99 replies to this topic

[checkmate3001]

I guess we need to ban laws that ban things....
 

... when common courtesy fails to protect the rights of one group from being infringed upon by another, that's where the law is a remedy...

[checkmate3001]

And I believe if you want to breath fresh clean air, you need to move to the mountains whether the air is crisp and fresh and you can't see your closest neighbor.

 

No...I think smokers need to smoke in places and ways that do not impact others.  Smokers with private homes need to smoke in their homes. Smokers in apartments need to smoke in places that do not impact others--nowhere that affects other people.   Maybe that is outside away from other people's property. Maybe that is in their car.  I honestly don't care where they smoke as long as no one else has to breathe their polluted air.

 

The bottom line is that there are 2 sets of rights.  The right to smoke and the right to breathe smoke-free air. Smokers can exercise their right in such a way that does not trample on the the right of others to not have to breathe secondhand smoke. 

[Robert Gary]

Allowing the businesses to decide makes more sense. What about a restaurant that wants to offer a cigar event? The business can better decide what customers demand than the heavy fist of gov't threats  f jail and property seizure. 

 

 

-Robert

[checkmate3001]

Where can smokers smoke, except at their house (or apartment) or in public?

I think it is a very arrogant mindset to have that smokers intentionally force their smoke on others. We don't want to offend people more than people want to be offended. You have to realize that it is something that exists and as long as this remains a free country, it will continue to exist.

 

 

That's pretty easy to answer:  just ban smoking wherever it presents a public nuisance.  Few people (if any) would argue that smokers don't have the right to poor health, as long as they don't force it on others.

[Rich_T]

Checkmate, I think you just don't get it.

 

I found these to be the most relevant outtakes from your post:

 

<< They all smoke outside because they know it smells and they don't want their apartment to smell like cigarettes or their belongings to be covered in nicotine and stink.>>

 

So instead they go on the balcony and inflict smoke on their neighbors whose apartments will smell like cigarettes?  I don't get your point.

 

<<Smoking is not a crime.>>

 

Yes, it can be, depending on where it takes place.  Laws are made to decide where that is and isn't.

 

<< a problem that doesn't exist >>

 

You really don't get it, do you?  It's not just a minor nuisance if someone is living next to a balcony smoker, it's a major deal to the other person's life.  Many people cannot abide being around smoke whatsoever, and it's indeed a problem when smoke invades their airspace.

 

<< Let's instead learn to live with those around us.>>

 

Someone who is forced to smell and breathe in someone else's smoke should not be forced to "live with it", especially when it is a permanently recurring situation.

 

You are offering up the classic smoker's argumentation, and it is lame, and that's exactly why laws are needed, because otherwise the concerns of most people would be poo-pooed.

[Rich_T]

Where can smokers smoke, except at their house (or apartment) or in public?

I think it is a very arrogant mindset to have that smokers intentionally force their smoke on others. We don't want to offend people more than people want to be offended. You have to realize that it is something that exists and as long as this remains a free country, it will continue to exist.

 

 

 

Well this just confirms my prior post.

 

And *I* think it's a very arrogant mindset to say that "smoking exists, so deal with it".  Society has moved on from that view, and laws reflect it.  I don't think that smokers *intentionally* inflict smoke on others, but I think that many simply don't realize or don't care that others are bothered, and expect those others to deal with it.  It's not about being "offended", it's about being sickened by the very smell of the poisonous smoke - I don't think you'll ever be able to understand that point of view.  I know that I get the h#ll out of there whenever I smell the stuff.

 

It's a free country, subject to laws in the public interest.

 

Where can smokers smoke?  Wherever others aren't forced to inhale their smoke.

 

You might have more adherents to your point of view in New Jersey or Ohio (or in Greece) than in California.

[TruthSeeker]

To checkmate; telling people to just deal with your smoke is like me saying just deal with my farts. Would you like it it I constantly farted in your face? Probably not right? That's what it's like dealing with the stench of smokers, it's the same as being farted on.

