Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Smoking at home


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Smoking at home Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 1:51:27 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-blocks-dc-man-smoking-own-home-134139634.html

Now seems that smoking at home can be illegal. Don't we love judicial rulemaking. Sets an ugly presidence in my opinion.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 1:57:03 AM   
DaddySatyr


Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

I got a ticket in Monterey, Kalifornia, for smoking in my front yard in 1988.

I knew who called the cops. I made their lives miserable (legally) and listed the house within six months of moving in. I left Kalifornia, as soon as I was able and haven't been back, since (and my best friend lived there for 6 years. I refused to visit). Kalifornia is a nice place to leave.



Michael


_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 2:54:37 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
Yeah I don't go there either. Needles is as close as I get and only in a pinch. And to get there I only need to cross one bridge and bingo in a subburb LOL

(in reply to DaddySatyr)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 6:29:38 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline
Under Sacramento City Ordinances; you can be fined for smoking in your yard as it can be construed as contributing to the delinquency of minors if they might be able to observe you. But, if you have less than two ounces; firing up a doobie is "no harm, no foul" kind of thing.

The hilarity of California law.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 6:55:11 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
LOL California is definately strange at time. LOL I know a guy that got a warning ticket for smoking on the passenger side of his vehicle with the window rolled up. LOL seems that he was within the distance to a door to a business while driving by. LOL

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 7:35:12 AM   
MariaB


Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline
Wow this is crazy but I think this is quickly heading towards the UK. It started with coffee shop, bar and restaurant bans but is now quickly moving towards no smoking in cars or in city centers. I'm not a smoker but what harm does it do if a person smokes in their own yard...crazy big brother bull shit!

_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 9:41:13 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-blocks-dc-man-smoking-own-home-134139634.html

Now seems that smoking at home can be illegal. Don't we love judicial rulemaking. Sets an ugly presidence in my opinion.


The thing that I don't understand, at least from the article, was this part:

quote:

Justice Ronna L. Beck’s decision comes after Mr. Gray’s next-door neighbors – a couple with one child and another on the way – filed in December a civil lawsuit claiming Gray’s cigarette smoke causes harm to their family when it seeps into their home through a hole in the basement.


The article didn't make any further mention of this, but why couldn't they just plug up the hole?


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 10:11:41 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
The OP's link to the yahoo article does not really explain the story all that well. So I went looking.

The close proximity of one house to another should not be hard to notice. Likewise, detecting the odors or their origins should not be hard for the observant. Its proving that the smoke comes from a source that has to be proved. Apparently that was performed in court. This issue is not a conservative verse liberal. I know plenty of conservatives with children whom get mad when someone lights up at an indoor party. Which is why smokers go outside to smoke!

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 10:22:09 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Have vegans ever taken barbquers to court?
im not vegan, jusst ponderin
btw, toronto is not a haven for smokers either,

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 11:10:04 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

The OP's link to the yahoo article does not really explain the story all that well. So I went looking.

The close proximity of one house to another should not be hard to notice. Likewise, detecting the odors or their origins should not be hard for the observant. Its proving that the smoke comes from a source that has to be proved. Apparently that was performed in court. This issue is not a conservative verse liberal. I know plenty of conservatives with children whom get mad when someone lights up at an indoor party. Which is why smokers go outside to smoke!


Thanks for the link, although it still didn't really explain the hole in the wall. It's clear from the video report that the houses are adjoined with shared walls, but why isn't fixing the hole an option here? I still don't get it.




(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 11:14:13 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The OP's link to the yahoo article does not really explain the story all that well. So I went looking.

The close proximity of one house to another should not be hard to notice. Likewise, detecting the odors or their origins should not be hard for the observant. Its proving that the smoke comes from a source that has to be proved. Apparently that was performed in court. This issue is not a conservative verse liberal. I know plenty of conservatives with children whom get mad when someone lights up at an indoor party. Which is why smokers go outside to smoke!


Thanks for the link, although it still didn't really explain the hole in the wall. It's clear from the video report that the houses are adjoined with shared walls, but why isn't fixing the hole an option here? I still don't get it.


It sounded a bit odd to me. So I researched it. Found the information that explains/shows more details than that flimsy yahoo article. Was going to send you a private Cm to inform you, but then decided you would check back into the thread at a later time.


(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 11:15:04 AM   
Zonie63


Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
FR

I did find another article which explains it a bit better: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/11/should-everyone-be-allowed-to-smoke-at-home/

quote:

The lawsuit also points to the long-explored tensions of a changing D.C. Alexander writes in the article that Gray lives off disability checks. The suing neighbors, Brendan and Nessa Coppinger, are both lawyers. Inspectors determined that Gray’s decaying chimney, in part, allowed smoke to seep into his neighbor’s home. The Coppingers offered to pay for some of these repairs, but Gray refused, saying he doesn’t want his neighbors to determine how the renovations are done and have the chance to sue again if it wasn’t done the way they wanted.


This puts a different light on things, since the neighbors offered to pay for some of the repairs needed, but Gray refused.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 11:19:01 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
FR

I did find another article which explains it a bit better: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/11/should-everyone-be-allowed-to-smoke-at-home/

quote:

The lawsuit also points to the long-explored tensions of a changing D.C. Alexander writes in the article that Gray lives off disability checks. The suing neighbors, Brendan and Nessa Coppinger, are both lawyers. Inspectors determined that Gray’s decaying chimney, in part, allowed smoke to seep into his neighbor’s home. The Coppingers offered to pay for some of these repairs, but Gray refused, saying he doesn’t want his neighbors to determine how the renovations are done and have the chance to sue again if it wasn’t done the way they wanted.


