Condo owners lose right to smoke in own home

its all about control. the government wants total control of your life..what did people do before building permits and zoneing?
build crappy homes that fall down? how many people do you know who thinks to themself.i want a shitty home so itll fall down on me.
go look at some of the older american structures before all of your codes were in place and zoning and all of your other communist bull shit.
i can accept the fact that in the need of safety and the need for roads ..tax's to a certain degree,
but what we have right now is a unconstitutional government out of control ..

max420thc said:

its all about control. the government wants total control of your life..what did people do before building permits and zoneing?
build crappy homes that fall down? how many people do you know who thinks to themself.i want a shitty home so itll fall down on me.
go look at some of the older american structures before all of your codes were in place and zoning and all of your other communist bull shit.
i can accept the fact that in the need of safety and the need for roads ..tax's to a certain degree,
but what we have right now is a unconstitutional government out of control ..

Click to expand...

Max, I think one problem here is that you are trying to compare the way people lived several hundred years ago with the way they live now.

No, I don't know of anybody who would want to build a shoddy house for themselves.
But that is just it, they were building the houses for themselves.

These days, whether we want to admit it or not, there are people who are more than willing to make it their career to build quick, cheap, unsafe houses. Because they will never have to live in them. Building codes are the only thing that hold these people accountable.

It is too bad that there are people who are so dishonest that we have to threaten them with punishment to keep them honest. But I think we both know those people exist in abundance.

It was the same thing with your marriage example. You and your spouse can feel married all you want, but if you want to get the advantages that come along with it you have to sign up, because there are plenty of people out there who are willing to rip off anything they can.

BirdTooth said:

Show me the mythical quote where I claimed such a thing existed.

What I said was that without the society, there is no task and no individual in the first place.
Tell me about this individual you are imagining who lives and accomplishes great things independent from society...here is your free man, friend.

Click to expand...

No, but by saying with out society there is no individual you are implicitly claiming just that.

The individual preceded society and civilization.

TheBrutalTruth said:

No, but by saying with out society there is no individual you are implicitly claiming just that.

The individual preceded society and civilization.

Click to expand...

Whatever we evolved from was a social animal long before they became modern humans. So no, you are wrong, the society came first.

This is not a hypothetical situation, Brutal. This is what a person without society of any kind is.
There are no other options.
You are either raised by a group of humans, and are thus part of a society, or you are not.

BirdTooth said:

Whatever we evolved from was a social animal long before they became modern humans. So no, you are wrong, the society came first.

This is not a hypothetical situation, LB. This is what a person without society of any kind is.
There are no other options.
You are either raised by a group of humans, and are thus part of a society, or you are not.

Click to expand...

There is no raised by a group of humans, there are precisely two.

There is no village involved in the raising of a human.

To try equating the family with society is a mark of imbecility. Society is the sum of its components, a family can only be described as a benign tyranny when functioning properly.

Of course, the concept of a properly functioning family is a concept that evades a Socialist mind, because they are hell bent on destroying families and replacing them with "Society."

Your political memes reek of stupidity.

TheBrutalTruth said:

There is no raised by a group of humans, there are precisely two.

There is no village involved in the raising of a human.

To try equating the family with society is a mark of imbecility. Society is the sum of its components, a family can only be described as a benign tyranny when functioning properly.

Of course, the concept of a properly functioning family is a concept that evades a Socialist mind, because they are hell bent on destroying families and replacing them with "Society."

Your political memes reek of stupidity.

Click to expand...

I guess teachers do not contribute to the raising of a child?
Grandparents, friends of the family, other family members?

When you have just 2, then you probably are not very social and possibly not that intelligent.

It does take more than just 2 parents to raise a child these days.

Antidisestablishmentarian said:

I guess teachers do not contribute to the raising of a child?
Grandparents, friends of the family, other family members?

When you have just 2, then you probably are not very social and possibly not that intelligent.

It does take more than just 2 parents to raise a child these days.

Click to expand...

Only if the parents are retarded.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Only if the parents are retarded.

Click to expand...

To which part?

If you can go through life with the only inputs about living being your parents, you are very very sheltered.

Antidisestablishmentarian said:

To which part?

If you can go through life with the only inputs about living being your parents, you are very very sheltered.

Click to expand...

Actually, I rejected most of the other inputs as being idiotic.

Especially inputs from relatives that demanded respect with out returning it.

Relatives that were more concerned with pursuing money than helping immediate family.

More importantly is after being exposed to the "socialization" at a public school (both inner city, and rural) I personally think that the entire public education system should be abolished, the teachers, principals and administrators hung for treason (most, not all), and the entire concept removed from the public lexicon.

The system fails because it increasingly adopts a cookie cutter approach and ignores the difference in individuals.

