BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 07:50 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
But the management people didn't see that it gave me any special rights outside the confines of the closed-in part of the unit.


Well you could had try to get the board members voted out of office and the management company replace.

I had seen that happen and even seen the police call for a board meeting over the matter.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:22 pm
David, as usual went completely off-planet with his very first post. Bloomberg is not proposing anything about making smoking illegal in your own apartment, What he is proposing is requiring landlords to tell prospective buyers or tenants what the smoking policies are for that property. That's it. It's kind of like a truth-in-lending law. Nothing about banning smoking. David, once again, seems to have totally misheard a news report and made up his own version with no reference to reality.

Quote:
The owners of residential buildings would have to adopt smoking policies and disclose them to prospective apartment buyers and tenants, under a law proposed Wednesday by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has made curbing smoking a cornerstone of his public health policy.


The bill would require buildings with three or more apartments — whether rental, condominium or cooperative units — to disclose whether smoking is allowed in all indoor and outdoor locations, including inside apartments, on balconies and rooftops and in courtyards.

Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference on Wednesday that he was proposing the bill because New Yorkers wanted to be protected from secondhand smoke. He insisted that the disclosure requirement would be strictly informational, and not a backdoor attempt to pressure landlords and buildings to ban smoking.



He's ranting again about something totally imaginary. Which is not atypical of him.

And if it should happen as he imagines it, it is far from a usurpation of authority by government. One of the functions of government in the social contract view held by the founding fathers is government as protector and guarantor of the rights of the people,, since it has power the individual lacks. And since smokers trampled on my rights for decades, I have no problem with government restoring the trampled-upon rights of non-smokers. And if anyone has ever attempted to get a smoker who is not an acquaintance to stop smoking, you know the high percentage of belligerence and agression you get if you try. Which actually makes me think there may be something in David's zealotry about laws like Florida's Kill at Will law. Scenario:
Me: "It would be nice if you'd put that cigarette out. It's really reeks. Someone should take it out of your mouth and stomp it out." (Protected speech under the 1st Amendment, right, David?)
Smoker: "Yeah? I'll break both your legs if you try."
At which point, under Florida's ridiculously low standards of proof, I could legitimately claim I was under immediate threat of grievous bodily harm and had the right to use anything up to deadly force and could not legally be held accountable for any actions. So I could kill him. Yep, something to be said for that law.
Monterey(Ridding America of Tobacco Stench One Bullet at a Time)Jack.




OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 10:59 pm
@Adam4Adam,
Adam4Adam wrote:
I'm not a smoker and I finally bought my own home last year but before that I rented an apt and I signed a lease stating there would be no smoking, if they own the building I believe they should have the right not to rent to smokers.
I agree, Adam.
I 've done the same in my real estate.
I 've always been a good lover of laissez faire capitalism.
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM is very important to me,
as it was to the Founders of this Republic.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 11:28 pm
@MontereyJack,
Your post is long enuf to exceed my energy
to address all of its points, individually.

I agree with some of what u wrote.



MontereyJack wrote:
Scenario:
Me: "It would be nice if you'd put that cigarette out. It's really reeks.
I have done that, in the subway.
I did not imply a threat of violence.



MontereyJack wrote:
Someone should take it out of your mouth and stomp it out."
(Protected speech under the 1st Amendment, right, David?)
That is uncertain, Jack.
I dunno if that is a threat of imminent violence, or not.




MontereyJack wrote:
Smoker: "Yeah? I'll break both your legs if you try."
At which point, under Florida's ridiculously low standards of proof, I could legitimately claim I was under immediate threat of grievous bodily harm and had the right to use anything up to deadly force and could not legally be held accountable for any actions. So I could kill him. Yep, something to be said for that law.
Monterey(Ridding America of Tobacco Stench One Bullet at a Time)Jack.
No. The dialog that u posted shows NO threat
in the absence of explicitly specified conditions, to wit:
taking it out of his mouth and stomping upon his property.
U r distorting the law to falsely make the statute appear less reasonable than it is.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 11:38 pm
@DrewDad,
Linkat wrote:
What is everyone's thoughts on hotels that are smoke free?
DrewDad wrote:
The problem is that smokers will still smoke.

Then the hotel has to spray a bunch of chemicals to cover up the smell of the smoke.
(A cure worse than the disease, because then you have smoke particles AND chemicals.)

I think they're better off having smoking floors.

