Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ed=rss.bayarea

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Well, I guess I am, I'm very much against it.

The issue was being solved privately, condo groups were taking it upon themselves to not allow smoking in their buildings. I don't see the need for the government to step in and say "here is what you can and cannot do in your own home."

Is this unconstitutional? I think it is, but I don't know which provision would relate to it.

On a related note:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_o...1l75akjVV7q188F

California bans smoking in a car with minors.

I actually agree with this one, not sure there's a way for the private market to fix this, and its essentially child abuse.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
California bans smoking in a car with minors.

I actually agree with this one, not sure there's a way for the private market to fix this

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if roads were privatized then road owners would be able to make whatever rules they wanted. So of course if the government can "fix it" by monopolizing roads and forbidding it on their roads, it should be obvious that private road owners could as well.

[ QUOTE ]
, and its essentially child abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite with you here. What about parents who feed their kids too much junk food? Don't hug them enough? Don't read to them when they're small children? What about smoking at home, is that different than cars? Should we ban smoking in homes with minors? I think legislating against "bad parenting" is too hard. There's just too many factors in play to start picking some out and banning/mandating them.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by iron81

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

My father smoked when I was growing up--at home, in the car, wherever. Stinky? Yes. Abusive? Give me a break.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
My father smoked when I was growing up--at home, in the car, wherever. Stinky? Yes. Abusive? Give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you feel this way if next time you went to the doctor you had cancer?

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see the need for the government to step in and say "here is what you can and cannot do in your own home."

[/ QUOTE ]

Please consider donating or volunteering for Ron Paul, whom I am certain would agree wholeheartedly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the federal government, would the pres even be able to affect these issues?

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

Should we also outlaw using cusswords in front of children?

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

Also this is truly dumb.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should we also outlaw using cusswords in front of children?



[/ QUOTE ]

We had a case in Michigan a while back involving this. A guy was convicted for cursing infront of a child.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99jun13/world.htm

The story is at the bottom of the page.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

Taso, as before, just wait til you see how many people post in this thread expressing their disdain for your right to your own free choices.

natedogg

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

stuff like this literally turns my stomach...

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should we also outlaw using cusswords in front of children?

[/ QUOTE ]

No...Not really at all relevant?

Words are words, they are not inherently bad.

Should we outloud using cursewords TOWARDS children in an abusive manor? I think that's already been done.

As for why I think smoking around children is abusive? Come on. At the very least its extremly negligent. Second hand smoking is even more dangerous than first hand, why should children be forced to endure the effects of their parents addictions? Any other addiction (alcohol, gambling) can result in a child being removed from the home.

As for the Ron Paul talk..I don't really think I want to support a racist.

Just kidding, I'm already a big Ron Paul supporter, thanks for the recommendation - I'm not sure how he'd affect what is a State issue though. And I'd love to see a thread where his name isn't randomly inserted.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

What about smoking at home, is that different than cars? Should we ban smoking in homes with minors?

Well, it is different. According the article, smoking in cars is 10x more dangerous for children than smoking in homes.

But, to answer your question, I wouldn't object to the discussion and consideration of banning smoking in homes with minors. It's an interesting idea and might have some validity, although it'd be difficult to enforce.

Edit: And by the way, I'm not anti-tobacco or anything like that, I smoke from time to time, cigars, cigarettes, but I do believe in responsibility.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

my personal experience: as a child both parents smoked a lot, and I could literally not run for 10 seconds without getting winded. starting in high school I did my best to remedy it, wasn't home much , had my own bedroom (windows), 1 parent quit and the other cut back, and I joined cross country and stuff to build up my lungs. I can testify that it really does damage children, at least athletically.

btw, in 8th grade a friend offered me a cigarrette (13, time to be "cool"), and I could inhale right away without coughing or anything my lungs were so used to the smoke.

true story.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Second hand smoking is even more dangerous than first hand,

[/ QUOTE ]

how can this be true?

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second hand smoking is even more dangerous than first hand,

[/ QUOTE ]

how can this be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

because everybody says it, ldo

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second hand smoking is even more dangerous than first hand,

[/ QUOTE ]

how can this be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit I only know what I've read/been told, but second hand smoke is unfiltered, ergo, more dangerous.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ed=rss.bayarea

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Well, I guess I am, I'm very much against it.

The issue was being solved privately, condo groups were taking it upon themselves to not allow smoking in their buildings. I don't see the need for the government to step in and say "here is what you can and cannot do in your own home."

Is this unconstitutional? I think it is, but I don't know which provision would relate to it.

On a related note:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_o...1l75akjVV7q188F

California bans smoking in a car with minors.

I actually agree with this one, not sure there's a way for the private market to fix this, and its essentially child abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in CA. If any [censored] Gmen come and try to tell me I can't smoke in my apartment, they're gonna get acquainted with the business end of my fists.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second hand smoking is even more dangerous than first hand,

[/ QUOTE ]

how can this be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll admit I only know what I've read/been told, but second hand smoke is unfiltered, ergo, more dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are the people smoking immune to 2nd hand smoke?

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

i know that a cigarrette in an ashtray burning with the smoke wafting over you is way worse than the exhaled smoke.

maybe thats what is meant.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...ed=rss.bayarea

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Well, I guess I am, I'm very much against it.

The issue was being solved privately, condo groups were taking it upon themselves to not allow smoking in their buildings. I don't see the need for the government to step in and say "here is what you can and cannot do in your own home."

Is this unconstitutional? I think it is, but I don't know which provision would relate to it.

On a related note:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_o...1l75akjVV7q188F

California bans smoking in a car with minors.

