Nazi Alert

RStringfield said:
But the ordinances prohibit unreasonable noise, not noise.

This law allows police to fine smokers. There is no need to go before a court. And it is not based on any excessive infiltration of smoke into your neighbors home or infiltration of smoke at all. It prohibits smoking in mutli unit housing. That's it. Your reading into it and your analogy does not work.
Click to expand...
<*sigh*>
The ban in the San Mateo County city would be complaint driven, meaning residents whose units are getting secondhand smoke can call police. Police would then ask the residents who are smoking to stop.



Repeated violation of the ordinance could lead to fines of $100 or more. But Warden and Mayor Coralin Feierbach, who also voted for the ban, predicted that police would rarely be called to enforce the law and that people would comply voluntarily.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the ordinance should probably explicitly say "excessive smoking in multi-unit housing." Actually, it might: I don't believe I've seen the text literally quoted anywhere.

In any event, nuisance abatement regulation in general tends to be this way.
 
"But Warden and Mayor Coralin Feierbach, who also voted for the ban, predicted that police would rarely be called to enforce the law and that people would comply voluntarily."

Well if they would comply "voluntarily" I don't imagine a law would be neccessary.
 
Warren said:
"But Warden and Mayor Coralin Feierbach, who also voted for the ban, predicted that police would rarely be called to enforce the law and that people would comply voluntarily."

Well if they would comply "voluntarily" I don't imagine a law would be neccessary.
Click to expand...
A valid point. Still, my argument about other nuisance abatement ordinances stands. Yes, in some cities they try to put "objective" decibel level and time constraints on noise complaints, say. I believe that such attempts are relatively rare, however: most such ordinances are worded as generally as the proposed Belmont smoking ordinance is.

As silly as it may sound, the simple fact that something is indeed illegal does seem to provide just enough of a "nudge" to promote reasonable behavior. Or at least it can. I think it's common enough to be worth a try in the case of a smoking ordinance, anyway.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
A valid point. Still, my argument about other nuisance abatement ordinances stands. Yes, in some cities they try to put "objective" decibel level and time constraints on noise complaints, say. I believe that such attempts are relatively rare, however: most such ordinances are worded as generally as the proposed Belmont smoking ordinance is.

As silly as it may sound, the simple fact that something is indeed illegal does seem to provide just enough of a "nudge" to promote reasonable behavior. Or at least it can. I think it's common enough to be worth a try in the case of a smoking ordinance, anyway.
Click to expand...

No. That makes them Nazis.
 
RStringfield said:
I only posted this to show there are other studies in response to you continuously falling back on authority arguments when you have nothing to add of your own. I made no claim about it's accuracy or methodology. Just as you did with all the links you posted, I did not review it.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm full of shit and getting so desperate at this point in the debate, I'm doing a "switchback" and using the very things I preached against to try to prove my ridiculous point.
 
RStringfield said:
It's a strawman, on many levels. Consitution has pretty much nothing to do with it. Further, I already pointed out the right to smoke is not even relevant here. The issue here is property rights.

If someone is violating your property rights with pollution that is one thing. But secondhand smoke from a neighboring apartment is not significant and to pretend it is, opens the door to state regulation of all sorts of activities.

And, as I mentioned, the inconsistent enforcement is a danger, for the same reasons it is a danger in the war on drgus.
Click to expand...

Why do you get to judge what's a violation of my property rights? If the issue is property rights, it's my property and I deem it a violation of my space to have to breathe your smoke. The issue is health, but even using your logic this is another case where the libertarian argument caves in on itself.

If It's my property, I get to determine what is a violation of my space free from the force or coersion of you telling me that I should allow 6 cigarettes to violate me simply because you think I should.

In fact, this ordinance enforces property rights more than you do. It says that no one's property or space should be violated by the bad habits of another.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
<*sigh*>
Yeah, the ordinance should probably explicitly say "excessive smoking in multi-unit housing." Actually, it might: I don't believe I've seen the text literally quoted anywhere.

In any event, nuisance abatement regulation in general tends to be this way.
Click to expand...
I'm reasonably sure it is a complaint only issue, if you have good reason to complain then you can.

The reality is that smoke cannot pass through walls, and attaches to even screens, rather than passing through them on a large part. Some small filtration would likely work for you.

I'm not complaining about the law, I'm just willing to see how far one can go with it. What if a person is truly allergic to, well let's use latex, where they can get truly sick walking through a hallway that you and all your neighbors walked through while wearing rubber-soled shoes. Should they make it so you have to take your shoes off to protect that person?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
<*sigh*>
Yeah, the ordinance should probably explicitly say "excessive smoking in multi-unit housing." Actually, it might: I don't believe I've seen the text literally quoted anywhere.

In any event, nuisance abatement regulation in general tends to be this way.
Click to expand...

<*sigh*>

The article quite clearly says it bans smoking in multi unit dwelling. It says nothing about excessive smoke. You are inventing this condition without any indication that it exists.
 
LadyT said:
Translation: I'm full of shit and getting so desperate at this point in the debate, I'm doing a "switchback" and using the very things I preached against to try to prove my ridiculous point.
Click to expand...

No, just as I said, I posted the link only to show there are others studies. You kept claiming the headline from your link was the final word.

So you are now acknowledging the interviews are bogus?
 
