Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on October 10, 2007, 01:09:29 PM

Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: JB73 on October 10, 2007, 01:09:29 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300658,00.html

Quote


BELMONT, Calif. —  Officials in Belmont have given final approval to a new smoking ban that is considered to be one of the toughest in the nation.

After a late push to ease some of the restrictions, the Belmont City Council voted Tuesday to pass the anti-smoking ordinance.

Prohibitions on smoking in parks and other public places will take effect in 30 days. The ordinance's most hotly contested elements — which ban smoking inside apartments and condominiums — won't be enforced for another 14 months.

Officials say the ordinance was written so that smokers will only face enforcement if their neighbors complain.

People will still be able to smoke on Belmont's streets and sidewalks as long as they are not loitering near the entrance to homes or businesses and in parking lots and designated smoking areas.



Can they truly dictate what you can and can not do in your own freaking home?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


I hope california drops into the ocean real soon. freaking insane people there.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: JBA on October 10, 2007, 01:18:36 PM
Just wait to see what they try if Hillary is elected and we get universal health care,  

i.e.
you want that chemo treatment, OK first quit smoking.

How about that hip replacement, fine stop playing tennis.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: cav58d on October 10, 2007, 01:18:48 PM
What a load of crap...It doesn't mention anything about traditional homes though...Are they included?  If not, why just apartments and condo's?  Are they using because of the proximity of other tenants, and sharing of systems (water, air etc...)
Title: Re: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Neubob on October 10, 2007, 01:21:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JB73
Can they truly dictate what you can and can not do in your own freaking home?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


I hope california drops into the ocean real soon. freaking insane people there.


They can if they can show that what you're doing in your home prevents others from enjoying their own homes. If they can prove that you're endangering somebody, then the case is that much stronger.

That's the way the law would treat it, on a very basic level. Whether or not this is right or fair is another matter altogether.

Personally, I don't see a problem with opening a window.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: john9001 on October 10, 2007, 01:29:11 PM
"your own freaking home"

well it's your freaking home until you decide to sell it, then the new buyers say, "this place stinks of cigarettes".  lost sale.

you don't own an apartment, you only rent it.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: cav58d on October 10, 2007, 01:31:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
you don't own an apartment, you only rent it.


:rolleyes: :O :noid :eek:
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: JB73 on October 10, 2007, 01:33:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
you don't own an apartment, you only rent it.
but you do OWN a condo which is included with this.

who cares about a "lost sale"? the government doesn't mandate how, when, or why I sell, or who to.








I just can't believe people would let a law like this pass.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Chairboy on October 10, 2007, 01:41:32 PM
There are anti-sodomy laws on the books that are enforced in some states, that's something you do in your own home.  A big public case from texas from last year is a recent example of this still happening, to fend off the usual "Oh noes it doesn't" or the less explicable "pics or it didn't happen" responses.

A bunch of y'alls seem fine with those laws because they don't affect you.  Funny that.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Speed55 on October 10, 2007, 01:43:20 PM
"The ordinance's most hotly contested elements — which ban smoking inside apartments and condominiums — won't be enforced for another 14 months.

Officials say the ordinance was written so that smokers will only face enforcement if their neighbors complain."

So what happens if they complain?  
Do the cops come to your door and arrest you, or write you a ticket for smoking inside your own apartment or condo?

Commifornia is a joke.  After this i'm sure the wierdo yuppy areas of Borodayork  will try and follow there lead.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: john9001 on October 10, 2007, 01:43:43 PM
i don't think they need a law like that, the owners of the home or apartment should decide that. I said apartment owners not renters.

no one smokes in my car or house, if you need to smoke , you are free to go outside to do it.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: midnight Target on October 10, 2007, 02:17:15 PM
No different than a noise ordinance. You can't crank up your sub woofers in an apartment unless you want to get a fine.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: lazs2 on October 10, 2007, 02:22:17 PM
Y'all buckle up now ya heah?

lazs
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: AWMac on October 10, 2007, 02:35:44 PM
Neighbour: "Hello 911....?"