Requirements that are rigid and inflexible can not adequately address the wide range of intelligence that is displayed by humanity.

Nor can it address the factors that people have differing interests, and differing goals.

It also ignores that the most important feature of school is not actually memorization, but teaching students how to find the knowledge that they need when they actually need it, and how to properly utilize it.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Actually, I rejected most of the other inputs as being idiotic.

Especially inputs from relatives that demanded respect with out returning it.

Relatives that were more concerned with pursuing money than helping immediate family.

More importantly is after being exposed to the "socialization" at a public school (both inner city, and rural) I personally think that the entire public education system should be abolished, the teachers, principals and administrators hung for treason (most, not all), and the entire concept removed from the public lexicon.

The system fails because it increasingly adopts a cookie cutter approach and ignores the difference in individuals.

Requirements that are rigid and inflexible can not adequately address the wide range of intelligence that is displayed by humanity.

Nor can it address the factors that people have differing interests, and differing goals.

It also ignores that the most important feature of school is not actually memorization, but teaching students how to find the knowledge that they need when they actually need it, and how to properly utilize it.

Click to expand...

So have you rejected any advice ever given to you by anyone on anything?

Did you ever read something, and after completing it say "I never knew that before"?

Everyone but that feral child has had someone affect the way they think, things they believe in, and the knowledge they possess and it all did not come from their parents.

Since the times of the most primitive caveman to today, others have helped to raise a child, and it seems to have served us well.

195,004 years and counting.

TheBrutalTruth said:

There is no raised by a group of humans, there are precisely two.
There is no village involved in the raising of a human.

Click to expand...

Brutal, please just read this whole message I'm writing to you, without trying to think of anything snarky to say.

Humans are not physically strong animals. The reason there are so many of us is because we developed language, and were able to communicate to protect ourselves.

One animal does not develop language alone in its lifetime, and pass it on to its one child. That is not possible. It is something that evolves among groups of people over thousands of years.

What I'm trying to say to you is, the only thing that makes us different from animals is the fact that we can communicate in the way we can. It lets us organize ourselves, to take on bigger tasks, and lets us pass down things that we've learned to our children, so they don't have to start from scratch.

The link I keep posting for you is for the Wikipedia article for feral child.
I keep doing it because that is literally what a human amounts to without a community.

It's true that nature only requires two parents to make a baby, but unless somebody taught something to those parents, then they are still just animals, too, and they have no more to teach their child than any other primate.

I am not guessing, or giving my opinion on this, Brutal, this is just history.

To try equating the family with society is a mark of imbecility. Society is the sum of its components, a family can only be described as a benign tyranny when functioning properly.

Of course, the concept of a properly functioning family is a concept that evades a Socialist mind, because they are hell bent on destroying families and replacing them with "Society."

Your political memes reek of stupidity.

Click to expand...

If you knew what any of that crap meant, I might have found it annoying and rude, but you don't.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you need to be a jerk.

not a fan of smoking but this country is slowly taking away every right of a smoker until it's just completely illegal or too much $$ except for the super rich...yea secondhand smoke causes more damage than firsthand thats a crazy crock of bullshit...if someone's taking a direct inhalation and holding a concentrated pull of air how could they claim that the dilute smoke from it causes MORE damage....lying deuches
They should come to an agreement or try that ONA shit or keep a window on w/ a fan and certain scents in the house...I don't think they have the right to order to keep from smoking if the original contract didn't prohibit it, that judge is stepping out of bounds

nj12nets said:

not a fan of smoking but this country is slowly taking away every right of a smoker until it's just completely illegal or too much $$ except for the super rich...yea secondhand smoke causes more damage than firsthand thats a crazy crock of bullshit...if someone's taking a direct inhalation and holding a concentrated pull of air how could they claim that the dilute smoke from it causes MORE damage....lying deuches
They should come to an agreement or try that ONA shit or keep a window on w/ a fan and certain scents in the house...I don't think they have the right to order to keep from smoking if the original contract didn't prohibit it, that judge is stepping out of bounds

Click to expand...

Absolutely it should be up to the landlord whether or not tenants can smoke on the premises. The issue with condos and other multiple family dwellings is that even ONE smoker in a building of 100 people can create a considerable safety hazard for everyone living there. Now, if it's a single family freestanding dwelling and the landlord wants to accept the risk to the property that smoking causes, that's fine - but when you're talking about a building FULL of people living in individual little boxes who are ALL put at risk by the behavior of a few, someone has to draw a line somewhere and stand up for the rights of those people to live in a SAFE environment, free from the risk of bodily harm and damage to their property.

EDITED to specify that "damage" and "safety" refer to smoking being a fire hazard, and not the health effects of secondhand smoke.

