Richmond, CA Bans Smoking in Apartments

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If you are a property owner you can say no smoking because smoking can damage the property. It can yellow the inside walls and leave smells in the hvac that are hard to remove. It is legal for them to ban it for the same reason they can say no pets allowed. They are protecting their property.

I moved into an apartment that housed a former smoker. Even though it was repainted and really clean I can still smell cigarette smoke if I sit too close to a wall .

Yes, and that is completely understandable. If you're an apartment building owner, by all means.. ban smoking.

But a law against it making it a criminal offense? Ludicrous and insane.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yes, and now a smoker knows the new rules of living in apartment building too, so he can refuse to live in one and get a single family dwelling himself, instead of forcing all his neighbors too.

/facepalm

Equate his views with a whites only dwelling and watching him quickly change his stance.

Equate my views with a whites only dwelling, and watch me quickly call you a moron for equating the two.

Don't have to worry about a "Whites Only" complex in Richmond...in most parts of that town, there aren't enough white people to fill a tri-plex, let along an apartment complex...

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If you are a property owner you can say no smoking because smoking can damage the property. It can yellow the inside walls and leave smells in the hvac that are hard to remove. It is legal for them to ban it for the same reason they can say no pets allowed. They are protecting their property.

I moved into an apartment that housed a former smoker. Even though it was repainted and really clean I can still smell cigarette smoke if I sit too close to a wall .

Right, but who is making the decision in that case? Property owner, not gubment.

So let's ban all pets in all apartments. It's for your own good.

They are using the second hand smoke laws. They are not the first city to do that, other cities have similar bans. All they have to prove is that it is a public space with the potential for non smokers to inhale smoke.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: senseamp

It effects different people differently, and I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions. But even if it was a minor olfactory irritation, why should I have to endure it in my own apartment or condo? Why should I have my apartment smell like cigarette smoke for daring to open my window in the summer? Why should children have to breathe cigarette smoke just because their parents can't afford a single family dwelling? Inconvenience of not being able to smoke does not take precedence over inconvenience of not having fresh air to breathe, even if you ignore the health effects of second hand smoke. City is absolutely right in this case, and this should be adopted more widely.

You should have to endure it just like you endure a number of other people-originated sights and smells without complaint. If your neighbors were barbecuing, an activity which generates many times the amount of smoke that cigarettes do , you'd probably just close your window and not be terribly put off by it (provided BBQing is allowed by the apartment complex). You have the right to do almost anything within your own home and many things outside of it. What you don't have the right to is to be completely unaffected by other people exercising that same right. Up to a point you DO have to take some shit from other people in the interest of honoring their right to do things in a semi-free country. Be thankful it's minor shit, like a whiff of smoke that happens to find its way into an open window, which BTW must accept any and all things carried into it by the wind. That wind always carrying nothing but the scents of jasmine and roses 24/7 is not among your rights. Closing the window most certainly is among your rights. When you can control the air quality of your space perfectly well simply by closing a window, why must you insist on also controlling the air outside your space?

Of course I insist on controlling air outside my space. I should not have to chose between concentrated cigarette smoke directly outside my window and stale stuffy air from keeping my windows closed.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yes, and now a smoker knows the new rules of living in apartment building too, so he can refuse to live in one and get a single family dwelling himself, instead of forcing all his neighbors too.

/facepalm

Equate his views with a whites only dwelling and watching him quickly change his stance.

Equate my views with a whites only dwelling, and watch me quickly call you a moron for equating the two.

Don't have to worry about a "Whites Only" complex in Richmond...in most parts of that town, there aren't enough white people to fill a tri-plex, let along an apartment complex...

This has what to do with what?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Modelworks
If you are a property owner you can say no smoking because smoking can damage the property. It can yellow the inside walls and leave smells in the hvac that are hard to remove. It is legal for them to ban it for the same reason they can say no pets allowed. They are protecting their property.

I moved into an apartment that housed a former smoker. Even though it was repainted and really clean I can still smell cigarette smoke if I sit too close to a wall .

Yes, and that is completely understandable. If you're an apartment building owner, by all means.. ban smoking.

But a law against it making it a criminal offense? Ludicrous and insane.

It's ludicrous and insane to suggest that Richmond, CA does not have a right to protect its citizens' health. They are completely within their rights to ban smoking in apartments, I will bet you money this will be upheld in the courts.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Of course I insist on controlling air outside my space. I should not have to chose between concentrated cigarette smoke directly outside my window and stale stuffy air from keeping my windows closed.

Ummm...