911 Dispatch: "Hello what is the nature of your call?"

Neighbour: "I just witnessed a crime in progress."

911 Dispatch: "A crime in progress?"

Neighbour: "Yes, the people next door arrived late tonight with a carton of cigarettes, Marlboro Lights I think... and he has a Lighter too. They both been known to smoke."

911 Dispatch: "Good GAWD are you sure? Did you actually witness a lighter?"

Neighbour: *trembling voice* "Yes...." *whispering...* "Please save me....I'm under the bed... when I place a glass against the wall I can hear them....talking...."

911 Dispatch: "Please stay on the line... I've dispatched Local Officers, SWAT, CIA, FBI and Homeland Security Officials."  "Please stay on the line and under your bed."

Neighbour:  *whineful mumbling* "Okay, please hurry...hurry please..." *sobbing in the background*



It will get more stupid as the Libruls move on.
Film at 11:00.

Mac
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: kamilyun on October 10, 2007, 02:36:16 PM
I don't smoke, I don't really care if you smoke.  Your body, your rules.  The law seems silly except as MT pointed out, it's kind of like a noise ordinance.  Can you prove that noise causes detrimental effects to your health?  I guess I should worry about it, the same way I worry about my gun rights, but California seems to be doing okay no matter what laws they pass.

Can't argue with a state which has a top 10 economy on the world stage.  Capitisocialism at it's finest.

God will one day unleash his wrath on all us Godlesshomocommietreehuggers in the form an earthquake.  Just ask laz...his heathen butt has probably been through a few of them.  :D
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: lazs2 on October 10, 2007, 02:43:03 PM
kalifornia will always do well.. no matter how badly they run it... people want to be in the good weather.   crops grow good no matter what the politics..  

hollyweird can make movies... hippies can make computer crap and not blow their own brains out after 7 months of never seeing the sun like in seattle.

some of the economic and business stuff is left over from more conservative days in kalifornia tho..  back before we were number 10 and were like number 8 in economy.



lazs
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: uberhun on October 10, 2007, 02:49:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AWMac
Neighbour: "Hello 911....?"

911 Dispatch: "Hello what is the nature of your call?"

Neighbour: "I just witnessed a crime in progress."

911 Dispatch: "A crime in progress?"

Neighbour: "Yes, the people next door arrived late tonight with a carton of cigarettes, Marlboro Lights I think... and he has a Lighter too. They both been known to smoke."

911 Dispatch: "Good GAWD are you sure? Did you actually witness a lighter?"

Neighbour: *trembling voice* "Yes...." *whispering...* "Please save me....I'm under the bed... when I place a glass against the wall I can hear them....talking...."

911 Dispatch: "Please stay on the line... I've dispatched Local Officers, SWAT, CIA, FBI and Homeland Security Officials."  "Please stay on the line and under your bed."

Neighbour:  *whineful mumbling* "Okay, please hurry...hurry please..." *sobbing in the background*



It will get more stupid as the Libruls move on.
Film at 11:00.

Mac


:rofl :rofl :aok
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: lazs2 on October 10, 2007, 02:58:43 PM
mac.. that was the best bit I have seen you post..  very funny.

lazs
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Shamus on October 10, 2007, 03:11:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JBA
Just wait to see what they try if Hillary is elected and we get universal health care,  

i.e.
you want that chemo treatment, OK first quit smoking.

How about that hip replacement, fine stop playing tennis.


It's already here.

Want to keep your job? stop smoking, cant or wont? you're fired.

shamus
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: JBA on October 10, 2007, 03:11:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by cav58d
What a load of crap...It doesn't mention anything about traditional homes though...Are they included?  If not, why just apartments and condo's?  Are they using because of the proximity of other tenants, and sharing of systems (water, air etc...)


IMO it's must be bast on the bogus science about second hand smoke.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: AWMac on October 10, 2007, 03:13:20 PM
Hey Lazs2 they only provide me with the material... I just piece the watermelon together.

This is what is to come in the near future.

Sad huh?