I actually agree with this one, not sure there's a way for the private market to fix this, and its essentially child abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in CA. If any [censored] Gmen come and try to tell me I can't smoke in my apartment, they're gonna get acquainted with the business end of my fists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe they just send a big fine over your way. Not 100% sure, it's in the article though.

As for 2nd hand smoke, I'm not sure, try googling it?

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about smoking at home, is that different than cars? Should we ban smoking in homes with minors?

Well, it is different. According the article, smoking in cars is 10x more dangerous for children than smoking in homes.

But, to answer your question, I wouldn't object to the discussion and consideration of banning smoking in homes with minors. It's an interesting idea and might have some validity, although it'd be difficult to enforce.

Edit: And by the way, I'm not anti-tobacco or anything like that, I smoke from time to time, cigars, cigarettes, but I do believe in responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taso, this is another ( [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) post of yours with which I agree! BTW, I am a smoker as well.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Second hand smoking is even more dangerous than first hand,

[/ QUOTE ]

how can this be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

More junk science.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this unconstitutional? I think it is, but I don't know which provision would relate to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could you possibly think something was unconstitutional without having an idea of what part of the Constitution it might violate? Is it because "it just seems wrong to me" or is there something more to it?

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this unconstitutional? I think it is, but I don't know which provision would relate to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could you possibly think something was unconstitutional without having an idea of what part of the Constitution it might violate? Is it because "it just seems wrong to me" or is there something more to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

the former. It seemed as if it violates some personal rights, or, that the Constitution doesn't grant power to enact such a law, although sort of irrelivant I suppose. I'd need to read the California state constitution to really know if it violates any part of their constitutiion.


As for the second hand smoke thing, is that really "junk science"? I've never claimed to be an expert on the topic.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
My father smoked when I was growing up--at home, in the car, wherever. Stinky? Yes. Abusive? Give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I was growing up my mother had remarried to a smoker. I am the only person in my family that has asthma. I remember as a child not being able to breath if he drove me anywhere because the car would be full of smoke. I am against government intervention, but I really wish I didn't have asthma.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
my personal experience: as a child both parents smoked a lot, and I could literally not run for 10 seconds without getting winded. starting in high school I did my best to remedy it, wasn't home much , had my own bedroom (windows), 1 parent quit and the other cut back, and I joined cross country and stuff to build up my lungs. I can testify that it really does damage children, at least athletically.

btw, in 8th grade a friend offered me a cigarrette (13, time to be "cool"), and I could inhale right away without coughing or anything my lungs were so used to the smoke.

true story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, both my parents were 2-pack-a-dayers, and I was a top athlete in my little town and could run all day if I wanted to.

Personal anecdotes aren't any good when it comes to this stuff.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is this unconstitutional?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The constitution barely interferes with what local governments can do.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]

As for the second hand smoke thing, is that really "junk science"? I've never claimed to be an expert on the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statement was second hand smoke was more dangerous than smoking. I don't believe it. They better show unbiased proof.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As for the second hand smoke thing, is that really "junk science"? I've never claimed to be an expert on the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statement was second hand smoke was more dangerous than smoking. I don't believe it. They better show unbiased proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder, why is this so hard to believe? Normal smoking is filtered, second hand smoke is unfiltered.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder, why is this so hard to believe? Normal smoking is filtered, second hand smoke is unfiltered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? I think the problem with the statement is obvious. In one case you're sucking many drags worth of "filtered" smoke directly into your lungs. The concentration is huge. In the other case, you're inhaling mostly air, with some amount of second hand smoke.

Recently I saw an ad here in Cali about how second hand smoke from one house can be harmful in the next house, so we need to stop smokers. I was so frickin' pissed, and I'm no smoker sympathizer. I used to berate my folks daily about smoking. The ad just reeked of fear mongering.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

Even if we don't agree on that - I have no problem saying second hand smoke is not as harmful as first hand, as its fairly irrelivant and I'm not sure about that anyways - would you agree that second hand smoke IS harmful? I don't see any reason to think it wouldn't be.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

it's harmful, I just think it's vastly overstated. Cars? Sure whatever. Apt buildings? There are probably more harmful things in my refrigerator.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

driving on the freeway behind 50 million polluting cars is wayyyyy worse then some tobacco smoke once in a while.

please ban kids from all places within 100 feet of any car.

WE NEED TO KEEP THE KIDS SAFE!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

wtf? Do you actually believe that smoking is a right protected by the US Constitution?

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
wtf? Do you actually believe that smoking is a right protected by the US Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]
9th amendment

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wtf? Do you actually believe that smoking is a right protected by the US Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]
9th amendment

[/ QUOTE ]

The 9th amendment ALLOWS for enactment of other rights not specifically set out by the constitution, it does not provide those rights in of itself. Try again.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
wtf? Do you actually believe that smoking is a right protected by the US Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe smoking is a "right". However, that doesn't mean anyone else has a right to prevent me from engaging in that activity.

Do you think eating a cheeseburger is a right? I don't think anyone would say that it is. Do you think the government therefore has a right to prevent you from eating one?

How about this one:

http://www.theagitator.com/archives/028018.php#028018

Cliffs notes: A court ruling says there is no "fundamental right" to lifesaving drugs; therefore, it's open season for the government to restrict your access to them.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't surprising. It's a predictable application of drug war philosophy. If the government can stop you from putting drugs in your body that make you high, it's a short leap to say that the government can let you die while waiting for drugs that could save your life, albeit still in the name of "protecting" you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you think the government therefore has a right to prevent you from eating one?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Re: Californian city bans smoking in apartments and condos
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Do you think the government therefore has a right to prevent you from eating one?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, please answer the following:

1) where does this right come from?

2) how do governments have rights at all?