Libs In CA Ban You From Smoking In Your Own Condo

[red states rule]

These are the same libs who rant how Pres Bush has taken away the rights of US citizens



Belmont steams ahead toward one of nation's toughest smoking bans
By Will Oremus
MediaNews
Article Launched: 06/13/2007 08:56:52 AM PDT


The Belmont City Council took a big step Tuesday night toward passing what could turn out to be the nation's toughest municipal smoking ordinance, but stopped short of calling for an all-out ban.
Bolstered by virtually unanimous support from residents and health advocates in the audience, a majority of the five-member council expressed support for prohibiting smoking in parks, indoor and outdoor workplaces, ATM lines and bus stops, and most notably inside apartments and condominiums.

Mayor Coralin Feierbach drew cheers from the crowd when she said Belmont had a chance to set an example for other cities around the country by passing the most stringent ordinance it could muster.

"Cities have to sometimes reach for the sky," she said.

The council took no official action but directed city staff to draft a law on which it can vote at a future meeting. The council hadn't hashed out all the details by press time, but its support was adamant for restricting smoking almost anywhere that it could affect unwilling bystanders.

That doesn't mean police officers will be tracking down smokers on the streets, however. The council said it wants enforcement of the smoking law to be complaint-driven, much like a noise ordinance.

In other words, a neighbor of a smoker in an apartment complex could contact authorities if she was bothered by the smoke drifting into her unit, and police or code enforcement officers would respond and either mediate an agreement or issue a citation


for the entire article

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6130704?source=rss&nclick_check=1

 

[SolarEnergy1]

These are the same libs who rant how Pres Bush has taken away the rights of US citizens



Belmont steams ahead toward one of nation's toughest smoking bans
By Will Oremus
MediaNews
Article Launched: 06/13/2007 08:56:52 AM PDT


The Belmont City Council took a big step Tuesday night toward passing what could turn out to be the nation's toughest municipal smoking ordinance, but stopped short of calling for an all-out ban.
Bolstered by virtually unanimous support from residents and health advocates in the audience, a majority of the five-member council expressed support for prohibiting smoking in parks, indoor and outdoor workplaces, ATM lines and bus stops, and most notably inside apartments and condominiums.

Mayor Coralin Feierbach drew cheers from the crowd when she said Belmont had a chance to set an example for other cities around the country by passing the most stringent ordinance it could muster.

"Cities have to sometimes reach for the sky," she said.

The council took no official action but directed city staff to draft a law on which it can vote at a future meeting. The council hadn't hashed out all the details by press time, but its support was adamant for restricting smoking almost anywhere that it could affect unwilling bystanders.

That doesn't mean police officers will be tracking down smokers on the streets, however. The council said it wants enforcement of the smoking law to be complaint-driven, much like a noise ordinance.

In other words, a neighbor of a smoker in an apartment complex could contact authorities if she was bothered by the smoke drifting into her unit, and police or code enforcement officers would respond and either mediate an agreement or issue a citation


for the entire article

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_6130704?source=rss&nclick_check=1

Ok so no popcorn and no cigarettes, LOL what will the liberals do now to pass the time?

 

[Truthmatters]

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

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

Are you sure they are Dems?

 

[SolarEnergy1]

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

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

Are you sure they are Dems?

George Soros is a billionaire and a far left liberal lunatic. So income really doesnt matter mr. matters

 

[uscitizen]

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

Are you sure they are Dems?"

Not wealthy for that area......


Yeah bummer, not allowed to raise pot in there either

 

[maineman]

I would suggest that, if you are smoker and an apartment dweller in Belmont, CA, you think about quitting, or think about moving to one of those red states where they let anyone smoke anywhere.

Or bribe your neighbor not to complain.

Or get your landlord to only rent to fellow smokers.

Or run for city council in the next election and get the law overturned.

 

[red states rule]

Ok so no popcorn and no cigarettes, LOL what will the liberals do now to pass the time?

Go to another anti war protest, scream how the Bush administration is taking away their rights, rant how the Patriot Act is undermining the country - all while watching the Police ticket someone enjoying a smoke in their own home

 

[red states rule]

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

Are you sure they are Dems?"

Not wealthy for that area......


Yeah bummer, not allowed to raise pot in there either

Not after Dems get done helping themselves to their money

 

[red states rule]

I would suggest that, if you are smoker and an apartment dweller in Belmont, CA, you think about quitting, or think about moving to one of those red states where they let anyone smoke anywhere.

Or bribe your neighbor not to complain.

Or get your landlord to only rent to fellow smokers.

Or run for city council in the next election and get the law overturned.

Spoken like a true arrogrant liberal.

