Condo owners lose right to smoke in own home

[ViRedd]

Just an observation here. If you own it, it's your right to dirty the walls, stink up the place, etc.
I still stand by the absurdity that the smell permeates into others quarters in a fashion that is harmful to them.
And I'll go right back to the example of Indian neighbors too. You don't know how bad ANY single thing smells until you live over a family that cooks with the combination of spices they use for breakfast, snack, lunch and dinner. They will not even run their AC on the hottest of hottest days. On top of that, they rarely if ever shower.
Unless you have lived through these conditions, you have no idea what I am speaking about.
Given all of those "offenses".......there is no smell ordinance anywhere that I am aware of.
I have no more right to tell them to stop cooking than they do ordering I stop smoking.
Last, there will naturally be a slightly higher risk for fire if you are a smoker. I see more fires due to Christmas trees being lit, or people's use of candles. You can't ban those either.
And what about water? Water damage is known to be so much more detrimental than fire damage.
My walls are my domain. I suport the right for it to be every person's right.....even when it offends me.

I feel for you on this one, Babs. You wouldn't believe some of the places I've sold over the years. Honestly, the smell can be so overbearing, that its all one can do to keep from puking. Not talking about folks from India here either ... just common, Ameridan White Trash.

 

[medicineman]

No, if you reread the posts, you'll find that I agreed with you in that thread as well. My point was about government banning smoking in PRIVATE PROPERTY, not landlords banning smoking in their leased property.

Government has no legitimate role in deciding who smokes and who does not ... unless the smoking violates the rights of others ... and in this case, the landlord's right to his property is being violated, as well as the lease contract. Therefore, the tenant should be responsible for any damages. The landlord should be able to sue (government court) and recover damages.

Same thing applies when a tenant doesn't pay the rent. The landlord serves a three day notice. After that, and eventually, the sheriff (government police) evicts the tenant.

Smoking lowers IQ, go figure, I'd have to say that most smokers are kinda lean on IQ to begin with. LOL, this ought to bring out a cloud of smokers. I say ban the substance, tobacco, it is a known carcinogen, then just like pot, the price of illegal tobacco will rise past the affordable stage and smokers will have to grow their own. Can you imagine a grow closet for tobacco, hilarious. Maybe they will just have injectable Nicotine.
Here are some of the chemicals inherent in tobacco leaves, not counting the known carcinogens the tobacco companies add to addict smokers:
"Chemical analysis shows the tobacco leaf to contain an unusual number of constituents. Nicotine, nicotianine, and tobacco acid or malic acid are characteristic. Nitric, hydrochloric, sulphuric, phosphoric, citric, acetic, oxalic, pictic, and ulmic acids are also present. The quantity of mineral matter is large, amounting in some cases to 27 per cent."—Prof. John I. D. Hinds, Ph.D.,
Also added by the tobacco companies, here's a very small partial list:

• Arsenic used in rat poison
• Acetic Acid hair dye and photo developer
• Acetone main ingredient in paint and fingernail polish remover
• Ammonia a typical household cleaner
• Benzene rubber cement
• Cadmium found in batteries and artists' oil paint
• Carbon Monoxide poison
• Hydrazine used in jet and rocket fuels
• Formaldehyde used to embalm dead bodies
• Hydrogen Cyanide poison in gas chambers
• Napthalenes used in explosives, moth balls, and paint pigments
• Nickel used in the process of electroplating
• Phenol used in disinfectants and plastics
• Polonium radiation dosage, equal to 300 chest X-rays in one year
• Toluene embalmer's glue(1)

Happy smoking addicts.

 

[ViRedd]

Okay, so we agree that you should be free to do what you want on property that you OWN.

Do you think it should be legal for a 5 year old kid to smoke, and the government shouldn't regulate the sale of cigarettes to minors?

We should have laws against child abuse. Child abuse is the violation of the rights of another (the child) to life, liberty and property ... the property being the child itself. Anti-smoking laws are besides the point in my opinion.

What say you?

