Smoking ban in private residences

[CaughtInTheMid]

People are stupit to "own" something knowing others can restrict your use of it.

there are benefits. all the people in the neighborhood (no government is involved) get to vote on the property rules. i'm in one and i don't have to worry if some guy wants to start raising elephants in his back yard and kill all of our property values. i voluntarily joined the HOA (by buying my house in a neighborhood that required membership) and i can raise any issue and vote any way i want. it freedom in it's purest form. if i don't like it, i can move. to a house where there is no HOA.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

This is what happens when you vote for people who do not respect individual liberty's. I don't smoke but I would start if this happened here in North Carolina

it already does. it's called HOAs and all homeowners get to vote on what can and cannot be done in the neighborhood/properties/etc.

the best thing for people that don't want to abide by the covenants of their HOA, is to not be part of one (or win the vote). at one time i hated HOAs. now, i like them. it keeps the guy down the street from turning his property into a dump and killing all of our property values. and we all got a vote on what is/isn't allowed. no government was involved.

HOAs cover the exterior of the house, yard and and common grounds, not the interior.

currently, but people of that neighborhood are free to vote on any restrictions they want. and, if they get a majority, i can either move or abide by the new covenants. no government is involved.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People are stupit to "own" something knowing others can restrict your use of it.

there are benefits. all the people in the neighborhood (no government is involved) get to vote on the property rules. i'm in one and i don't have to worry if some guy wants to start raising elephants in his back yard and kill all of our property values. i voluntarily joined the HOA (by buying my house in a neighborhood that required membership) and i can raise any issue and vote any way i want. it freedom in it's purest form. if i don't like it, i can move. to a house where there is no HOA.

That's not freedom that's tyranny. What happens when someone moves in that doesn't like something you have done or doing? Will you give up something you worked hard for just because of a bunch of authoritarian bastards?

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

People are stupit to "own" something knowing others can restrict your use of it.

there are benefits. all the people in the neighborhood (no government is involved) get to vote on the property rules. i'm in one and i don't have to worry if some guy wants to start raising elephants in his back yard and kill all of our property values. i voluntarily joined the HOA (by buying my house in a neighborhood that required membership) and i can raise any issue and vote any way i want. it freedom in it's purest form. if i don't like it, i can move. to a house where there is no HOA.

That's not freedom that's tyranny. What happens when someone moves in that doesn't like something you have done or doing? Will you give up something you worked hard for just because of a bunch of authoritarian bastards?

i think you've got your definitions backwards. tyranny is when the government forces people to do stuff. freedom is when a bunch of citizens decide to form a group (which they don't have to), give everyone an equal vote and agree to abide by the rules that they voted on (again, all without government involvement). no one forces anyone to live in a neighborhood that has a HOA. it's all voluntary and you have a vote if you decide to join. that's as free as it gets.

 

[uscitizen]

People are stupit to "own" something knowing others can restrict your use of it.

there are benefits. all the people in the neighborhood (no government is involved) get to vote on the property rules. i'm in one and i don't have to worry if some guy wants to start raising elephants in his back yard and kill all of our property values. i voluntarily joined the HOA (by buying my house in a neighborhood that required membership) and i can raise any issue and vote any way i want. it freedom in it's purest form. if i don't like it, i can move. to a house where there is no HOA.

imho if you own the property it is yours to do with as you want as long as it causes no physical risk to others.

I do not feel I have any right to tell others what to do with their property as long as they meet the above requirement.

 

[chanel]

This is not about condos or a HOA, the CA story applies to the entire town. I imagine businesses would be included as well.

I don't see it passing, but stranger things have happened - esp in CA.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

People are stupit to "own" something knowing others can restrict your use of it.

there are benefits. all the people in the neighborhood (no government is involved) get to vote on the property rules. i'm in one and i don't have to worry if some guy wants to start raising elephants in his back yard and kill all of our property values. i voluntarily joined the HOA (by buying my house in a neighborhood that required membership) and i can raise any issue and vote any way i want. it freedom in it's purest form. if i don't like it, i can move. to a house where there is no HOA.

imho if you own the property it is yours to do with as you want as long as it causes no physical risk to others.

I do not feel I have any right to tell others what to do with their property as long as they meet the above requirement.

and you have that right. just don't move into a neighborhood where the residents (not the government) have decided to form a group to protect the interests of all people in that neighborhood (again, no one forced them to form this group, they did so voluntarily). it would be tyranny if the government said we could NOT form groups (like HOAs) and make these decisions for ourselves.