My final thought, though, is that non-smoking hotels probably get better insurance rates.
They give a wink-and-a-nod to the smokers.
I am very accustomed to being asked,
when I reserve a room,
whether I want a smoking or non-smoking room.
I tell them that I want clean air.





David
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 05:13 am
The issue here is GOVERNMENT control. Of course a renting agency has a right to set the rules, as does a homeowner's association. In my community, we have many homeowner's associations.

If we want to paint our house, or make any outside changes, we have to get permission from the "architectural committee". Most requests are quickly granted. The problem is when a homeowner wants to make a change that is not acceptable within the rules, such as painting the house a bright purple. We knew that when we bought the house, and agreed to the restrictions.

A realtor is supposed to give a potential buyer a copy of the relevant associations' rules before they buy the house, so that the potential buyer can make an informed decision as to whether they are willing to abide by the rules. The problem is, some of the realtors don't always do that, and the new residents are then stuck with rules with which they don't agree.
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 05:48 am
@djjd62,
Quote:
the lady mayoress, michelle bloomberg, has long been a bit of a busy body

I am getting rather sick of your continued sexual identity attack of Bloomberg. This is not the first time you have played this game. You don't like Bloomberg, fine, neither do I. If you don't like what he is doing or proposing, that too is fine, leave it at that.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 06:02 am

Mayor Bloomberg is not effeminate.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 06:05 am
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:
The issue here is GOVERNMENT control.
It certainly IS !
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 06:40 am
@OmSigDAVID,
How can anybody be surprised that Mayor Bloomberg wants to get legislation on smoking into residences?

He doesn't like smoke, that we already knew what with the ban on smoking in bars and park restrictions for smoking. The bar ban is a disaster in some ways. Sidewalks are blocked by smokers who are often drunk but have to step outside to light up. If a person makes the mistake of living in an apartment upstairs from these places, they get smoke and drunken laughter.

I applaud his pedestrian plaza idea; but, wish he'd stop telling how the air is clearer in those spaces now. Well, sure it's clearer there; however, in the surrounding blocks where traffic was re-routed the air is worse, the exhaust had to go somewhere.

Move the smoker to the side at a public park and now there's no way to get into the park without going through thick smoke. Is this really an improvement?


On the apartment/residential ban idea, this would be an interesting thing to try. Would tenants then become spies who would report purported violators? Would the accused have to vacate immediately or would that be on hold until after the trial? What happens if a person visits and while their host is in the next room getting food, they light up and the smoke slithers up through the vents to the next unit? The off-duty cop comes down, smashes her fist on the door, the door opens and she can see the smoke still hanging in the air, along with the snubbed out cigarette in the ashtray which Grampa Burl left in their will. She makes a citizens arrest (not sure if off-duty cops can make full arrests) and the tenant and the guest charge at the officer (it's new york so they will use a machete or steak knife of a shiv they were crafting for when they visited Uncle Johnny up at Bare Hill Correctional (located in Malone)). In the process all 3 end up dead. Oh yeah this anti-smoking thing is going well.

Bloomberg likes power, as can be seen in his decade+ long rule. Schools, health, traffic, you name it he wants it . Some ideas have been good, most have not. A large part of what he does, seems to be to mention an idea and watch how it unfolds. If he really wants it and thinks it possible, he proceeds. (possible, meaning, support from enough members of the City Council). At times he proceeds even if there is no support.

Many Bloomberg ideas, while well intentioned (bar-smoking ban, schools, pedestrian plazas) have repercussions that he doesn't address in advance and if brought up he dismisses.

Big problem with Bloomberg is he has been given too much power.

BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 07:50 am
@Sturgis,
We could always place a 5000 dollars a pack tax on cigarettes and do away with the income tax.

Hell for no more income tax I would let a smoker blow smoke into my face all day long.

Other then if we received that level of benefits why the hell should the rest of us allow smokers to annoy and harm others?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 07:57 am
@BillRM,
Thay wanna wage gas warfare against us.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 08:21 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Thay wanna wage gas warfare against us.


Well we could keep the government out of the matter by changing the laws so any smoker that cause you to get his or her smoke into your lung without permission is guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon and allowing us to shoot the assholes down at once.. Drunk
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

TEENAGE GIRL DEFENDS HER HOME in ARIZONA - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
HAPLESS 15 YEAR OLD ROBBER IS SHOT - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
KID GETS WHAT HE DESERVED - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
Value of USEFUL Sports - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
GUNS IN BARS & RESTAURANTS (Editorial) - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 09:07:28