Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/11/2007 1:56:51 PM EST
This is inspired by the "Apartment Complex Smoking Ban' thread...

There were many folks who were quick to jump on this LOCAL law as a 'stupid idea', claiming it infringed upon the rights of smokers to enjoy their living-space/apartment...

But what about the rights of non-smokers to not have to smell/breathe smoke?

If a non-smoker has smoke (or smoke-smell) seeping into his apartment, isn't that doing the same thing to him? Isn't not having such a law producing the exact same effect by default on THAT person?

I would put forth that when you have 2 equal and conflicting freedoms (such as the freedom to smoke vs the freedom to not smell/breathe smoke, or the freedom to enjoy loud music vs the freedom to enjoy peace & quiet) that these are PERFECT situations for local government to resolve the issue through the representative-democratic process...

We are not talking 'victimless crime' here - we are talking about a situation where SOMEONE must be told 'NO' in one sense or another - either the person 'doing' the activity must be told to stop.... Or the person who wants the activity stopped must be told 'no, it will not be stopped'....

Shouldn't local government deal with this?

For the sake of argument, assume that both affected parties refuse to give any ground, and both insist on total exercise of their 'right'.....
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 2:35:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 2:36:41 PM EST by kill-9]

Originally Posted By Michael_B:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
This is inspired by the "Apartment Complex Smoking Ban' thread...

There were many folks who were quick to jump on this LOCAL law as a 'stupid idea', claiming it infringed upon the rights of smokers to enjoy their living-space/apartment...

But what about the rights of non-smokers to not have to smell/breathe smoke?

If a non-smoker has smoke (or smoke-smell) seeping into his apartment, isn't that doing the same thing to him? Isn't not having such a law producing the exact same effect by default on THAT person?

I would put forth that when you have 2 equal and conflicting freedoms (such as the freedom to smoke vs the freedom to not smell/breathe smoke, or the freedom to enjoy loud music vs the freedom to enjoy peace & quiet) that these are PERFECT situations for local government to resolve the issue through the representative-democratic process...

We are not talking 'victimless crime' here - we are talking about a situation where SOMEONE must be told 'NO' in one sense or another - either the person 'doing' the activity must be told to stop.... Or the person who wants the activity stopped must be told 'no, it will not be stopped'....

Shouldn't local government deal with this?

For the sake of argument, assume that both affected parties refuse to give any ground, and both insist on total exercise of their 'right'.....


absolutely not!

it is a property rights and contract law issue.

Government needs to stay the fuck out.



Agreed. Specifically, the tenants should take the issue up with the landlord. The landlord has the final say in resolution and must bear the consequences if one or both of the tenants decide to move out.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:13:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dionysus:
The non smoke should (have the freedom) to move into a non smoking apartment complex. The person the owns, and rents the apartment should decide what group he wants to rent to. Thats a win win freedom for all get the gov.fucking out of nanny laws. I'm sorry i am not good at following rules.


Why shouldn't the smoker have to move?

Once again, who gets to decide who's freedom is more important?
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:14:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:

Originally Posted By Michael_B:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
This is inspired by the "Apartment Complex Smoking Ban' thread...

There were many folks who were quick to jump on this LOCAL law as a 'stupid idea', claiming it infringed upon the rights of smokers to enjoy their living-space/apartment...

But what about the rights of non-smokers to not have to smell/breathe smoke?

If a non-smoker has smoke (or smoke-smell) seeping into his apartment, isn't that doing the same thing to him? Isn't not having such a law producing the exact same effect by default on THAT person?

I would put forth that when you have 2 equal and conflicting freedoms (such as the freedom to smoke vs the freedom to not smell/breathe smoke, or the freedom to enjoy loud music vs the freedom to enjoy peace & quiet) that these are PERFECT situations for local government to resolve the issue through the representative-democratic process...

We are not talking 'victimless crime' here - we are talking about a situation where SOMEONE must be told 'NO' in one sense or another - either the person 'doing' the activity must be told to stop.... Or the person who wants the activity stopped must be told 'no, it will not be stopped'....

Shouldn't local government deal with this?

For the sake of argument, assume that both affected parties refuse to give any ground, and both insist on total exercise of their 'right'.....


absolutely not!

it is a property rights and contract law issue.

Government needs to stay the fuck out.



Agreed. Specifically, the tenants should take the issue up with the landlord. The landlord has the final say in resolution and must bear the consequences if one or both of the tenants decide to move out.


Address the second premise, then:

Loud music in a residential neighborhood.

All homes are privately owned, no HOA.

Same point, without the landlord cop-out....
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:16:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By 580DBF:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
This is inspired by the "Apartment Complex Smoking Ban' thread...

There were many folks who were quick to jump on this LOCAL law as a 'stupid idea', claiming it infringed upon the rights of smokers to enjoy their living-space/apartment...