Anybody that thinks this is right has something wrong with them...

doobnVA said:

Absolutely it should be up to the landlord whether or not tenants can smoke on the premises. The issue with condos and other multiple family dwellings is that even ONE smoker in a building of 100 people can create a considerable safety hazard for everyone living there. Now, if it's a single family freestanding dwelling and the landlord wants to accept the risk to the property that smoking causes, that's fine - but when you're talking about a building FULL of people living in individual little boxes who are ALL put at risk by the behavior of a few, someone has to draw a line somewhere and stand up for the rights of those people to live in a SAFE environment, free from the risk of bodily harm and damage to their property.

EDITED to specify that "damage" and "safety" refer to smoking being a fire hazard, and not the health effects of secondhand smoke.

Click to expand...

Well, well ... here's something we agree on.

I sell and lease income properties for a living and I can attest to the amount of damage a smoking tenant can cause to a property. I've had the experience of completely rehabing a property for a client where the tenants smoked. All walls washed down with TCP, all drapes sent to the dry cleaners, brand new paint, brand new carpets and pads ... and the place still reeked from cigarette smoke. The solution was to rent it out to another smoker. Go figure.

ViRedd said:

Well, well ... here's something we agree on.

I sell and lease income properties for a living and I can attest to the amount of damage a smoking tenant can cause to a property. I've had the experience of completely rehabing a property for a client where the tenants smoked. All walls washed down with TCP, all drapes sent to the dry cleaners, brand new paint, brand new carpets and pads ... and the place still reeked from cigarette smoke. The solution was to rent it out to another smoker. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Wait, wasn't it YOU who argued with me over several pages about how the government has no place restricting smoking on private property (when the actual argument was about smoking bans in APARTMENT buildings, which are rental properties)?

So are you now saying that the government SHOULD ban smoking in multifamily dwellings? Or are you just agreeing that smoking causes property damage?

Just an observation here. If you own it, it's your right to dirty the walls, stink up the place, etc.
I still stand by the absurdity that the smell permeates into others quarters in a fashion that is harmful to them.
And I'll go right back to the example of Indian neighbors too. You don't know how bad ANY single thing smells until you live over a family that cooks with the combination of spices they use for breakfast, snack, lunch and dinner. They will not even run their AC on the hottest of hottest days. On top of that, they rarely if ever shower.
Unless you have lived through these conditions, you have no idea what I am speaking about.
Given all of those "offenses".......there is no smell ordinance anywhere that I am aware of.
I have no more right to tell them to stop cooking than they do ordering I stop smoking.
Last, there will naturally be a slightly higher risk for fire if you are a smoker. I see more fires due to Christmas trees being lit, or people's use of candles. You can't ban those either.
And what about water? Water damage is known to be so much more detrimental than fire damage.
My walls are my domain. I suport the right for it to be every person's right.....even when it offends me.

doobnVA said:

Wait, wasn't it YOU who argued with me over several pages about how the government has no place restricting smoking on private property (when the actual argument was about smoking bans in APARTMENT buildings, which are rental properties)?

So are you now saying that the government SHOULD ban smoking in multifamily dwellings? Or are you just agreeing that smoking causes property damage?

Click to expand...

No, if you reread the posts, you'll find that I agreed with you in that thread as well. My point was about government banning smoking in PRIVATE PROPERTY, not landlords banning smoking in their leased property.

Government has no legitimate role in deciding who smokes and who does not ... unless the smoking violates the rights of others ... and in this case, the landlord's right to his property is being violated, as well as the lease contract. Therefore, the tenant should be responsible for any damages. The landlord should be able to sue (government court) and recover damages.

Same thing applies when a tenant doesn't pay the rent. The landlord serves a three day notice. After that, and eventually, the sheriff (government police) evicts the tenant.

ViRedd said:

No, if you reread the posts, you'll find that I agreed with you in that thread as well. My point was about government banning smoking in PRIVATE PROPERTY, not landlords banning smoking in their leased property.

Government has no legitimate role in deciding who smokes and who does not ... unless the smoking violates the rights of others ... and in this case, the landlord's right to his property is being violated, as well as the lease contract. Therefore, the tenant should be responsible for any damages. The landlord should be able to sue (government court) and recover damages.

Same thing applies when a tenant doesn't pay the rent. The landlord serves a three day notice. After that, and eventually, the sheriff (government police) evicts the tenant.

Click to expand...

Okay, so we agree that you should be free to do what you want on property that you OWN.

Do you think it should be legal for a 5 year old kid to smoke, and the government shouldn't regulate the sale of cigarettes to minors?

automobiles (deaths) and cellular phones (brain cancer) are far more dangerous than second hand smoke.

Should the above items also be banned, for the public good?