[URL=http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cities-consider-apartment-smoking-bans/20071003092309990001]

Aparently local legislators in California are trying to enstate bans on smoking in apartments and condos. I have been able to see how smoking bans in restaurants could be justified, but this is an obvious break of constitutional rights. Government coming in and telling you what you can or cannot do where you live with something that is legal. They are totally out of line. What do you guy think about this?

This makes no sense at all, since it doesn't have to do with Public Health (you're not smoking in a shared public space such as an office building or restaurant).

That being said, if the owners of the property want to ban smoking, that is within their rights.

I can see apartment complex's prohibiting them if they, themselves, want to put that in their policy. However, a condo is owned by the occupant. For the governement to say you can't smoke in the dwelling that you own, is far out of line. Then again, California is the land of far-left liberalism.

quote:

Originally posted by CrazyPoet:
This makes no sense at all

I agree, but that statement easily applies to more than 90% of all governmental intervention in our lives. I've achieved a lot in life, but whenever my pride gets the best of me, all I have to do is to look at how regulated my existence is-- or look at my truly huge tax bills-- to remind myslef that I am a mere dogsbody in the grand scheme of things.

Hail to the Hippies!

Banning people from smoking in their own homes? Land of the free! Ridiculous. Thats just a load of BS.

Once again, people, there is no such thing as "smokers' rights".

A condominium is governed by a homeowner's association, which holds the property in trust on behalf of all the homeowners as a group. The HOA's bylaws may at any time prohibit smoking, and the individual condo owner is bound by this provision. There is ample court precedent -- and not only in California -- upholding an HOA's enforceable right to prohibit condominium owners from smoking in the property they own.

Jack-
Is this in the same vein as a zoning regulation prohibiting business's in a residential area or a covenant prohibiting certain house colors or clothes lines?

quote:

Is this in the same vein as a zoning regulation prohibiting business's in a residential area or a covenant prohibiting certain house colors or clothes lines?

Kinda, but not really.

The lawyers on this board might correct me, but when you buy a condo, you sign a contract stipulating that the Condo Association has the sole right to set rules and regulations by which all owner-members will be governed, including within the space they own. You may or may not have a dog or cat. You may or may not move a doorway. You may or may not park your car outside your garage. You may or may not have window boxes. You may or may not smoke.

(Most no-smoking condo rules, as I understand it, are the result of complaints from the owners of units that are adjacent to a smoker, and the smoke and smell seeps into their homes, thereby creating a nuisance.)

You always have the opportunity to enlist other owners to your point of view and run for the condo association board the next time officers are elected. Then you can effect a rules change.

IT is the ANTI-SMOKING NAZI'S.
Out in full force.
The best part is we are the ones to blame.
"All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke
This very extensively used statement may be a paraphrase of some of Burke's ideas, but he is not known to have ever declared it. An extraordinary number of variations exist, all without any definite original source.
You may sit here and debate the law and try to find a loophole.
But in the end you will find that quote is the bottom line.

Jack is right. As a Marketing Consultant in Real Estate, I'll tell you that I would RATHER that people didn't smoke in house- especially in the Apartments and Condos I sell. There are a couple reasons- such that smoke often ventilates into neighboring units, and that smoke smell is exceptionally difficult to remove- even with today's technology.

On the other hand, I'm sick of the government stepping all over smokers with new and restrictive laws.

The HOA or property management is the power to take away your smoking rights, not the government. I think that they should nose out and try to fix some REAL problems, like failing our children in education or failing our elders who eat dog food to stay alive. I've seen it. It's bigger than smoking regulations. These people need to grow up and take responsibility to solve real problems.

Bear

PS- I could rant about this for days...

Jack we are not talking about the HOA, we are talking about local governments making the decision to ban smoking in all apartments and condo's. I can see the individual buisnesses having the right to ban whatever activities they want, but to force all rental property units to go smoke free is fascist and a breach of our constitutional rights.

The best thing we have here in Egypt about being a totally chaotic and lawless country is that nobody can ban you from smoking anywhere. Except on public transportation, and even that law is not much enforced.

quote:

Jack we are not talking about the HOA, we are talking about local governments making the decision to ban smoking in all apartments and condo's.

Okay, I've re-read the original news article that started this thread. The article focused on two small municipalities in California already well known for their clean air fervor. In one of the communities, the proposal applies only to future renters and current tenants who smoke may continue to do so for as long as they remain a resident.

Whether or not such local legislation is legal remains to be seen. Probably it isn't -- I hope not, anyway. But the trend to no-smoking policies on the part of HOAs and condo boards is clearly on the rise.

quote:

to force all rental property units to go smoke free is ... a breach of our constitutional rights.

Once again. There is no such constitutional provision that allows you to smoke in your home, or anywhere. Nor are smokers a protected group.

Who should we single out next?
The people who walk with a limp.
The Jews,Italians,Irish,French,German,Polish,Arabs.
Or pick any nationality you like its all the same.
Once you single out just one person or persons.
That why they are the ANTI SMOKING NAZI'S.
Sorry did not mean to yell.

This doesn't surprise me.

NOR I

quote:

Who should we single out next?
The people who walk with a limp.
The Jews,Italians,Irish,French,German,Polish,Arabs.
Or pick any nationality you like its all the same.
Once you single out just one person or persons.
That why they are the ANTI SMOKING NAZI'S.

Jeez, let's all try to calm down and keep a little perspective here, okay? We're talking about two small towns in California, communities with a long history of electing spacey earthy-crunchies to their town council, which then tries to enact over-the-top ordinances, illegal and unenforceable, in the interest of clean air. The town fathers of Calabas, CA aren't about to start this country down any metaphorical slippery slope to repression. FBI agents aren't gonna come knocking on your door in the middle of the night and haul you away if you light up.

Second, though I know you didn't intend it to be so, it's actually a bit offensive when you suggest that targeting smokers is the moral equivalent of anti-semitism or discrimination against any ethnic groups. Using the word "Nazis" to describe anyone who feels the public health outweighs your individual right to smoke wherever you want is likewise thoughtless, and is vastly unkind to those of an earlier genertion who did suffer at the hands of the real Nazis.

Look, I love smoking my cigars and I've agreed on these boards that anti-smoking laws are unnecessarily harsh and go too far. But that being said, your individual right to smoke is far outweighed by the right of a person to be free from your smoke and its effects. The public health is more important than your freedom to indulge your habit.

A few of you guys are more worried and vocal about losing your "right" to smoke than you are about the current and real-life erosion of our liberties and way of life caused by the ill-named Patriot Act. But that's another topic.

FYI -- I read recently about Friendship Heights, Maryland (a community of high-rise apartment buildings, a fraction of a square mile) that tried to prohibit smoking on public property including sidewalks. The court ruled that the village did not have the jurisdiction to legislate regarding smoking, and did not address the issue of whether any other town in Maryland could do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
Once again, people, there is no such thing as "smokers' rights".

A condominium is governed by a homeowner's association, which holds the property in trust on behalf of all the homeowners as a group. The HOA's bylaws may at any time prohibit smoking, and the individual condo owner is bound by this provision. There is ample court precedent -- and not only in California -- upholding an HOA's enforceable right to prohibit condominium owners from smoking in the property they own.

True but only with the consent by vote of the owners themselves - each has a vote in the HOA.