 

[Immanuel]

A Placer County town is considering a ban on smoking that some say goes way too far.

The Rocklin City Council is considering making it against the law for smokers to smoke anywhere outside on their property.

The city council is considering the ban after one home owner complained about smoke coming from their neighbors’ backyards saying it caused health problems for their kids.

Rocklin Considering Banning Residents From Smoking Outside Their Own Homes « CBS Sacramento

Too far? Predictions?

Too far? Yes... way to far.

Predictions? Well, if this were 100 miles WSW (estimating the distance to SF) in SF, the smokers wouldn't have a prayer of maintaining their personal liberties even on their own property. Not only that, but shortly after this passed and smokers were banned from smoking outside their homes, the movement would begin to prevent them from smoking in their homes as well.

Seeing as how this is Rocklin, I don't know enough about the city council to guess what they might do.

Question: why the discussion about HOA's on this particular issue in Rocklin? This is city wide and has nothing to do with HOA's.

Immie

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

This is not about condos or a HOA, the CA story applies to the entire town. I imagine businesses would be included as well.

I don't see it passing, but stranger things have happened - esp in CA.

if the TOWN is restricting people from smoking stuff in their own home, then that's a whole different conversation. the local government should not have ANY say so regarding what people smoke in their own homes.

 

[uscitizen]

there are benefits. all the people in the neighborhood (no government is involved) get to vote on the property rules. i'm in one and i don't have to worry if some guy wants to start raising elephants in his back yard and kill all of our property values. i voluntarily joined the HOA (by buying my house in a neighborhood that required membership) and i can raise any issue and vote any way i want. it freedom in it's purest form. if i don't like it, i can move. to a house where there is no HOA.

imho if you own the property it is yours to do with as you want as long as it causes no physical risk to others.

I do not feel I have any right to tell others what to do with their property as long as they meet the above requirement.

and you have that right. just don't move into a neighborhood where the residents (not the government) have decided to form a group to protect the interests of all people in that neighborhood (again, no one forced them to form this group, they did so voluntarily). it would be tyranny if the government said we could NOT form groups (like HOAs) and make these decisions for ourselves.

I guess I am just more libertarian than most.

 

[Immanuel]

This is not about condos or a HOA, the CA story applies to the entire town. I imagine businesses would be included as well.

I don't see it passing, but stranger things have happened - esp in CA.

According to the end of the article, businesses already lost their freedoms in this regard to the state.

It is already against the law for smokers to light up near businesses, parks and playground in California.

This is just more liberal intrusion on the rights of individuals.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

The University of KY has banned smoking on their entire campus.
You cannot even smoke in your car on their (our property really since it is publicaly owned) property.

 

[manifold]

A Placer County town is considering a ban on smoking that some say goes way too far.

The Rocklin City Council is considering making it against the law for smokers to smoke anywhere outside on their property.

The city council is considering the ban after one home owner complained about smoke coming from their neighbors’ backyards saying it caused health problems for their kids.

Rocklin Considering Banning Residents From Smoking Outside Their Own Homes « CBS Sacramento

Too far? Predictions?

Way too far. What's next, a ban on wood burning stoves and fireplaces? What about burning leaves?

 

[manifold]

Rocklin Considering Banning Residents From Smoking Outside Their Own Homes « CBS Sacramento

Too far? Predictions?

This is what happens when you vote for people who do not respect individual liberty's. I don't smoke but I would start if this happened here in North Carolina

it already does. it's called HOAs and all homeowners get to vote on what can and cannot be done in the neighborhood/properties/etc.

the best thing for people that don't want to abide by the covenants of their HOA, is to not be part of one (or win the vote). at one time i hated HOAs. now, i like them. it keeps the guy down the street from turning his property into a dump and killing all of our property values. and we all got a vote on what is/isn't allowed. no government was involved.

The HOA is the government in this example dummy.

 

[Immanuel]

The University of KY has banned smoking on their entire campus.
You cannot even smoke in your car on their (our property really since it is publicaly owned) property.

You know, if this were not a university and thus owned by the people of the state, I would be much less offended by this action. It is the right of the owner of the property to decide whether or not people will smoke on their property.

However, this being the property of the people of Kentucky, who were obviously not given a say in the matter, it still bugs me.