[sunnyCA]

 That's like saying, well I don't like baseball, so let's ban baseball stadiums and baseball from TVs in bars.

 

This analogy is meaningless.  Baseball does not aggravate asthma, trigger allergies, or cause cancer.  The issue with smoking has nothing to do with a "preference" or "liking," it has EVERYTHING to do with public health.  

 

Smoking is more similar to drinking.  A person has every right to drink as much alcohol as they like.  They can get completely and totally drunk.  The moment they decide to drive a car and endanger others, laws kick in to protect public health and safety. Likewise, smokers can smoke all day, every day.  The moment their smoke starts to endanger the health of others, laws should kick in. 

[Robert Gary]

I don't think we've demonstrated that smoking inside your own home is a credible threat to neighbors. If smoke is migrating between units than that's an issue for the apartment manager as I believe shared ventilation is prohibited.

Again, let the apartment owners decide.

[Rich_T]

I don't think we've demonstrated that smoking inside your own home is a credible threat to neighbors. If smoke is migrating between units than that's an issue for the apartment manager as I believe shared ventilation is prohibited.

Again, let the apartment owners decide.

 

You may be correct in the first part, but the last sentence you wrote is not a logical conclusion from the first paragraph.  I think that most apartment smokers go out onto the balcony to smoke (if they have a balcony), or (except in winter) have the window open even if they're smoking inside their units, and that's the main issue in apartment living.  They're not going to stop unless there's a full-on ban on smoking in the building (and even then they might keep doing it).

[kcrides99]

Not sure how prohibiting smokers in public or apartments or where it effects others is any more infringing than prohibiting alcohol consumption to bars/restaurants/ private areas? You aren't allowed to drink in parks, walking along sidewalks, or in public in general. Seems to me a case could be made that consumption of alcohol in public has less secondary effects than smoking in public (second hand smoke, etc.) ... But no one complains that they can't drink in public.... Just a thought

[Robert Gary]

Not sure how prohibiting smokers in public or apartments or where it effects others is any more infringing than prohibiting alcohol consumption to bars/restaurants/ private areas? You aren't allowed to drink in parks, walking along sidewalks, or in public in general. Seems to me a case could be made that consumption of alcohol in public has less secondary effects than smoking in public (second hand smoke, etc.) ... But no one complains that they can't drink in public.... Just a thought

 

Are you considering your apartment to be a public place?

 

-Robert

[Robert Gary]

I think we need to start with the assertion that smokers are going to smoke. I don't think anyone is bold enough to suggest that this law would result in a flood of people quitting smoking. So the question is where should they smoke. If they cannot smoke in the comfort of their own apartment than they are left with common areas. The BBQ pit, the playground, the parking lot, etc around the complex.

 

I think it makes far more sense to let the apartment owner's decide. That's how you solve this type of issue in a free country. If renters are bothered by the smoke than the owner will have to refuse to rent to smokers. On the other hand he may decide to put a sign out front "Smoker Friendly". The smokers would be happy and the rest of us would choose to live elsewhere. Maybe the apartment owner will decide to dedicate certain builidngs to smokers. Its amazing how creative people can get when living in a free society. Or we can pass a law and have the Folsom PD solve it. Than we don't need to be creative at all. Stalin proved it. 

 

 

-Robert

[ducky]

So how much longer will I be able to barbecue in my back yard before it's banned?

[4thgenFolsomite]

I know someone who rented a non-smoking house.  her guests would step outside in the backyard to smoke a cigarette occasionally (just as when I have a dinner guest who smokes, they go outside to light up).  the neighbors complained bitterly to the owner of the rental about smelling the smoke at their house. 

 

being able to smell an occasional waft of smoke, while unpleasant, is not the same as working in a restaurant and being exposed to second-hand smoke.  I am certain each and every one of us is exposed to much greater risk from the air quality we all experience in summer during an inversion, not to mention the random wildfire.

 

its not a perfect world and we can't make it so with thick blankets of laws.  we end up just limiting our own freedom in the end.