Now They're Banning What You Do INSIDE Your Home!

That's like 15 minutes away from where im from. Dont really recall seeing many people smoke in San Rafeal, but then again i would never stop because i was probably headed to the city

 

+1 this is in the spirit of private property rights - let the owner decide the policy on "his/her" property...

 

you want the gov't to regulate your thermosat?

 

Smoking used to be so cool, now smokers are totally relegated as second class citizens.

 

i wish folks would've actually read the article... this new "ban" is actually comprehensive, and doesn't just "apply" to new construction, but to existing domiciles... this isn't tinfoil, it's aggregious for the gov't to step in and dictate behavior in ones home.... like i said, tyranny of the majority.. the right (and historical) way is to let property owners decide what is allowed on their property, ...we are seeing gov'ts overstep that line here...

 

Ha. The city council members are elected by voters in the local community. They approved it for their constituents. And city council meetings are public. It's called representative government. Tyranny of the majority is also called democracy when you agree with the majority.

Don't worry, this little town is a very long way away from you and your agenda.

 

Fail. Not enough all caps or smilies.

And you forgot to mention concealed carry.

 

boo children's health!
hooray cancer caused by second hand smoke!

 

Residents were mostly in favor. It says TWO smokers complained. Putting aside peoples thoughts about what the government shouldn't or should be able to do the people this actually effects were in favor. So forget being pissy about what the LOCAL municipal government did bow you want to tell people what they can't support in the place they live?

 

Hooray property damage for landlords!

Hooray for nuisance to other neighbors!

 

city council members aren't kings/queens, eh?... that's why thankfully we have checks-n-balances, ...and so hopefully the courts will see this as an aggregious overreach... to take everything these "elected representatives" say as gospel is to forfeit any and all of your own rights to self-determination - i.e. the reason why states, and the nation, have enumerated bills-of-rights..

outright democracy is a horrible form of gov't, as it's nothing more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner...

 

Do you enjoy driving on public roads and having firemen show up when needed?

Living in a civilized society is a compromise. If you don't like it, go build your cabin and wrie you manifesto. Lot and lots of liberty there. Lots of risk and hard work too. Go for it.

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
--Winston Churchill

 

a compromise, ...on public infrastructure - yes... but your home is your castle - a free society necessitates private property and rights to such property... cigarettes are a legal substance, and i don't see where the gov't gets to decide which "legal" activities you can and can't do in your home... sorry, that just strikes me as overreaching...

 

The landlord owns the property, not the tenants. this is also why the landlord has right to access it.

The tenants are free to rent a detached single-family home. Or, they can go buy their own property and do whatever they want. Much like the difference between buying a car and leasing a car.

 

This discussion portrays politics at its finest. Cherry pick the part of the story that supports your argument and ignore the rest. The people there support it. End of story. If the citizens there unanimous were against it you would have a leg to stand on. But they were in favor of this. Who the hell are you to tell people on the other side of the country what to do where they live? You don't find it at all hypocritical that you're bitching that the government is telling people what they can't do while you're sitting here telling the people they can't be in favor of something in their community that you don't agree with?

 

yes, ..but my point is the gov't is overriding the rights of the landlord... i advocate letting landlords decide whether smoking is permitted in their property..

 

huh? i'm not in a position to force anything upon anyone here... all i'm saying is i see this action as an aggregious gov't overreach that infringes on civil rights and private property rights...

 

And my point is the people actually affected by this support it. Its not being forced on them against their will. If the government shouldn't have a say and neither should the majority who gets the say?

 

people who live in this jurisdicition, in domiciles that meet the purported definition of "multi-family dwelling", who are smokers, are most definitely affected by this ordinance! like i said before, this ordinance is applies to more than just "new construction" - it is ex-post facto!!!!

...smoking just happens to be the "demon of the day", ...when the mob "decides" some other behavior needs to be "banned" they will seek to force those beliefs on others... eventually, it will be something you care about...