Immie

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

imho if you own the property it is yours to do with as you want as long as it causes no physical risk to others.

I do not feel I have any right to tell others what to do with their property as long as they meet the above requirement.

and you have that right. just don't move into a neighborhood where the residents (not the government) have decided to form a group to protect the interests of all people in that neighborhood (again, no one forced them to form this group, they did so voluntarily). it would be tyranny if the government said we could NOT form groups (like HOAs) and make these decisions for ourselves.

I guess I am just more libertarian than most.

i'm libertarian as well. and what could be more free than a group of people deciding (voluntarily) what they're going to do. no one is forcing anyone to do anything they don't want (unless they join). if everything worked that way, we would be set.

 

[manifold]

there are benefits. all the people in the neighborhood (no government is involved) get to vote on the property rules. i'm in one and i don't have to worry if some guy wants to start raising elephants in his back yard and kill all of our property values. i voluntarily joined the HOA (by buying my house in a neighborhood that required membership) and i can raise any issue and vote any way i want. it freedom in it's purest form. if i don't like it, i can move. to a house where there is no HOA.

imho if you own the property it is yours to do with as you want as long as it causes no physical risk to others.

I do not feel I have any right to tell others what to do with their property as long as they meet the above requirement.

and you have that right. just don't move into a neighborhood where the residents (not the government) have decided to form a group to protect the interests of all people in that neighborhood (again, no one forced them to form this group, they did so voluntarily). it would be tyranny if the government said we could NOT form groups (like HOAs) and make these decisions for ourselves.

Methinks your understanding of 'government' is lacking. The bolded part above, which you've repeatedly insisted involves no government, is a type of government itself. Conceptually, saying someone can move out of the neighborhood if they don't like the HOA rules is no different than saying you can move out of the country if you don't like it here.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

This is what happens when you vote for people who do not respect individual liberty's. I don't smoke but I would start if this happened here in North Carolina

it already does. it's called HOAs and all homeowners get to vote on what can and cannot be done in the neighborhood/properties/etc.

the best thing for people that don't want to abide by the covenants of their HOA, is to not be part of one (or win the vote). at one time i hated HOAs. now, i like them. it keeps the guy down the street from turning his property into a dump and killing all of our property values. and we all got a vote on what is/isn't allowed. no government was involved.

The HOA is the government in this example dummy.

which you don't have to join. now, name me one other government that you don't have to join. your local government? state? federal?

that's the key. it's voluntary. if a person doesn't understand that, then the conversation isn't going to go far.

 

[manifold]

it already does. it's called HOAs and all homeowners get to vote on what can and cannot be done in the neighborhood/properties/etc.

the best thing for people that don't want to abide by the covenants of their HOA, is to not be part of one (or win the vote). at one time i hated HOAs. now, i like them. it keeps the guy down the street from turning his property into a dump and killing all of our property values. and we all got a vote on what is/isn't allowed. no government was involved.

The HOA is the government in this example dummy.

which you don't have to join. now, name me one other government that you don't have to join. your local government? state? federal?

that's the key. it's voluntary. if a person doesn't understand that, then the conversation isn't going to go far.

Are you free to not join if you live in the neighborhood? NO? Then it's no different.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

there are benefits. all the people in the neighborhood (no government is involved) get to vote on the property rules. i'm in one and i don't have to worry if some guy wants to start raising elephants in his back yard and kill all of our property values. i voluntarily joined the HOA (by buying my house in a neighborhood that required membership) and i can raise any issue and vote any way i want. it freedom in it's purest form. if i don't like it, i can move. to a house where there is no HOA.

That's not freedom that's tyranny. What happens when someone moves in that doesn't like something you have done or doing? Will you give up something you worked hard for just because of a bunch of authoritarian bastards?

i think you've got your definitions backwards. tyranny is when the government forces people to do stuff. freedom is when a bunch of citizens decide to form a group (which they don't have to), give everyone an equal vote and agree to abide by the rules that they voted on (again, all without government involvement). no one forces anyone to live in a neighborhood that has a HOA. it's all voluntary and you have a vote if you decide to join. that's as free as it gets.

Tyranny is the majority ruling the minority

it's all voluntary and you have a vote if you decide to join. that's as free as it gets

What if the majority vote to have a certain type of grass and shrubs in the yards? But you just spent 5,000 dollars on landscaping that doesn't fit into what the HOA just voted on? Your home is your home, why would you give up something that you put your heart and soul into?