:(

Mac


Prison Bubba:  "What are you in for Son?"

New Inmate:  "I was smoking..."

Prison Bubba:  "No problem Kid, I just bought you for 4 packs of smokes."
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Flatbar on October 10, 2007, 03:41:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JB73
but you do OWN a condo which is included with this.



Incorrect, you don't own the condo but rather just the airspace within. The structure is owned by who ever the developer/owner is.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: JB73 on October 10, 2007, 04:14:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Flatbar
Incorrect, you don't own the condo but rather just the airspace within. The structure is owned by who ever the developer/owner is.
I grew up / spent 28 years of my life in a condo, you don't just own the "airspace" you own everything inside. you can do whatever you want inside... outside is a different matter, but the whole of the inside is yours.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Chairboy on October 10, 2007, 04:19:11 PM
JB73: Can you remove a structural beam that goes through one of your interior walls and braces the floor of the condo above you?
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: JB73 on October 10, 2007, 04:45:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
JB73: Can you remove a structural beam that goes through one of your interior walls and braces the floor of the condo above you?
no condo above. 2 story unit with finished basement.

we could do whatever we wanted inside, move the stairs to the basement, whatever as far as I know.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Chairboy on October 10, 2007, 05:01:08 PM
What you know may need adjustment.  The most telling part of your response, of course, is that you pulled back from a globally inclusive statement about ALL condos all the way back to a description of your own condo.

So no, you can't do anything you want.  And to say that you own the 'airspace' is much closer to reflecting the reality of condownership than "you can do whatever you want inside".
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Xargos on October 10, 2007, 05:09:39 PM
In Charleston, S.C. you are not allowed to paint your house without permission.  So I guess this would allow the city to tell you that you can't smoke in your own home?  This would also mean since you don't own the place the police can enter it without a warrant?

P.S.  Next thing they'll do is make it illegal to read your Bible in your own home, but gays will still be able to have sex out in public.  California is a cancerous State and should be cut out.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Chairboy on October 10, 2007, 05:27:32 PM
Xargos, before your hysterics make you faint, I'd like to note that:

1. Your bible reading in public is protected.
and
2. Gay sex in PRIVATE is illegal in a number of states.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: AWMac on October 10, 2007, 05:30:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Chairboy
Xargos, before your hysterics make you faint, I'd like to note that:

1. Your bible reading in public is protected.
and
2. Gay sex in PRIVATE is illegal in a number of states.


This explains the used Testaments in Public Parks...

:huh

Mac
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Xargos on October 10, 2007, 05:35:42 PM
The point is that if you don't own it, the next step will be the police will say they don't need a warrant to enter and search.  If they can infringe on your right to smoke in the place where you pay rent, what comes next?

P.S.  Only thing our government should be doing is overturning old laws that are unconstitutional instead of making new ones that are unconstitutional.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Chairboy on October 10, 2007, 05:45:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AWMac
This explains the used Testaments in Public Parks...
That what now is the who what?
Title: Re: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Holden McGroin on October 10, 2007, 09:25:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JB73
Can they truly dictate what you can and can not do in your own freaking home?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


Many are in violation of law if they shoot their pistol in their own home.  I mean to Elvis the TV or something.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Leslie on October 10, 2007, 10:48:15 PM
What about the smokers that have to quit cold turkey or be uprooted from their homes?  That kind of stress would make people smoke even more.  

This is not going to get people to stop smoking, but some might think it would be a good time for a tobacco tax...but not really because it would probably backfire and then people would cut down on smoking and then it would cost more to collect the tax than the tax would pay for once the tax collection had begun.  More govt bureaucracy results.

My thoughts:

This argument of renters having less rights than everyone else is bogus.  If anything they have equal rights, and I think basically if they pay their rent it is their domain legally.  It will probably be that all future rental agreements will stipulate no smoking by law, but you can't sign away other people's rights ( ...I'm not sure whether you can sign away your own,)... so if someone smokes in your house and they haven't signed the agreement, they can smoke without breaking any agreements.  If it's the law, then you are not required to be a policeman and enforce it.  That would be the job of the police.

