Condo owners lose right to smoke in own home

mogie said:

There are rights and there are priviliges. You have a right to bear arms. You have the privilige to drive a car. There is a difference do you get it?

Click to expand...

So if they issued liscences to smoke, it would be a privelege, then without a liscence it would be a right> I say you should be free to put what you want into your body as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. In the smoking case I believe they have pretty much proven that second hand smoke does lead to cancer and other serious diseases: Here is a finding: Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke increases the risk of developing lung cancer, international experts have said.

A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of the major studies looking at smoking and cancer.
After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and 30% more likely to develop lung cancer.

Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of the world's tobacco companies would have us believe

Marsha Williams, ASH

The experts also found cancers of the stomach, liver, uterus, cervix, kidney and myeloid leukaemia could be caused in part by smoking.
The group of 29 experts from 12 countries found second-hand tobacco smoke was carcinogenic to humans and that typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among people who have never smoked.
This means hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from these cancers could now be linked to smoking.
Definite link
Dr Kurt Straif, who organised the IARC meeting, said the group examined 50 studies examining the link between passive smoking and cancer.
Speaking to BBC News Online, he added: "This is the first time that a global organisation has concluded that exposure to second hand smoke is linked to cancer."
One of the experts, Sir Richard Doll, said: "Environmental tobacco smoke that people experience at work or at home is definitely a cause of lung cancer.
"That has been discussed for a long time but this is the first time a group of independent scientists have reviewed all the evidence and said there is no question it is a cause of lung cancer."
Sir Richard said the findings should have a significant influence on health policies around the world and could strengthen arguments for a ban in this country on smoking in workplaces.
The experts also stated that one half of all persistent cigarette smokers are eventually killed by a tobacco-related disease.
Half of these deaths occur in middle age, which means they lose an average of 20-25 years of non-smoker life expectancy.
Annually tobacco accounts for millions of cancer deaths around the world, and it is the largest cause of preventable cancers.
However it causes a greater number of premature deaths from cardiovascular and lung diseases and strokes than from cancer. Apart from cigarettes, other forms of tobacco smoking such as cigars and pipes increase the risks for cancer of the lung, head and neck. And I smoked for 37 years. I Must be on the way out!

ViRedd said:

When one buys a condo, one agrees to abide by the rules of the Home Owner's Association. I agree that the second-hand smoke issue is just that ... the totalitarians among us exercising their will. However ... the libertarian view would be; a person has the right to smoke, injest, drink or inject anything they wish ... AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER IN THE PROCESS. These smokers alluded to here have clearly violated the rights of their neighbors to peaceful enjoyment of their property. They have violated the rules that they have agreed to obey. They couldn't have closed escrow on the condo without approving the HOA guidelines and bylaws.

Mogie sez ...

"That is why I was so desperately trying to find out info on vaporizers. If they are really better for us then smoking weed why don't those with experience with them tell us their experiences pros and cons so we know what to look for and what to look out for. Man those things are expensive and do they really work?"

Yes, vaporizors work great ... but some work better than others. I've used several and the best one to date is the Volcano. Expensive? Yes ... but you get what you pay for. Here's a guy on Ebay that has a good deal. He throws in everything except the kitchen sink:

eBay: INSANE VOLCANO VAPORIZER PACKAGE! YOU WONT BELIEVE IT! (item 200047582070 end time Nov-23-06 22:17:39 PST)

Click to expand...

As a smoker, I hate to agree with Vi, but as a Libertarian I have to.
However, the article (unless I'm misreading) says that the rules were changed after the people bought their condo. I don't think that's right.

Personally speaking, if my neighbors tried to stop me from smoking in my home, there would be serious consequences. (I'm an asshole, I know )

Well, Doob....that makes two of us. Count me an asshole, because if you pay for your dwelling, knowing there is no contract that prohibits your freedom to smoke...and the rules suddenly "change." Enough said....BS. Your home is your castle. BTW, smoke simply does NOT permeate via walls/floors.......utter BS. If the person either beside/beneath you is experiencing an "unnecessary odor".....I'd suggest they take it up with the HOA. Afterall, wth are they paid for half the time other than to be a milstone around your neck? Perhaps the building and ventilation aren't up to par. I say give the HOA something to actually WORK on. When a person purchases a condominium, they are knowingly placing themselves in an atmosphere of different personalities and/or habits. We have a sound oridinance for obvious reasons......yet to think you are entitled to dictate ones habits behind those four walls they OWN is ridiculous at best. BTW, attempt telling your Indian neighbor that they are no longer allowed to cook breakfast, lunch, dinner and every friggen snack in between that they are no longer permitted to cook.........Good luck. The smell that vehemently offends one, sooths the others soul. Should we all consider it our right to inflict what we find inconvinient/offensive?
What did you think you were signing up for? It's a PAID for apartment.

