So the burden is on Lady T to bring a nuisance action against her neighbor because she wants to enjoy a smoke-free environment?
This is why I hate libertarians. Completely nonsensical.
Nazi Alert
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
So the burden is on Lady T to bring a nuisance action against her neighbor because she wants to enjoy a smoke-free environment?
This is why I hate libertarians. Completely nonsensical.
So what if she wears perfume and the remnants of it on the elevator set off my allergies? What if I can smell it when I am on my balcony? Should it be illegal for her to wear it?
The difference is that second-hand smoke has a negative health impact on everyone, not just particular people with particular sensitivities. People have won these types of cases depending on the particular state and the amount of cigarette smoke involved. I doubt the same can be said about perfume.
uscitizen
Villified User
depends on how much you drink.
Or if you come home smelling like perfume that is not your wifes brand....
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
So what? Whether the health risks are exaggerated or not -- which is not yours to decide for anyone else, I point out -- you are still demanding the "right" to intrude your smoke into my home. Not just my personal space, into my home.
If my neighbor plays her stereo too loudly for too long, and if she's a totally inconsiderate bitch about it by refusing to compromise, I can bring the cops down on her. If I let my barbecue smoke too much and too often, and if I don't respond to friendly requests to cut it back, I can be hit with a cease and desist order. But if my neighbors -- with whom I share one wall -- don't quit stinking up my house with their freakin' Marlboroughs, or whatever stinky carcinogenic shit it is they smoke, I have no recourse should they prove unreasonable. None at all.
This isn't a matter of property rights. At least not entirely.
The claims on the EPA study are exaggerated. Nobody is trying to decide for anyone else, except those demanding restrictions. No one is claiming a right to intrude smoke into your home.
Most of us live in communities. We do this of our own free choice. There is still plenty of opportunity to go live out in the boonies and try to fence yourself off if you like. But instead we choose to live near others. That means we have to put up with some of their annoyances, but not their harmful pollutants. But to say any and all crossings enable the state to enact laws offer no limit on the amount of dictatorial control.
Who are you to decide for others what is too loudly or too long. And what right do they have to intrude even a whisper of their music into my home. Not just my personal space, into my home.
Who are you to decide for others what is too much smoke or too often. And what right do they have to intrude even a whiff of their smoke/odor into my home. Not just my personal space, into my home.
Who said you should have no recourse should the level prove unreasonable. This law makes unreasonable any at all.
Name three people that have been killed by second hand smoke. Can you even name one?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Do you honestly think there aren't folks around who never smoked a cigarette in their lives, lived with a smoker, and died of lung cancer?
The studies say there's a 20-30 percent increase in risk for lung cancer. That means, if it's true, that there are THOUSANDS who have died form second hand smoke.
You're sounding like Dano.
She could easily join with other neighbors. It is not likely and seems absurd, because the nuissance is most likely minimal and insignificant.
A better solution that would more likely develop without government interference is smoke free apartment complexes, condos, neighborhoods, etc..
The government was not needed to develop 55+ communities. They cam about because of consumer demand. Nobody needed to pass a law to ban kids or bring a hopeless court action.
Rstringfield said:
http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html
According to the Canadian Cancer Society....
"Each year, more than 1000 non-smoking Canadians die from second-hand smoke."
But wait, weren't the they the same ones that got us into Iraq?
That's from the epa study. And you are wrong on THOUSANDS even if we accept that it is valid. The EPA study found a 1 in 100000 chance of developing lung cancer for non smokers not exposed to ETS. Those exposed had a 1.25 in 100000.
Or I could easily call the police and put an end to it immediately. Secondly this proposal of yours is stupid on its face because you clearly have no idea of the situation I'm in or the severity of it. You're basing your ASSumptions on your experience and tolerance to smoke and your clear disregard to the ill health effects of second hand smoke. The only people I share a common hallway with are the people below me. How am I going to get neighbors to join me if they aren't experiencing the same problem? As it stands I'm reliant on your suggestions which are more than likely going to leave me shit out of luck. If I were in the area of the "nazi's" as you refer to them, I'd have a recourse which is brilliant.
Again...Kudos to the Northern Cal Extremists!
This thread is focused on cancer, which is fine, but there are other negative effects that also help to contribute to sickness and eventual death.
Beefy
Worst gambler ever
I once knew a guy whose life was saved by second hand smoke. He almost died, but the stench woke him up, and he escaped from a fire.
But you're certainly not going to read about THAT at this hokey cancer site.
LMAO...........
This is true. You're acquaintence didn't make it into any of my statistics.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
The point is that such an ordinance is little different from any other nuisance abatement ordinance. Excessive noise, say, from my neighbors can be a serious problem. Most often, if I come up and say "Hey, I have to get up at 5:30 every morning, so could you turn it down by 10:00?" everything's cool and the law doesn't come into it. If, however, my neighbor turns out to be an ass, I do have the law to fall back on. I'd rather not but I will if I have to.
But in the case of smoking in the next door unit, I have no recourse. If the neighbor insists on being an ass, I either have to move or just live with it. As you may have guessed, this is becoming a real world issue between myself and my real world neighbors -- and I was here first, dadgummit.
You are insisting that their alleged right to smoke in their home overrides my right to be unmolested in my home. Certainly a line has to be drawn somewhere but there's nothing revolutionary or Draconian about establishing a law to come down on one side or the other in the case of, ah, irreconcilable differences.
If you live out in the sticks, you still can't necessarily stand out in the middle of your property and fire guns in the air at will. Why? Because the bullets may come down in someone else's property. This is exactly the same principle. If they can figure out some way to smoke cigarettes without the smoke and stench making it's way into my home then they can puff away: I'd have zero objection.
Like most people who prattle on about property rights, you're being very selective about which property rights you support and to whom they apply.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
And even if there were no negative health effects at all, you still don't have the right to make other people smell whatever you feel like making them smell. Not in their own homes. You never have had that right, nor should you.
That's an editorial "you" not a you "you".
And even if there were no negative health effects at all, you still don't have the right to make other people smell whatever you feel like making them smell. Not in their own homes. You never have had that right, nor should you.
That's an editorial "you" not a you "you".
Thank you!