I doubt it will be enforced very much if at all, but it's most likely unconstitutional to start with.  If insurance companies wouldn't insure a rental house without the agreement, that would get the landlord's attention.  But it would be balanced by a business loss assessment if only smokers applied.  Smoking is a legal activity and there would be a discrimination issue which could arise.  There again, the bottom line is money.  This has nothing to do with anyone's rights except trying to remove some from a select group.




Les
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: texasmom on October 10, 2007, 11:20:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AWMac
Neighbour: "Hello 911....?"

911 Dispatch: "Hello what is the nature of your call?"

Neighbour: "I just witnessed a crime in progress."

911 Dispatch: "A crime in progress?"

Neighbour: "Yes, the people next door arrived late tonight with a carton of cigarettes, Marlboro Lights I think... and he has a Lighter too. They both been known to smoke."

911 Dispatch: "Good GAWD are you sure? Did you actually witness a lighter?"

Neighbour: *trembling voice* "Yes...." *whispering...* "Please save me....I'm under the bed... when I place a glass against the wall I can hear them....talking...."

911 Dispatch: "Please stay on the line... I've dispatched Local Officers, SWAT, CIA, FBI and Homeland Security Officials."  "Please stay on the line and under your bed."

Neighbour:  *whineful mumbling* "Okay, please hurry...hurry please..." *sobbing in the background*



It will get more stupid as the Libruls move on.
Film at 11:00.

Mac


bwaaaahahahaha! I can see that happening.  How sick.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: JB88 on October 10, 2007, 11:39:49 PM
wouldnt it be nice to have a tradition where an old law has to be kicked away before a new one is made.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Holden McGroin on October 11, 2007, 12:44:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by AWMac
Neighbour: "Hello 911....?"

edit>

911 Dispatch: "Please stay on the line... I've dispatched Local Officers, SWAT, CIA, FBI and Homeland Security Officials."  "Please stay on the line and under your bed."


I think ATF would be responding if the feds are involved.  Then the medicos and the fire department.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Elfie on October 11, 2007, 03:51:08 AM
Quote
I think basically if they pay their rent it is their domain legally.


That's the way it is here in Colorado.

We rent the lot our mobile home sits on. As long as our rent is paid the park managers can't step foot on our lot unless there is some sort of emergency. If they do, technically they are trespassing. An attorney that specializes in tenant law told us this.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Xargos on October 11, 2007, 04:28:04 AM
Thing is though that no American really owns property.  Don't pay your taxes or get accused of being a drug dealer and the government will show you who owns it.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Yeager2 on October 11, 2007, 04:57:11 AM
Land of the Free...  :rofl

I really hope that in the future that American people SMARTEN UP and stop
 allowing their government to rule them and treat them as if they were
 freaking small children that can't make decisions, and pursue happiness the
 way it was intended.

The American people (who in general happen to be quite educated, yet so
 extremely self centered and ignorant to the problems within the country and
 out
) should be living FREE as the forefathers have intended.

America has become a joke in regard to the "Freedom" that is always touted.

America has become a damn mess.

I live in China and am an American, yet here in China, there are more
 personal "Freedoms" and abilities to "Just do it" and make something work
 than compared to the utter idiotic right/left/middle/ bullsh1ht political morons
 that all seem to pollute and corrupt the people.

Now don't get me wrong, this place (China) is also HIGHLY inefficient,
 pathetically run, and basically a 4th world country, but YET, it, in it's ever
 chaotic state of no-control and pure idiocy, it is more "Free," peaceful, and
 overall a "nicer" feeling with dealing the the people. (which is of course
 what makes a country after-all.
)

Not to take away from the greatness that OUR country has provided to THE
 WORLD, we do have a very nice ability to live COMFORTABLY and MODERN.

However, America and it's people have become LAZY.  Daily occurrence of
 idiocy and who-gives-a-phhuck-stories are spread and fed to you all about
 the most trivial of things.