And, Mogie, dude.....think about it. You have the "right" To bear arms. Do you know how sane your neighbor is? I sure as hell don't.
I figure if you "make" it your right and your full intention to knowingly move into such tight quraters, that you will make an informed decision based on what you can or can not tolerate prior to purchase. One can not feasibly think themselves entitled to "weed out" what they deem bad neighbors on the smoking premise alone.
No offense intended.....I respect non-smoker's rights. Moreso, I respect the right for a homeowner to establish their own rules within their OWN home.

As for second-hand smoke, that's tricky. Leave alone what "They say."
I once met a woman in her mid-thirties....never smoked, never exposed to second-hand by any family members/loved ones or work atmosphere........lung cancer--doesn't make sense. The last time I saw this woman, she carried an oxygen tank with her wherever she went.

I know this is old, but breathing air causes cancer nowadays.Plastic causes cancer.The second hand smoke argument is just a tactic to distract us from what is really killing us.I've been exposed to HEAVY second hand smoke all of my life. My lungs are in awesome shape.

mogie said:

When the rights of someone involves something that causes cancer and infringes on my right to breath clean air it isn't going too far. That is why I was so desperately trying to find out info on vaporizers. If they are really better for us then smoking weed why don't those with experience with them tell us their experiences pros and cons so we know what to look for and what to look out for. Man those things are expensive and do they really work?

Click to expand...

Isn't that an Ex post Facto law.

privilege
n. a special benefit, exemption from a duty, or immunity from penalty, given to a particular person, a group or a class of people.

right
1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct.

Sounds like its a right to me.

As for driving its a right to:

Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court
decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

"THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489

Its only a privledge when your doing buisness on the roads (truckers) or if you waive your right by getting a licence. You are not a driver you are a traveler. There is your diffrence.

Interesting, Ilkan ...

Here's where the public has been duped: We apply (ignorantly) for a "driver's" license when we are not "drivers." We are simply travelers. "Drivers" are those professional people who drive other people for a fee like bus drivers and taxi drivers.

We also (ignorantly) think that we carry "passengers" in our cars, when in fact, we carry guests. "Passengers" are those folks being driven by those professional drivers alluded to above.

We ignorantly "register" our vehicles and pay a special tax (license fees) to a government agency (DMV). An automobile is personal property, not unlike our refrigerators and couches. Why are we not required to register our refrigerators and couches and pay a special fee on them? The answer isn't because we need to pay for the roads ... roads are paid for out of the gasoline taxes.

Just food for thought.

Vi

So now I'm left to wonder, What if someone in a condo has a chemical sensitivity, does that mean they have the right to govern which cleaning products their neighbors use? The chemicals in Febreeze, for instance, damn near kill me. So can Colleen, now that precident has been established, sue her neighbor over every cleaning product scent, dryer sheets, food smells, etc?

What if Colleen is allergic to peanut butter and smells can travel, does she now have a right to go into her neighbors kitchen and throw away foods that bother her? Her neighbor gets to govern her right to smoke in her home, if I was Colleen I'd turn that shit right back around on her.

What if someone in a condo has a pollen allergy? Does that mean nobody else can grow flowers?

medicineman said:

Even though I'm an ex-smoker and hate smoking as much as the next guy, I'd say this is going too far. Maybe they'll have to have smoking and non-smoking condos to prevent this from happening again. " The rights of the people in their homes and propertys shall not be abridged", a quote from somewhere!

Click to expand...

4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Though, I would never choose to live in a Condo... or a House under a Housing Association. Having additional entities entitled to interfere with my property rights strikes me as absurd.

The restrictions placed by the various entities of government is enough to piss me off. To have some anal retentive housing association saying the same, just would piss me off to no end.

Maybe the condo owners who don't like the smoking should chip in together and buy her out for fair market value. There's a reasonable answer.

Maybe they can find a guy like in Pacific Heights to buy it.

ViRedd said:

Interesting, Ilkan ...

Here's where the public has been duped: We apply (ignorantly) for a "driver's" license when we are not "drivers." We are simply travelers. "Drivers" are those professional people who drive other people for a fee like bus drivers and taxi drivers.

We also (ignorantly) think that we carry "passengers" in our cars, when in fact, we carry guests. "Passengers" are those folks being driven by those professional drivers alluded to above.

We ignorantly "register" our vehicles and pay a special tax (license fees) to a government agency (DMV). An automobile is personal property, not unlike our refrigerators and couches. Why are we not required to register our refrigerators and couches and pay a special fee on them? The answer isn't because we need to pay for the roads ... roads are paid for out of the gasoline taxes.

Just food for thought.

Vi

Click to expand...

Come on Vi...
You can't kill somebody during the standard operation of a couch or refrigerator.
If an idiot gets a couch, he can fuck it up all he wants, but if an idiot gets behind a wheel he can kill people, easily.

People didn't need horse licenses because they weren't necessary. They didn't even need car licenses until they realized how dangerous cars were.

We have to prove that we know how to drive before we can use shared public roads.
What part of that is unfair?

You must live in a place with some great natural drivers. Down here, those licenses are the only thing keeping children and retards off the streets.

