California City Becomes First to Ban Smoking In One's Own Home

more on this cigarette war, from NY

NEIGHBORS WAGE APT. BUTT BATTLE​

February 9, 2008 -- A pair of married attorneys is fuming about their "evil," chain-smoking next-door neighbor and are seeking a court order barring her from puffing away in her Upper West Side apartment.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Jonathan and Jenny Selbin charge Galila Huff's 11/2-pack-a-day habit is polluting their common hallway in the storied Ansonia apartment building and jeopardizing their and their young son's health.

Huff "is willfully, intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently endangering the health" of the Selbins and their 4-year-old son, Charlie, the suit says, and her "refusal to address the grave danger posed to the health of a small child" shows she has "evil and/or reprehensible motives."

The couple notes that their polite requests that Huff, a 57-year-old restaurateur, be more considerate got a rude reception.

"After plaintiffs complained about the smoke, defendant encouraged her dog to urinate on plaintiffs' property and in front of their doorway," the suit says.

Huff - who denies encouraging her dog, Boo Boo, to wee-wee - said that it is the Selbins who are bad neighbors.

"I've been harassed for one year already. It's unbelievable. They're turning me into a monster," she said.

"I've been smoking for 40 years. I've tried to quit and I can't, but nobody tells me what to do in my own home."

Jonathan Selbin, 39, said, "It's her apartment and she's free to smoke," but he doesn't want to smell it in the hallway.

"I don't think she's a terrible person. I have issues only with the smoking. That's what this is about," he said.

The Selbins' suit says their problems started in 2003, as soon as they moved into the landmark building.

The husband and wife say they began complaining in 2006, after duct work resulted in cigarette smoke from Huff's apartment coming directly into theirs.

The building's board had the ventilation problem fixed, and in November 2006, passed a resolution requiring residents to "eliminate a second-hand smoke situation that originates from their apartment and penetrates to other apartments as well as the public hallway."

The suit says Huff did nothing to solve the problem and the hall still "fills with second-hand smoke on a near daily basis."

The suit seeks money damages as well as an order requiring Huff "to immediately cease and desist from causing smoke to enter in the common hallway."

In a December letter, the La Fenice co-owner accused the Selbins of harassing her.

The lawyers called those claims "baseless."

Huff said she has never had problems with any other neighbors in the 15 years she has lived in the building.


link​
 
I think it’s just another useless drug law, but could result in other problems. The law will only be enforced on a “complaint” basis. I can see this going both ways… on one hand, if a complaint is made, and an officer shows up, on what basis will they prove that you are smoking at all or even possess tobacco in the home. One can exercise their fourth amendment right and not even let the officers see the inside of the home. Will they write citations if the officer allegedly smells tobacco? What if the officer smokes? Will they get a warrant? I can see this law being utterly ineffective and not enforced greatly based on a no answer to those questions.

On the other hand, if a police officer hands out citations over any finger pointed your way, it becomes a huge civil rights issue.

The legislation is retarded. Much like the case posted by bingalpaws, the smoker was there long before the married lawyers. (BTW, Since when do two lawyers need to live in some sort of complex?) Anyway, it’s the lawyers who should leave in that case… they should have picked somewhere else to live rather than expect the world to revolve around them.

Why not make it ordinance for the owners of complexes to designate smoking and non-smoking rooms, ect. ?
 
I think all smoking bans are pretty ridiculous, but since there is nothing to change them states should allow certain bars to be smoking bars as long as they make it known that they are a smoking bar...know what I'm saying? I can go to a sheesha lounge and smoke tobacco and it's legal, but god forbid I have a smoke in a bar...fuck this america
 
Some assholes came up to me at my job (I was valeting and thus work at the front door) and told me that I should tell the people outside smoking to move somewhere else to smoke....well the problem is that the ash urn is out there so where the fuck do you think they are supposed to smoke? People need ot just fucking learn to deal with cig smoke, people smoking bugs me a lot less than people who are really fucking wasted....so lets ban drinking too.....fuck I am on a rant about this shit
 
this is redicious if someone wants to smoke in there own home go for it.. u know the consequences of it and the resale value of ur home might be depreciated but if u want to then go for it.. were only human...
 
andyman, these scenarios are all based upon duplexes, triplexes, condos, and apartments - there hasn't been any bans for smoking in your own house. The original title of "home" was in reference to any home, your home can be an apt, duplex, or whatever, but the bans are not affecting single family *houses*.
 
I mean, it's still bullshit, at the end of the day property rights should supercede all of this crap. If I own a duplex that I rent out, it should be up to me to determine whether or not I want to allow smokers in my building. I don't think it would be fair to hide to a new tenant that the guy in the other half smokes, that would be wrong, but if I tell them that should be fine. If they are not comfortable with that, then they are free to find a landlord who keeps smoke free properties. That's the beauty of choice and freedom, ain't it?
 