So sick of it, and am happy to continue being an expat for as long as possible.    

-Yeager2 :aok
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Jackal1 on October 11, 2007, 05:47:33 AM
I find it interesting that the most troubling spinoff from idiotic laws such as this has not been mentioned.
Probable cause.
Chip. Chip. Chip.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Holden McGroin on October 11, 2007, 07:05:08 AM
In Oregon, it is illegal to use canned corn as bait for fishing.

In Maine, you may not step out of a plane in flight. (bad for skydivers)
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Goth on October 11, 2007, 08:12:39 AM
Sounds like it's almost time to move to Russia where it's less socialist than America is becoming.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: lazs2 on October 11, 2007, 08:25:51 AM
"wouldnt it be nice to have a tradition where an old law has to be kicked away before a new one is made."

sheesh.. what is the world coming to?  I not only agree with 88 on that but used to say the exact same thing.

The problem is that when you call people "lawmakers" they tend to think their job is ...  to make laws.... lots of em... the more laws they make.. the better they are at their job right?

lazs
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Jackal1 on October 11, 2007, 09:38:35 AM
Some of the laws that are on the books and some of the ones that are trying to be put on the books seem silly and hilarious at first glance, but.......when you think about what they lay the groundwork for, and what can be derived from them, the humor leaves in a hurry.
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: AWMac on October 11, 2007, 10:04:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In Oregon, it is illegal to use canned corn as bait for fishing.

In Maine, you may not step out of a plane in flight. (bad for skydivers)


In Oklahoma you can lead a Texan to water, but you can't make it drink.

:D

Mac
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Airscrew on October 11, 2007, 10:04:42 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_re_us/schwarzenegger_bills;_ylt=AiHP8g2GKBrMZ5D.KOf3F26s0NUE

California motorists will risk fines of up to $100 next year if they are caught smoking in cars with minors, making their state the third to protect children in vehicles from secondhand smoke.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it an infraction to smoke in a vehicle if someone under age 18 is present. But the traffic stop would have to be made for another offense, such as speeding or an illegal turn, before the driver could be cited for smoking.



it gets worse...

And Leslie we have a tobacco tax,  Texas added a $1 to a pack of cigarettes last year, of course they didnt excatly come out and call it a tabacco tax, I think they called a health care tax...
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Ripper29 on October 11, 2007, 10:26:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by AWMac
In Oklahoma you can lead a Texan to water, but you can't make it drink.

:D

Mac


I find it very difficult to believe that you can't make a Texan drink
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: AWMac on October 11, 2007, 10:40:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Ripper29
I find it very difficult to believe that you can't make a Texan drink


I think the key word here was "water".

Mac
Title: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: VonMessa on October 11, 2007, 11:22:09 AM
Just a few here in the Commonwealth (notice it is not the State) of Pennsylvania:

      In PA:

It it illegal to sleep on top of a refrigerator outdoors.

You may not sing in the bathtub.

Fireworks stores may not sell fireworks to Pennsylvania residents.

AND..............  My personal favorite, regional law from Ridley Park right outside of my beloved Philly (Drum roll please).................

You cannot walk backwards eating peanuts in front of the Barnstormers Auditorium during a performance.
Title: Re: Re: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: FBBone on October 11, 2007, 11:34:20 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Many are in violation of law if they shoot their pistol in their own home.  I mean to Elvis the TV or something.

That would be in places where it's illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits, shooters of television sets in rural areas aren't likely to have broken any laws.  AFAIK no municipality has completely banned all smoking within their city limits.
Title: Re: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: Shuffler on October 11, 2007, 12:08:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by JB73
Can they truly dictate what you can and can not do in your own freaking home?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!


They said nothing of not smoking in your own home. They said apartments and condominiums.
Title: Re: Re: Is this Constitutionally allowable?
Post by: JB73 on October 11, 2007, 12:19:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Shuffler
They said nothing of not smoking in your own home. They said apartments and condominiums.
read the rest of the thread, we already discussed this, you OWN a condominium. that is your own home.