understand the difference between these? I think you are a bastard and feel free to call you that without having met you but you think you know what is good for me and for my family and who should represent us in Congress without ever having met me or my family. Interesting don't you think?