But what about the rights of non-smokers to not have to smell/breathe smoke?

If a non-smoker has smoke (or smoke-smell) seeping into his apartment, isn't that doing the same thing to him? Isn't not having such a law producing the exact same effect by default on THAT person?

I would put forth that when you have 2 equal and conflicting freedoms (such as the freedom to smoke vs the freedom to not smell/breathe smoke, or the freedom to enjoy loud music vs the freedom to enjoy peace & quiet) that these are PERFECT situations for local government to resolve the issue through the representative-democratic process...

We are not talking 'victimless crime' here - we are talking about a situation where SOMEONE must be told 'NO' in one sense or another - either the person 'doing' the activity must be told to stop.... Or the person who wants the activity stopped must be told 'no, it will not be stopped'....

Shouldn't local government deal with this?

For the sake of argument, assume that both affected parties refuse to give any ground, and both insist on total exercise of their 'right'.....


Post 1000 response.

Show me that fucker in the US Constitution and we'll talk.

It must be right next to the one that provides for the right not to be offended, stupid, or anything else I (You, they) don't like.

I suppose the owners could put non-smoking provisions in thier rental contracts. Oh, wait. That might be dicriminatory.

We need a new law!!!!



We aren't talking FEDERAL here...

Not a US Constitution issue...

And in any case, I can reply by saying 'Show me the right to smoke tobacco'...

We are dealing with 2 opposing and EQUAL desires to exercise smal-'r'-rights/freedoms...

Neither position has any legal advantage over the other...



Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:25:54 PM EST
Holy crap you guys.

1. The constitution does not GRANT rights. It LIMITS the government.

2. It's up to property owners to decide what rules they want to set for their property.

It's that simple.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:27:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By catch223:
Holy crap you guys.

1. The constitution does not GRANT rights. It LIMITS the government.

2. It's up to property owners to decide what rules they want to set for their property.

It's that simple.


We aren't talking about FEDERAL issues or the Constitution...

We are talking about LOCAL government, and conflicts BETWEEN property owners or property renters over equal and conflicting rights/freedoms...
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:31:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:


We aren't talking FEDERAL here...

Not a US Constitution issue...

And in any case, I can reply by saying 'Show me the right to smoke tobacco'...

We are dealing with 2 opposing and EQUAL desires to exercise smal-'r'-rights/freedoms...

Neither position has any legal advantage over the other...





Two men enter, one man leaves, then.

Really. Only a whining pussy really gives a shit what someone else does within the confines of that someone's home. The fact that some people choose to live in apartments is not the issue, as there are less intrusive solutions to the 'smoke' problem, (or noise, or anything else), that still allow people to kill themselves any way they choose, than passing a 'bad behavior' law. Note that I can avoid the 'secondhand smoke' argument if I use the right solution in the first place, so that is a non-starter.

Don't like your neighbor, or his/her annoying 'habits', then learn to ignore, negotiate, kick ass, or move. Alternatively, get said neighbor to move. Don't call someone else in to solve what is, essentially, a personal problem. Where does it end? Show me the line where some nosy POS absolutely has to stop. Before you do, look up 'curtilage'. That might help.

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:43:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Address the second premise, then:

Loud music in a residential neighborhood.

All homes are privately owned, no HOA.

Same point, without the landlord cop-out....


"cop-out"? Ouch.

Yes, noise ordinances and "disturbing the peace" laws are just and proper.

Next?
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:46:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
You have got to have 25 people chain smoking for the majority of the day for smoke to seep into other apartments.

In generally living in an apartment means you ought to expect inconvienences of your neighbors. This is why people buy homes at the first opportunity.


Stick to the scenario....

We have a poster who had the above problem, in that thread... Based on one unit directly below his...

So don't say it never happens....

Loud music is another example...



I've got that problem right now. One guy lives below me. Chains smokes. The smell stinks up my place all the time.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:50:58 PM EST

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=627374&page=5

Originally Posted By Backstop:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
There has to be a balance, and that balance should be created by the legal system, not by neighbors having fist, knife, or gunfights over what time one should turn off the stereo....


Bah.

Our legal system has no business settling disputes over what time to turn the stereo down.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:54:31 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

For the sake of argument, assume that both affected parties refuse to give any ground, and both insist on total exercise of their 'right'.....


Pistols at dawn...
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 4:55:26 PM EST
We have the right to life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.

No where does it say we have the right to happiness, just to PURSUE it.
We do however have the right to LIBERTY.

Just my .02$
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 5:39:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 5:41:09 PM EST by BangStick1]
I don't like to hear talking coming through the walls of my apartment. I can also hear talking through the same vents that brings the cigarette smoke.

The talking keeps me up all night long and is causing great stress. Stress leads to health problems too.