So you're essentially saying that I can't use my smoker? Or idle my car? Or solder with an exhaust fan? Or paint a room with an exhaust fan?

FOAD.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp

Of course I insist on controlling air outside my space. I should not have to chose between concentrated cigarette smoke directly outside my window and stale stuffy air from keeping my windows closed.

Ummm...

So you're essentially saying that I can't use my smoker? Or idle my car? Or solder with an exhaust fan? Or paint a room with an exhaust fan?

FOAD.

No, you FOAD. It's his goddamned god-given right to fuck over your rights just so he doesn't have to breathe/see "icky" smoke.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Text

What's next, smoking in houses?

smoking in houses ? smoking in apartments

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yes, and now a smoker knows the new rules of living in apartment building too, so he can refuse to live in one and get a single family dwelling himself, instead of forcing all his neighbors too.

/facepalm

Equate his views with a whites only dwelling and watching him quickly change his stance.

Equate my views with a whites only dwelling, and watch me quickly call you a moron for equating the two.

Don't have to worry about a "Whites Only" complex in Richmond...in most parts of that town, there aren't enough white people to fill a tri-plex, let along an apartment complex...

This has what to do with what?

Ah, I see...your anti-smoking rant has your head so far up your ass that you can't read the rest of the thread. I understand now. 😛

While I strongly disagree with this law, the fact is that us smokers make up an increasingly smaller and smaller percentage of the population. Expect the anti-smoking laws to continue to get worse and worse over the next few years.

Personally, my opinion is that if smoking is so bad, (and I don't disagree that it is) and is such a strong/potent carcinogen, why doesn't the governement completely ban tobacco?
It can't just be the potential loss of income and jobs for the tobacco companies...or can it? Would our government actually put the profits of a few major corporate conglomerates ahead of the health and lives of Americans? :Q

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yes, and now a smoker knows the new rules of living in apartment building too, so he can refuse to live in one and get a single family dwelling himself, instead of forcing all his neighbors too.

/facepalm

Equate his views with a whites only dwelling and watching him quickly change his stance.

Equate my views with a whites only dwelling, and watch me quickly call you a moron for equating the two.

Don't have to worry about a "Whites Only" complex in Richmond...in most parts of that town, there aren't enough white people to fill a tri-plex, let along an apartment complex...

This has what to do with what?

Ah, I see...your anti-smoking rant has your head so far up your ass that you can't read the rest of the thread. I understand now. 😛

While I strongly disagree with this law, the fact is that us smokers make up an increasingly smaller and smaller percentage of the population. Expect the anti-smoking laws to continue to get worse and worse over the next few years.

Personally, my opinion is that if smoking is so bad, (and I don't disagree that it is) and is such a strong/potent carcinogen, why doesn't the governement completely ban tobacco?
It can't just be the potential loss of income and jobs for the tobacco companies...or can it? Would our government actually put the profits of a few major corporate conglomerates ahead of the health and lives of Americans? :Q

oh... oh... *raises hand* can i answer?

"yes, they would!"

also, if smoking were TOTALLY banned there would be a revolución!

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

oh... oh... *raises hand* can i answer?

"yes, they would!"

also, if smoking were TOTALLY banned there would be a revolución!

Not to mention one less source of revenue. 😉

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: moshquerade

oh... oh... *raises hand* can i answer?

"yes, they would!"

also, if smoking were TOTALLY banned there would be a revolución!

Not to mention one less source of revenue. 😉

big time

 

[BoomerD]

Yep...they permit it to be grown and sold, but heavily regulated and taxed along the way...THEN, various government agencies pass "No Smoking" laws to restrict its use...😕

Like I said, IF tobacco products are so unhealthy, why the hell does the government permit it to be sold/used?

Can you thing of any other KNOWN carcinogen designed to be used "internally" that hasn't been banned completely?

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Yep...they permit it to be grown and sold, but heavily regulated and taxed along the way...THEN, various government agencies pass "No Smoking" laws to restrict its use...😕

Like I said, IF tobacco products are so unhealthy, why the hell does the government permit it to be sold/used?

Can you thing of any other KNOWN carcinogen designed to be used "internally" that hasn't been banned completely?

What's that smell? Oh yeah, it's all the money being made off of the taxes on tobacco products.

There's way too much money to be had from taxing tobacco products. No way it's going to get outlawed, at least anytime soon.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Yep...they permit it to be grown and sold, but heavily regulated and taxed along the way...THEN, various government agencies pass "No Smoking" laws to restrict its use...😕

Like I said, IF tobacco products are so unhealthy, why the hell does the government permit it to be sold/used?