Maybe, but travel is a right. Not a privledge and I can back that up with case law. That is why I wrote it to prove a point. You could require drivers ed in high school then no need for a licence. because you took drivers ed. But we all no why we need licences right?? So the police know who we are. Thats the reason you need them to buy booze to buy cigs and lots of other reasons, not to travel. But now you need one even to be a passenger on a train (amtrac).

Show me your papers please.

BirdTooth said:

Come on Vi...
You can't kill somebody during the standard operation of a couch or refrigerator.
If an idiot gets a couch, he can fuck it up all he wants, but if an idiot gets behind a wheel he can kill people, easily.

People didn't need horse licenses because they weren't necessary. They didn't even need car licenses until they realized how dangerous cars were.

We have to prove that we know how to drive before we can use shared public roads.
What part of that is unfair?

You must live in a place with some great natural drivers. Down here, those licenses are the only thing keeping children and retards off the streets.

Click to expand...

hey..thats fair enough.
then we need building permits and contractors license then marriage license .
a bus. license from the city . zoning . personal income tax.face it the government has you tagged with a number that tracks your ass from your birth to your death.
all you are is a income number to them.
and you have to pay the fuckers for the honor of living. they are worse than the fucking mafia with all of their control.

max420thc said:

hey..thats fair enough.
then we need building permits and contractors license then marriage license .
a bus. license from the city . zoning . personal income tax.face it the government has you tagged with a number that tracks your ass from your birth to your death.
all you are is a income number to them.
and you have to pay the fuckers for the honor of living. they are worse than the fucking mafia with all of their control.

Click to expand...

I am not talking about building permits.
I accept the need for licensing people who plan to use cars on public roads, that doesn't mean I accept the entire police-state monitoring package.

Though since you mention it, building permits ensure safe buildings. It doesn't affect anybody but you when you build a shoddy house for yourself, but when you turn around and sell it, it becomes a problem.

And you don't have to get a marriage license. You can call yourself married all you want, but if you want the legal and financial bonuses that come with marriage you have to show the folks who are giving you the discount that you are actually married.

Those are issues of keeping the community safe from idiots, and marriage is a social tradition that we've decided comes with special bonuses.
Don't just group them in with taxes.

It's lazy to group all these things together and just classify them as monitoring tactics, just because they require you to identify yourself.

ilkhan said:

Maybe, but travel is a right. Not a privledge and I can back that up with case law. That is why I wrote it to prove a point. You could require drivers ed in high school then no need for a licence.

Click to expand...

Let's forget for a minute that our public school system is already very strained and unreliable.
I grew up overseas. I didn't get my license until I was 21. Should we as a society just trust that people will be honorable enough to teach themselves how to drive before getting on the road? That is a fantasy.

But we all no why we need licences right?? So the police know who we are. Thats the reason you need them to buy booze to buy cigs and lots of other reasons, not to travel.

Click to expand...

I don't want children drinking, smoking, or driving. If you can come up with a better prevention that we can put in place right now, lets do it. I guarantee you won't get carded when you look 80.

But now you need one even to be a passenger on a train (amtrac).

Click to expand...

Now that is a little bit weird. But this is supposed to be the cherry of your argument, and it's really the only shady thing you've listed.

I learned before I got on the road, I was tought by my Grampa and they wouldn't let me drive until I was ready. Again who is society? Does Society have an address I could right to?? Does it have a mind or a soul?? No, who makes the rules, soceity?? That seems more like democracy to me. We have a constitutional republic in this country that is supposed to mean that even the majority (society) can not trample our RIGHTS.

"don't want children drinking, smoking, or driving. If you can come up with a better prevention that we can put in place right now, lets do it. I guarantee you won't get carded when you look 80."


True, but you can be walking down the street and a cop can demand to see your ID. So I don't even have one anymore, fuck-um.

I'm not saying I totaly disagree with you about licences, ok I'm really not. Its not a defencable position and I would rather pick fights that make common sence. But to say Society demand or requires something not gonna fly with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4

Click to expand...

Use your analytical mind. It is dangerous to take Rand's philosophy as anything more than a thought to build upon. She was raised and educated in Soviet Russia, and her work is a reaction to that.
Even Howard Roark would be spending all his time foraging for food if it weren't for the society around him.

Great achievements are made by individuals, but on the backs of the collective.
Show me the hero who did anything from scratch.

BirdTooth said:

Use your analytical mind. It is dangerous to take Rand's philosophy as anything more than a thought to build upon. She was raised and educated in Soviet Russia, and her work is a reaction to that.
Even Howard Roark would be spending all his time foraging for food if it weren't for the society around him.

Great achievements are made by individuals, but on the backs of the collective.
Show me the hero who did anything from scratch.

Click to expand...

Show me this mythical society that exists with out individuals.

You've never worked for a telemarketing company before, have you?

TheBrutalTruth said:

Show me this mythical society that exists with out individuals.

Click to expand...

TheBrutalTruth said:

Show me this mythical society that exists with out individuals.

Click to expand...

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.