I want the gov't to pass a law to ban talking in apartments!




The nanny state has to be stopped somewhere!! Someone with concerns over the air they breathe should not be moving into a building with a shared ventilation system.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 6:14:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
This is inspired by the "Apartment Complex Smoking Ban' thread...

There were many folks who were quick to jump on this LOCAL law as a 'stupid idea', claiming it infringed upon the rights of smokers to enjoy their living-space/apartment...

But what about the rights of non-smokers to not have to smell/breathe smoke?

If a non-smoker has smoke (or smoke-smell) seeping into his apartment, isn't that doing the same thing to him? Isn't not having such a law producing the exact same effect by default on THAT person?

I would put forth that when you have 2 equal and conflicting freedoms (such as the freedom to smoke vs the freedom to not smell/breathe smoke, or the freedom to enjoy loud music vs the freedom to enjoy peace & quiet) that these are PERFECT situations for local government to resolve the issue through the representative-democratic process...

We are not talking 'victimless crime' here - we are talking about a situation where SOMEONE must be told 'NO' in one sense or another - either the person 'doing' the activity must be told to stop.... Or the person who wants the activity stopped must be told 'no, it will not be stopped'....

Shouldn't local government deal with this?

For the sake of argument, assume that both affected parties refuse to give any ground, and both insist on total exercise of their 'right'.....


Slippery slope. What if my SO is a screamer and the mattress springs squeek? Should we not have sex then?

What if cook smelly food. Should i not be able to eat what i want because it offends somebody?

Loud music....there are noise ordinances

Smoking......should not be regulated with in living quarters.

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 6:20:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By lumper:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By tifosi:
We have the right to life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.

No where does it say we have the right to happiness, just to PURSUE it.
We do however have the right to LIBERTY.

Just my .02$


So what happens when your liberty diminishes my liberty?


Perhaps we could petition the government to allow dueling? It worked for the founding fathers, and I think it would work for us today.


Great... Legalize murder as a valid method of solving disputes...

That's about as pathetic as allowing schoolyard fights - and a whole lot more 'final'....
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 6:21:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 6:22:45 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By sc_beerbarge:

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
This is inspired by the "Apartment Complex Smoking Ban' thread...

There were many folks who were quick to jump on this LOCAL law as a 'stupid idea', claiming it infringed upon the rights of smokers to enjoy their living-space/apartment...

But what about the rights of non-smokers to not have to smell/breathe smoke?

If a non-smoker has smoke (or smoke-smell) seeping into his apartment, isn't that doing the same thing to him? Isn't not having such a law producing the exact same effect by default on THAT person?

I would put forth that when you have 2 equal and conflicting freedoms (such as the freedom to smoke vs the freedom to not smell/breathe smoke, or the freedom to enjoy loud music vs the freedom to enjoy peace & quiet) that these are PERFECT situations for local government to resolve the issue through the representative-democratic process...

We are not talking 'victimless crime' here - we are talking about a situation where SOMEONE must be told 'NO' in one sense or another - either the person 'doing' the activity must be told to stop.... Or the person who wants the activity stopped must be told 'no, it will not be stopped'....

Shouldn't local government deal with this?

For the sake of argument, assume that both affected parties refuse to give any ground, and both insist on total exercise of their 'right'.....


Slippery slope. What if my SO is a screamer and the mattress springs squeek? Should we not have sex then?

What if cook smelly food. Should i not be able to eat what i want because it offends somebody?

Loud music....there are noise ordinances

Smoking......should not be regulated with in living quarters.



So what makes smoking different from loud music?

And once again, we have representative government for a reason...

No ban on sex or cooking 'smelly food' is going to pass a city council... If it did, it's recall time....

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 6:26:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 6:26:54 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By SGTCap:
wouldnt this be a case for apartment complex rules and not local laws?


Apparently that is not approved of by ARFCOM either, as applied to property owners...

While it's the obvious answer for apartments, when dealing with actual homes, when neighbors get together and form a private organization (HOA) to settle these sorts of issues without involving government... People here scream and moan about it...

These people generally just hate rules of any kind - that's my conclusion anyway....
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 6:37:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By SGTCap:
wouldnt this be a case for apartment complex rules and not local laws?


Apparently that is not approved of by ARFCOM either, as applied to property owners...

While it's the obvious answer for apartments, when dealing with actual homes, when neighbors get together and form a private organization (HOA) to settle these sorts of issues without involving government... People here scream and moan about it...

These people generally just hate rules of any kind - that's my conclusion anyway....


The landlord is the "lord of the manor" in these type of things. He owns the property. If he wants to cater to smokers and non smokers alike... so be it, deal with it or don't move in. If he wants to ban smoking on his property... don't smoke there.

HOA are something different, and not germane to this discussion.

Top Top