RStringfield said:
No, just as I said, I posted the link only to show there are others studies. You kept claiming the headline from your link was the final word.

So you are now acknowledging the interviews are bogus?
Click to expand...

I'm acknowledging that you can't even stay in the framework of your arguments.
 
blackascoal said:
Why do you get to judge what's a violation of my property rights? If the issue is property rights, it's my property and I deem it a violation of my space to have to breathe your smoke. The issue is health, but even using your logic this is another case where the libertarian argument caves in on itself.

If It's my property, I get to determine what is a violation of my space free from the force or coersion of you telling me that I should allow 6 cigarettes to violate me simply because you think I should.

In fact, this ordinance enforces property rights more than you do. It says that no one's property or space should be violated by the bad habits of another.
Click to expand...

Been over this alreadt. Yall guys keep spinning around in circles.

So smells from my neighbors coooking should be treated as trespasses?

You all have avoided answering cause you are bunch of intellectual cowards. Either that, or you will fall back to, "cooking smells wont kill you".. duhhh. This response completely ignores the position you set up where YOU not I (like I fucking claimed I should be the one empowered to decide or it should be written on a stone somewhere) get to determine what is a violation of your property. And there is no proof that this level of seconhand smoke will kill.

No, YOU, do not get to decide what is a trespass. Your neighbor's cat crosses into your lawn, does not mean YOU get to shoot the cat or the neighbor for trespassing.
 
LadyT said:
I'm acknowledging that you can't even stay in the framework of your arguments.
Click to expand...

Im well within the framework T. We can dismiss that source as invalid. Fine with me. Will do the same with the EPA, WHO and SG. The point was only to show that there are other reports.
 
RStringfield said:
I will take a look at the link. I don't doubt there are health effects, especially for those with direct exposure (live with a smoker). I am primarily talking about the ridiculous claims of 3000-50000 deaths per year and other such bs. Since the EPA study is the source of those ridiculous claims, that is what I am attacking.

There are plenty of studies that have found no link, UCLA 2003 is one. Some of the ones included in the EPAs metastudy even found a positive impact.
Click to expand...


You can ignore the worldwide, mainstream scientific consensus that second hand smoke is a known carcinogen that DOES cause lung cancer. Forget about that.

Second hand smoke, without a shadow of a doubt, can cause other respiratory ailments besides lung cancer, and at a bare minimum is a nuisance and an unreasonable intrusion on the property rights of others, if the amount of smoking is excessive.
 
You know what... being a smoker, I am starting to be glad that these kind of ordinances are being passed, not because of political philosophy, because I still disagree with it, but because I have cut back majorly on smoking. Here in Ohio, you can't even smoke in the bars anymore. Guess how I started smoking? I went to the bar, got drunk, and cigarettes looked good at the time because my judgement had been impaired, and I got hooked after about 6 months of 'social' smoking. Honestly, I should just cut back on my own, but it has helped to not be drunk and seeing cigarettes all around me. I'd rather be around my friends than to be outside puffing a cigarette.

On the flipside, when I was in Vegas for an IT Conference, I learned more standing around the ashtray smoking with everyone than in the conferences themselves.

But, as far as this ordinnance goes, the enforcement is going to have to be only when someone complains. Obviously someone is going to have to feel like someone is invading their property with smoke before action is taken. Unless you get vindictive neighbors just looking for a reason to piss you off. Make's me a fence sitter on the issue, but thank goodness it's just San Fran...
 
Cypress said:
You can ignore the worldwide, mainstream scientific consensus that second hand smoke is a known carcinogen that DOES cause lung cancer. Forget about that.

Second hand smoke, without a shadow of a doubt, can cause other respiratory ailments besides lung cancer, and at a bare minimum is a nuisance and an unreasonable intrusion on the property rights of others, if the amount of smoking is excessive.
Click to expand...
Ealier my example of perfume was dismissed because of the reasons you are now giving for smoke.

What if I am allergic to capsaicin, and breathing it from somebody else's cooking can cause serious complications to conditions such as COPD? Should we make it illegal to cook green chili with your windows open, and if it somehow gets into my house regardless of carefully shutting your windows what charges should we bring?
 
DigitalDave said:
You know what... being a smoker, I am starting to be glad that these kind of ordinances are being passed, not because of political philosophy, because I still disagree with it, but because I have cut back majorly on smoking. Here in Ohio, you can't even smoke in the bars anymore. Guess how I started smoking? I went to the bar, got drunk, and cigarettes looked good at the time because my judgement had been impaired, and I got hooked after about 6 months of 'social' smoking. Honestly, I should just cut back on my own, but it has helped to not be drunk and seeing cigarettes all around me. I'd rather be around my friends than to be outside puffing a cigarette.

On the flipside, when I was in Vegas for an IT Conference, I learned more standing around the ashtray smoking with everyone than in the conferences themselves.

But, as far as this ordinnance goes, the enforcement is going to have to be only when someone complains. Obviously someone is going to have to feel like someone is invading their property with smoke before action is taken. Unless you get vindictive neighbors just looking for a reason to piss you off. Make's me a fence sitter on the issue, but thank goodness it's just San Fran...
Click to expand...

1) Pinko
2) Exactly. If people live harmoniously with the smoke, then there won't be an issue. If someone's property rights are being trampled on then the victim will have resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top