 

[ViRedd]

I say ban the substance, tobacco, it is a known carcinogen, then just like pot, the price of illegal tobacco will rise past the affordable stage and smokers will have to grow their own.

Only one problem ... well, a couple of problems with that, Med.

1. Tobacco is highly addicting. In fact, some heroin addicts say that they quit heroin, but can't quit the cigs/chew. Therefore, they would be breaking into our homes and stealing our stereos. In your case, your guns.

2. Home grown tobacco can be so strong as to be toxic. Like deadly toxic. There was an interesting thread about growing your own tobacco on another pot site. A couple of guys were growing their own and warned of the hazards.

 

[Green Cross]

Only one problem ... well, a couple of problems with that, Med.

1. Tobacco is highly addicting. In fact, some heroin addicts say that they quit heroin, but can't quit the cigs/chew. Therefore, they would be breaking into our homes and stealing our stereos. In your case, your guns.

2. Home grown tobacco can be so strong as to be toxic. Like deadly toxic. There was an interesting thread about growing your own tobacco on another pot site. A couple of guys were growing their own and warned of the hazards.

Amazing you want to ban tobacco, but legalize marijuana.

I'm afraid there's no hope for you all.

Guns are dangerous, should they be banned from apartments too?

 

[medicineman]

Only one problem ... well, a couple of problems with that, Med.

1. Tobacco is highly addicting. In fact, some heroin addicts say that they quit heroin, but can't quit the cigs/chew. Therefore, they would be breaking into our homes and stealing our stereos. In your case, your guns.

2. Home grown tobacco can be so strong as to be toxic. Like deadly toxic. There was an interesting thread about growing your own tobacco on another pot site. A couple of guys were growing their own and warned of the hazards.

The substance is already pure poison. The hazard is already there. I quit about 15 years ago, Nothing like an ex-smoker to rate smoking.

 

[doobnVA]

We should have laws against child abuse. Child abuse is the violation of the rights of another (the child) to life, liberty and property ... the property being the child itself. Anti-smoking laws are besides the point in my opinion.

What say you?

I say you just skirted the question in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite (yet again).

You say the government shouldn't dictate who can smoke and who can't.

Again, do you think a 5 year old kid should be able to walk into a store and buy a pack of cigarettes?

Should a 10 year old be allowed to walk into a bar and order a beer?

If you're so against "government intervention" then you should have no problem simply admitting that you think kids should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol. It's their right, is it not? Unless, of course, you're afraid to because you know that would be a VERY unpopular stance to take.

 

[ViRedd]

Only one problem ... well, a couple of problems with that, Med.

1. Tobacco is highly addicting. In fact, some heroin addicts say that they quit heroin, but can't quit the cigs/chew. Therefore, they would be breaking into our homes and stealing our stereos. In your case, your guns.

2. Home grown tobacco can be so strong as to be toxic. Like deadly toxic. There was an interesting thread about growing your own tobacco on another pot site. A couple of guys were growing their own and warned of the hazards.


Amazing you want to ban tobacco, but legalize marijuana.

I'm afraid there's no hope for you all.

Guns are dangerous, should they be banned from apartments too?

Nope, I didn't say I want to ban tobacco. I was just commenting on the addictive qualities of tobacco and the dangers of growing your own for personal consumption. And by the way, if legalizing mj means turning the control of it over to the government so they can tax the hell out of it, I'm not for legalization either. Just leave it free. Its a friggin' weed, right?

 

[ViRedd]

I say you just skirted the question in order to avoid looking like a hypocrite (yet again).

You say the government shouldn't dictate who can smoke and who can't.

Again, do you think a 5 year old kid should be able to walk into a store and buy a pack of cigarettes?

Should a 10 year old be allowed to walk into a bar and order a beer?

If you're so against "government intervention" then you should have no problem simply admitting that you think kids should be able to buy cigarettes and alcohol. It's their right, is it not? Unless, of course, you're afraid to because you know that would be a VERY unpopular stance to take.