I see a lot of people against this on this forum.

And I realize it's not ok to take away someones personally choice to destroy there body. (Even tho it's already been done to so many other drugs.)

But second hand smoke does harm non smokers. So you can't just be thinking about yourself.


People should be smart enough to use VAPORIZERS.

Firstly, there a HELL OF A LOT healthier to use then smoking.
Secondly, using a vaporizer leaves a lot less bad smell and chemicals in the air. Most of the chemicals go into your lungs since theres no burnt material blocking the rest of the stuff.

You can buy pocket size vaporizers these days also. And you will eventually save money since you don't need to buy rolled cigarettes. Just need to buy the container of tobacco.

People really need to smarten up and start using vaporizers. Will give you a better high and a healthier life and lungs.
 
smarts have nothing to do with vaporizers. If you prefer smoking normally to a vaporize, considering the vaporizer's benefits, and still go ahead and use a vaporizer, that was NOT a smart choice for you, your smart choice was to smoke normally.

And about 'it harms others', I mean I *just* explained that in the post directly above yours. Yeah, it harms (may?) others, and? They don't have to live there. Let me present a hypothetical to you that *should* make you understand.

Let's say that I buy a house, and it's a duplex. I originally thought that maybe I'd just make it a single family house, but didn't go through with it and wanted to rent out the other side of the house. However, I'm a smoker. Now, do you think it's fair for me to advertise the other half of that house to rent out? That allows anyone to look at the place and consider all of its attributes - location, property condition, and of course, the fact that the other half of the duplex contains a smoker. Do you honestly feel that I should be denied, by law, the right to rent out the other half of my property just because I smoke? Hell, a smoker could be the one who moves in!!!! By this 'no smoking' logic you'd basically support a scenario where you could have a duplex where both sides contain smokers, yet NONE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO SMOKE AT HOME!! How asinine is that? I honestly don't see how you can make any solid arguments against that.
 
Just make the shit illegal world wide already.

Or make smoking rooms, like injecting rooms. And forced QUIT support, with free taper patches etc.
Or legalise other shit.
 
well your gonna die anyway from lung cancer or something. ;)

*goes to have a cigarette*

i wish the shit was illegal
 
bingalpaws said:
smarts have nothing to do with vaporizers. If you prefer smoking normally to a vaporize, considering the vaporizer's benefits, and still go ahead and use a vaporizer, that was NOT a smart choice for you, your smart choice was to smoke normally.

And about 'it harms others', I mean I *just* explained that in the post directly above yours. Yeah, it harms (may?) others, and? They don't have to live there. Let me present a hypothetical to you that *should* make you understand.

Let's say that I buy a house, and it's a duplex. I originally thought that maybe I'd just make it a single family house, but didn't go through with it and wanted to rent out the other side of the house. However, I'm a smoker. Now, do you think it's fair for me to advertise the other half of that house to rent out? That allows anyone to look at the place and consider all of its attributes - location, property condition, and of course, the fact that the other half of the duplex contains a smoker. Do you honestly feel that I should be denied, by law, the right to rent out the other half of my property just because I smoke? Hell, a smoker could be the one who moves in!!!! By this 'no smoking' logic you'd basically support a scenario where you could have a duplex where both sides contain smokers, yet NONE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO SMOKE AT HOME!! How asinine is that? I honestly don't see how you can make any solid arguments against that.
Click to expand...
I don't argue against that part of it. The law should be MODIFIED in the way of allowing that. But not in the reverse. Obviously if you have no children in your home. And anyone else living with you smokes also. And you want to rent out the other half of your duplex, then you should have every right to, of course.

My main point was just that people really should start using vaporizers..I'm sure if you owned a pocket sized vaporizer and you tried it. Then smoked a cigarette after. Almost everyone would choose the vaporizer as the better inhale and more enjoyable.
 
If that were the case I think vaporizers would be far, far more popular than they currently are, at least in the pot world.
 
Well im really not surprised considering its radioactive.

Polonium 210 is found in calcium rich soils and concentrates on the broad leaves of the Tobacco plant

wikipedia said:
210Po is an alpha emitter that has a half-life of 138.376 days; it decays directly to its daughter isotope 206Pb. A milligram of 210Po emits as many alpha particles per second as 4.215 grams of 226Ra. A single gram of 210Po generates 140 watts of power. Because it emits many alpha particles, which are stopped within a very short distance in dense media and release their energy. It is estimated that chromosome damage from alpha particles is about 100 times greater than that caused by an equivalent amount of other radiation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top