I wonder if the left would be so upset if they were smoking a joint in their on home?

 

[Ninja]

They did something similar in Calabasas a few years ago... Makes the cigarettes taste that much better when I'm driving through and stop to hold my impromptu protests

 

[Shattered]

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

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

Are you sure they are Dems?

Trust me.. 80k a year isn't "wealthy" by a long shot.

 

[Shattered]

Go to another anti war protest, scream how the Bush administration is taking away their rights, rant how the Patriot Act is undermining the country - all while watching the Police ticket someone enjoying a smoke in their own home

If you're in an apartment, it's not "your" home. It's an apartment.. You pay rent to live there. Condo's are a slightly different story, however, you still have the association to deal with.

If you don't like any of their rules, you're free to go BUY your own home.

 

[Gunny]

If you're in an apartment, it's not "your" home. It's an apartment.. You pay rent to live there. Condo's are a slightly different story, however, you still have the association to deal with.

If you don't like any of their rules, you're free to go BUY your own home.

You have any idea what "your own home" costs in CA? $350k might get you a shack.

 

[red states rule]

If you're in an apartment, it's not "your" home. It's an apartment.. You pay rent to live there. Condo's are a slightly different story, however, you still have the association to deal with.

If you don't like any of their rules, you're free to go BUY your own home.

So what is next, spot checks to make sure you do not have unhealthly food in the fridge?

Hopefully the smokers will tell the anti smoking nuts to fuck off

 

[Edward]

Spoken like a true arrogrant liberal.

Spoken like someone who doesn't care about the rights of others. You seem to fail to understand what this ordinance would do. It would protect the right of people not to be exposed to the effects of cigerattes. The law does not make smoking illegal and does not criminalize the actions of those who decide to smoke instead it protects the right of those who do not. People have the right to smoke if that is their choice and this ordinance doesn't make it illegal for them to choose to smoke nor would a liberal support a law that would do so inside a person's home instead it protects the right of their neighbors who would prefer not to be exposed to the effects of cigerattes. That said, there are always alternatives. For example, people who want to smoke can choose to find a place to live that only allows people who smoke to reside there but the law must equally protect people and not just the rights of people who do smoke. I cannot believe you are so ignorant you cannot understand this.

I wionder if the left would be so upset if they were smoking a joint in their on home?

If a person's neighbors are affected by a person smoking a joint in their apartment or condo than yes we would be upset because our right to smoke a joint if we choose too do so does not extend to the violation of the rights of others not to be exposed to the effects of us smoking a joint. I'm just glad you wouldn't have a problem with people smoking a joint in their apartment and when your child gets high you will talk about the right of liberals to do whatever they want while us liberals will denounce the idiot who chose to violate your rights and the right of your family not to be exposed to the effects of their action. This is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe in personal responsibility and the rights of everyone and not just the rights of a few.

 

[Shattered]

You have any idea what "your own home" costs in CA? $350k might get you a shack.

Then move.

 

[Shattered]

So what is next, spot checks to make sure you do not have unhealthly food in the fridge?

Hopefully the smokers will tell the anti smoking nuts to fuck off

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.

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.

 

[Edward]

I would suggest that, if you are smoker and an apartment dweller in Belmont, CA, you think about quitting, or think about moving to one of those red states where they let anyone smoke anywhere.

Or bribe your neighbor not to complain.

Or get your landlord to only rent to fellow smokers.

Or run for city council in the next election and get the law overturned.

Therein is the key to this issue. The difference is that you choose to balance the rights of smokers against those of non-smokers while RSR chooses to put the rights of smokers ahead of the rights of those who do not smoke.

This ordinance would not be a violation of the rights of smokers because it does not prevent them from smoking nor does it make their choice to smoke illegal instead it protects the rights of non-smokers to not be exposed to the actions of those who do choose to smoke. This is an issue of balancing the rights of individuals and when you come down to it you find that this is the difference between liberals and conservatives. This is why you will often find liberals defending the rights of conservatives even when liberals disagree with them.

So here you advocate the right of people to smoke while advocating for the rights of non-smokers to not be exposed to the effects of cigerattes while RSR is basically saying: who gives a flying fuck about the rights of non-smokers because the right of smokers to smoke always takes precedence over the rights of those who do not."

 

[red states rule]

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.

I am a smoker as well. Nobody will tell me I can't smoke in my own home or while driving my car

Otherwise it is a courtesy issue

It seems they are changing the rules in the middle of the game in this instance Shattered

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you're in an apartment, it's not "your" home. It's an apartment.. You pay rent to live there. Condo's are a slightly different story, however, you still have the association to deal with.

If you don't like any of their rules, you're free to go BUY your own home.

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.