A child should be able to walk into a store, or a bar ... but if the merchant sells cigarettes or liquor to a child, that's child abuse, is it not? So ... where's the question being skirted?

Perhaps your thought process is a bit shallow?

 

[doobnVA]

A child should be able to walk into a store, or a bar ... but if the merchant sells cigarettes or liquor to a child, that's child abuse, is it not? So ... where's the question being skirted?

Perhaps your thought process is a bit shallow?

Child abuse? No. Contributing to the deliquency of a minor, yes, but child abuse? hardly. Using that logic, selling cigarettes to an adult could be considered "attempted murder" or "assault with a deadly weapon". So could the sale of alcohol resulting in intoxication and someone being killed by a drunk driver be considered "conspiracy to commit murder".


Perhaps your thought process is as nonexistent as your understanding of the law?

So you admit that you think a child should be able to legally walk into a store and buy cigarettes, or walk into a bar and order an alcoholic drink... THAT was the question you were skirting. I'm glad you finally grew some balls and admitted your gross disregard for the health and safety of children.

Bravo, Vi. Bravo.

 

[ViRedd]

Is it any wonder the economy is so fucked up? I can just imagine the parasites and tax consumers in the Obama administration sitting around the table bantering back and forth with the convoluted logic just displayed in your last post, doobie. I'll betcha the California state legislature is run the same way too. Just a bunch of Democrat Socialists "tweaking" the nation, all under the glorious cause of "doing what's right for the rest of us."

 

[doobnVA]

Is it any wonder the economy is so fucked up? I can just imagine the parasites and tax consumers in the Obama administration sitting around the table bantering back and forth with the convoluted logic just displayed in your last post, doobie. I'll betcha the California state legislature is run the same way too. Just a bunch of Democrat Socialists "tweaking" the nation, all under the glorious cause of "doing what's right for the rest of us."

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. First off, CA has a Republican governor.

Second, you have NO idea what a democratic socialist even IS.

I'll repeat here what I just said to you in another thread, the ONLY socialist in Congress voted AGAINST those bank bailouts that you and other radical right-wingers like to call "socialist".

Yeah, that's right, the SOCIALIST voted against your "SOCIALIST" bailouts.

Why? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T "socialist"! You have NO IDEA what socialism is! It's not a word to be used to describe anything you don't agree with!

YOU'RE IGNORANT! And obviously, you're very proud of it, because you never miss an opportunity to flaunt your ignorance for all to see!

 

[NoDrama]

Off Topic here, but a driver license is only needed if you are operating a vehicle in a commercial capacity.

The legal definition of driver: DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.


You can get almost any traffic ticket thrown out of court by using forethought, a little bit of effort and the legal definitions maxim.

Check this out: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/shl04.htm

 

[doobnVA]

Off Topic here, but a driver license is only needed if you are operating a vehicle in a commercial capacity.

The legal definition of driver: DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.


You can get almost any traffic ticket thrown out of court by using forethought, a little bit of effort and the legal definitions maxim.

Check this out: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/shl04.htm

Employed:
adjective

1. Having a job: hired, jobholding, retained, working. See work/play.
2. Involved in activity or work: busy, engaged, occupied. See action/inaction.

"Employed in conducting" does not mean what you think it means. Use the second definition of the word in lieu of "employed" and you get :

One involved in the activity of conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.


You also missed the disclaimer at the top of the page:

Although we do not know the identity of the author, the below file is
real. However, we do not suggest you follow most of its advice -- unless
you are attempting to see how many cops and Judges you can get REALLY
pissed-off. We can't remember when we saw so much bad advice in one
place. And honest, we didn't add anything to the material. - 'LLL staff

 

[NoDrama]

Employed:
adjective

1. Having a job: hired, jobholding, retained, working. See work/play.
2. Involved in activity or work: busy, engaged, occupied. See action/inaction.

"Employed in conducting" does not mean what you think it means. Use the second definition of the word in lieu of "employed" and you get :

One involved in the activity of conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.