Can you thing of any other KNOWN carcinogen designed to be used "internally" that hasn't been banned completely?

What's that smell? Oh yeah, it's all the money being made off of the taxes on tobacco products.

There's way too much money to be had from taxing tobacco products. No way it's going to get outlawed, at least anytime soon.

Hell, I fully understand all those points...and the motherfuckers get a LOT of money from me every year...I shoulda stayed quit...😛

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Xanis

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Yep...they permit it to be grown and sold, but heavily regulated and taxed along the way...THEN, various government agencies pass "No Smoking" laws to restrict its use...😕

Like I said, IF tobacco products are so unhealthy, why the hell does the government permit it to be sold/used?

Can you thing of any other KNOWN carcinogen designed to be used "internally" that hasn't been banned completely?

What's that smell? Oh yeah, it's all the money being made off of the taxes on tobacco products.

There's way too much money to be had from taxing tobacco products. No way it's going to get outlawed, at least anytime soon.

Hell, I fully understand all those points...and the motherfuckers get a LOT of money from me every year...I shoulda stayed quit...😛

Yes, yes you should have. 😛

 

[nutxo]

California is full of nazis.

 

[Away]

Originally posted by: nutxo
California is full of socialists.

Fixed that for you.

 

[IGBT]

does that mean the dopers and crack heads too??

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp

Of course I insist on controlling air outside my space. I should not have to chose between concentrated cigarette smoke directly outside my window and stale stuffy air from keeping my windows closed.

Ummm...

So you're essentially saying that I can't use my smoker? Or idle my car? Or solder with an exhaust fan? Or paint a room with an exhaust fan?

FOAD.

Oh, OK, you can FOAD too when you whine about these city ordinances. Not to mention you are confusing short term infrequent exposure to regular exposure to second hand smoke. If I got a 70s car, backed it up to your window and idled it all night, you'd be the first in line to file a complaint with every agency who'd pick up the phone.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp

Of course I insist on controlling air outside my space. I should not have to chose between concentrated cigarette smoke directly outside my window and stale stuffy air from keeping my windows closed.

Ummm...

So you're essentially saying that I can't use my smoker? Or idle my car? Or solder with an exhaust fan? Or paint a room with an exhaust fan?

FOAD.

Oh, OK, you can FOAD too when you whine about these city ordinances. Not to mention you are confusing short term infrequent exposure to regular exposure to second hand smoke. If I got a 70s car, backed it up to your window and idled it all night, you'd be the first in line to file a complaint with every agency who'd pick up the phone.

Define regular exposure.

So is it okay if someone smokes a single cigarette a day? What about two? Three?

What if I like to solder as a hobby for several hours every day? Soldering fumes are much, much more dangerous than second hand cigarette smoke.

What if I wanted to start a smoking business? Smoker going 24/7.. Would you be okay with that?

Come on now, do you actually think about what you're saying? Either you want to "control the air outside" or you don't. Which is it?

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I see no reason why smoking should be banned. Instead, they should tax tobacco at unreasonable levels. That way, smokers can remain poor and live in poor people areas while more educated people can enjoy their neighborhoods without the toxic poisoning their bodies.

Yeah because we all know that only poor people smoke.

 

[Rubycon]

Oh how I miss the smell of carbon tetrachloride in the morning! :laugh:

Twinkle Twinkle Little Bat
How I wonder where you're AT.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: senseamp

Of course I insist on controlling air outside my space. I should not have to chose between concentrated cigarette smoke directly outside my window and stale stuffy air from keeping my windows closed.

Ummm...

So you're essentially saying that I can't use my smoker? Or idle my car? Or solder with an exhaust fan? Or paint a room with an exhaust fan?

FOAD.

Oh, OK, you can FOAD too when you whine about these city ordinances. Not to mention you are confusing short term infrequent exposure to regular exposure to second hand smoke. If I got a 70s car, backed it up to your window and idled it all night, you'd be the first in line to file a complaint with every agency who'd pick up the phone.

Define regular exposure.

So is it okay if someone smokes a single cigarette a day? What about two? Three?

What if I like to solder as a hobby for several hours every day? Soldering fumes are much, much more dangerous than second hand cigarette smoke.

What if I wanted to start a smoking business? Smoker going 24/7.. Would you be okay with that?

Come on now, do you actually think about what you're saying? Either you want to "control the air outside" or you don't. Which is it?

I absolutely do.
If you are going to do a lot of soldering and expose your neighbors to dangerous levels of carcinogens NO THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. Capiche? Is that really that hard to understand?