You have to use the legal definitions Doob, not the Wiki definitions.

EMPLOYED. One who is in the service of another. Such a person is entitled to rights and liable to. perform certain duties.
2. He is entitled to a just compensation for his services; when there has been a special contract, to what has been agreed upon; when not, to such just recompense as he deserves.
3. He is bound to perform the services for which he has engaged himself; and for a violation of his engagement he may be sued, but he is not liable to corporal correction. An exception to this rule may be mentioned; on the ground of necessity, a sailor may be punished by reasonable correction, when it is necessary for the safety of the vessel, and to maintain discipline. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1001: 2 Id. n. 2296.

Yeah I saw the disclaimer, and it will piss them off, but it will still work every time because they are bound by law.

Cops get pissed off all the time, so do Judges, I have friends who are both. they get over it.

 

[doobnVA]

You have to use the legal definitions Doob, not the Wiki definitions.

EMPLOYED. One who is in the service of another. Such a person is entitled to rights and liable to. perform certain duties.
2. He is entitled to a just compensation for his services; when there has been a special contract, to what has been agreed upon; when not, to such just recompense as he deserves.
3. He is bound to perform the services for which he has engaged himself; and for a violation of his engagement he may be sued, but he is not liable to corporal correction. An exception to this rule may be mentioned; on the ground of necessity, a sailor may be punished by reasonable correction, when it is necessary for the safety of the vessel, and to maintain discipline. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1001: 2 Id. n. 2296.

Yeah I saw the disclaimer, and it will piss them off, but it will still work every time because they are bound by law.

Cops get pissed off all the time, so do Judges, I have friends who are both. they get over it.

You realize that states define the terms they use in legal code... they aren't based on ancient definitions off some free legal dictionary on the internet?

Here's the definition of "driver" from the Virginia motor vehicle code:

"Operator" or "driver" means every person who either (i) drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or (ii) is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.


Here's the definition from the Code of California:

A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.

Each state has its own definition, but I'm willing to bet that NO STATE relies on the free legal dictionary online for their definitions. They are all spelled out in the general provisions of state code.

 

[ViRedd]

You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. First off, CA has a Republican governor.

Second, you have NO idea what a democratic socialist even IS.

I'll repeat here what I just said to you in another thread, the ONLY socialist in Congress voted AGAINST those bank bailouts that you and other radical right-wingers like to call "socialist".

Yeah, that's right, the SOCIALIST voted against your "SOCIALIST" bailouts.

Why? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T "socialist"! You have NO IDEA what socialism is! It's not a word to be used to describe anything you don't agree with!

YOU'RE IGNORANT! And obviously, you're very proud of it, because you never miss an opportunity to flaunt your ignorance for all to see!

1. First off, CA has a Republican governor.

Does it really matter what label a person goes by, doob? Ahhhnold may be registered as a Republican, but the guy is a socialistic wuss all the way. He's married to a Kennedy fer cryin' out loud.

2. Second, you have NO idea what a democratic socialist even IS.

A democrat socialist would be a person who thinks he/she knows what is best for "The Little People," and uses the gun of government to force their fascist/communistic policies down other people's throats. I would put Rahm Emmanual in that category. Well, most of Obama's administration for that matter.

3. You have NO IDEA what socialism is!

Socialism is that political philosophy that is leading us down The Road to Serfdom. Oh yeah, I forgot, Frederic Hayek is a hypocritical idiot too, right?

And, you are an arrogant piece of work. You take a computer class in political science and you think your brain is setting the world on fire. Believe me doob ... there have been plenty of your ilk who have come before you ... and the damage caused by them in human sacrifice is not only astounding, but immoral and totally anti-human.

Now stick that in your bong and smoke it.

 

[NoDrama]

You realize that states define the terms they use in legal code... they aren't based on ancient definitions off some free legal dictionary on the internet?

Here's the definition of "driver" from the Virginia motor vehicle code:

"Operator" or "driver" means every person who either (i) drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle on a highway or (ii) is exercising control over or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.


Here's the definition from the Code of California:

A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting apparatus.

Each state has its own definition, but I'm willing to bet that NO STATE relies on the free legal dictionary online for their definitions. They are all spelled out in the general provisions of state code.

Virginia, where it illegal to have sex with the lights on, or to do it in any other position than the missionary. Where it is illegal to tickle women or use a radar detector. Where you must honk your horn when passing another citizen, AND Driving while not wearing shoes is prohibited.

Oh and you forgot the "other" LLL Admission at the bottom of the speeding ticket post.


"Note:The only thing we question regarding the above is why the author
even mentions 'appeal' since the chance of losing is so remote. - 'LLL staff"

 

[doobnVA]

1. First off, CA has a Republican governor.

Does it really matter what label a person goes by, doob? Ahhhnold may be registered as a Republican, but the guy is a socialistic wuss all the way. He's married to a Kennedy fer cryin' out loud.

He's married to a Kennedy, and that makes him a socialist? Wow, your perception of the world is WAY off. Don't you live in CA? According to your logic, that makes you a socialist by association since you live in a state run by a socialist.

2. Second, you have NO idea what a democratic socialist even IS.

A democrat socialist would be a person who thinks he/she knows what is best for "The Little People," and uses the gun of government to force their fascist/communistic policies down other people's throats. I would put Rahm Emmanual in that category. Well, most of Obama's administration for that matter.


WRONG. Again. Of course you would put ANYONE who doesn't share your views in "that category" (that category being the completely falsified category where fascism and socialism are the same thing)

3. You have NO IDEA what socialism is!

Socialism is that political philosophy that is leading us down The Road to Serfdom. Oh yeah, I forgot, Frederic Hayek is a hypocritical idiot too, right?

Nope, just you. Hayek was a bit of a loon, philosophically, but he got a few things right. Namely that conservatives would rather stand still, whereas liberals want to go somewhere (progressivism, anyone?).

And, you are an arrogant piece of work. You take a computer class in political science and you think your brain is setting the world on fire. Believe me doob ... there have been plenty of your ilk who have come before you ... and the damage caused by them in human sacrifice is not only astounding, but immoral and totally anti-human.

Now stick that in your bong and smoke it.

A computer class in political science? Political science is my MAJOR, Vi,(one of them) I've explained that to you before in great detail after YOU wanted to know. Remember? Obviously not...

 

[doobnVA]

Virginia, where it illegal to have sex with the lights on, or to do it in any other position than the missionary. Where it is illegal to tickle women or use a radar detector. Where you must honk your horn when passing another citizen, AND Driving while not wearing shoes is prohibited.

Oh and you forgot the "other" LLL Admission at the bottom of the speeding ticket post.


"Note:The only thing we question regarding the above is why the author
even mentions 'appeal' since the chance of losing is so remote. - 'LLL staff"

All states have archaic laws still on the books that aren't enforced. I posted the CA definition of "driver" for you, too.

If you like, I can dig up the definitions from all 48 other states?

ALABAMA: DRIVER. Every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/32-1-1.1.htm

ARIZONA: 18. "Driver" means a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00101.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS

COLORADO: "Driver" means every person, including a minor driver under the age of twenty-one years, who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

CONNECTICUT: "Driver" means any person who drives, operates or is in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle, or who is required to hold a commercial driver's license;

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap246.htm#Sec14-1.htm

DELWARE: "Operator" includes every person who is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle upon a highway, except that for the purposes of Chapter 29 of this title the term "operator" shall include a chauffeur.

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title21/c001/index.shtml

FLORIDA: [SIZE=-1]DRIVER.--Any person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle on a highway or who is exercising control of a vehicle or steering a vehicle being towed by a motor vehicle.

http://www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC003.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0316->Section 003#0316.003


I'd keep going, but I think I've made my point.

The "free online legal dictionary" IS NOT the source for legal definitions under state OR federal statutes. Again, these terms are defined WITHIN the legislation itself.
[/SIZE]