This puts a different light on things, since the neighbors offered to pay for some of the repairs needed, but Gray refused.


Sounds like the plaintiffs tried to settle the matter diplomatically before resorting to legal means. I suspect there are some trust issues as being the underlying fact to why things went to court. When neighbors cant trust each other, that's a bad sign of things to come.

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 1:33:56 PM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline
I think I'll just stay here in Wisconsin. I can have a few brews and enjoy a nice cigar and not worry about my neighbors calling the cops.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 2:12:38 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-blocks-dc-man-smoking-own-home-134139634.html
Now seems that smoking at home can be illegal. Don't we love judicial rulemaking. Sets an ugly presidence in my opinion.

The thing that I don't understand, at least from the article, was this part:
quote:

Justice Ronna L. Beck’s decision comes after Mr. Gray’s next-door neighbors – a couple with one child and another on the way – filed in December a civil lawsuit claiming Gray’s cigarette smoke causes harm to their family when it seeps into their home through a hole in the basement.

The article didn't make any further mention of this, but why couldn't they just plug up the hole?


I think the 6-month "moratorium" on smoking in the house also includes a requirement that the hole be patched up to prevent the smoke from seeping into their home.

I'm all for personal liberty and personal responsibility. The problem here, though, is that personal liberty is being taken away from the couple because of the hole. The guy has a right to choose to enjoy legal activities, as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights. You rights end where they abridge mine, and mine end where they abridge yours. This guy's right to choose to smoke (which is legal) in his house is abridging the couple's right to choose to not have smoke around themselves and their family. It might sound odd, but I'm good with the decision.

Now, as to why the hold just can't be blocked and everyone continue doing what they want: I have no idea why this hasn't been, or can't be taken care of.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Smoking at home - 3/12/2015 5:21:15 PM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-blocks-dc-man-smoking-own-home-134139634.html
Now seems that smoking at home can be illegal. Don't we love judicial rulemaking. Sets an ugly presidence in my opinion.

The thing that I don't understand, at least from the article, was this part:
quote:

Justice Ronna L. Beck’s decision comes after Mr. Gray’s next-door neighbors – a couple with one child and another on the way – filed in December a civil lawsuit claiming Gray’s cigarette smoke causes harm to their family when it seeps into their home through a hole in the basement.

The article didn't make any further mention of this, but why couldn't they just plug up the hole?


I think the 6-month "moratorium" on smoking in the house also includes a requirement that the hole be patched up to prevent the smoke from seeping into their home.

I'm all for personal liberty and personal responsibility. The problem here, though, is that personal liberty is being taken away from the couple because of the hole. The guy has a right to choose to enjoy legal activities, as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights. You rights end where they abridge mine, and mine end where they abridge yours. This guy's right to choose to smoke (which is legal) in his house is abridging the couple's right to choose to not have smoke around themselves and their family. It might sound odd, but I'm good with the decision.

Now, as to why the hold just can't be blocked and everyone continue doing what they want: I have no idea why this hasn't been, or can't be taken care of.

I'm in agreement. And like you, I have no idea why the hole wasn't just blocked...except that answer seems way too simple and some people would rather preen than fix something.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Smoking at home - 3/13/2015 9:42:56 AM   
tj444


Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

FR

I did find another article which explains it a bit better: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/11/should-everyone-be-allowed-to-smoke-at-home/

quote:

The lawsuit also points to the long-explored tensions of a changing D.C. Alexander writes in the article that Gray lives off disability checks. The suing neighbors, Brendan and Nessa Coppinger, are both lawyers. Inspectors determined that Gray’s decaying chimney, in part, allowed smoke to seep into his neighbor’s home. The Coppingers offered to pay for some of these repairs, but Gray refused, saying he doesn’t want his neighbors to determine how the renovations are done and have the chance to sue again if it wasn’t done the way they wanted.


This puts a different light on things, since the neighbors offered to pay for some of the repairs needed, but Gray refused.

I have lived in places where i could smell the smoke from another unit.. the problem with most places is that the walls arent sealed well enough and air/smoke passed thru, especially around electric outlets and things like that.. I am a non-smoker and actually yes, i am allergic to smoke.. that goes for fireplace smoke also.. it doesnt take much for me to start coughing.. I also think that smokers with kids should not smoke inside.. their health trumps smokers "rights", imo.. and imo that goes for those electronic cigarettes too..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to Zonie63)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Smoking at home - 3/13/2015 10:10:26 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
To me the bigger part of this story and thread is hows long must we live with a news media that purposely misrepresents the news simply to attract readership?

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Smoking at home - 3/13/2015 10:35:27 AM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-blocks-dc-man-smoking-own-home-134139634.html
Now seems that smoking at home can be illegal. Don't we love judicial rulemaking. Sets an ugly presidence in my opinion.

The thing that I don't understand, at least from the article, was this part:
quote:

Justice Ronna L. Beck’s decision comes after Mr. Gray’s next-door neighbors – a couple with one child and another on the way – filed in December a civil lawsuit claiming Gray’s cigarette smoke causes harm to their family when it seeps into their home through a hole in the basement.

The article didn't make any further mention of this, but why couldn't they just plug up the hole?


I think the 6-month "moratorium" on smoking in the house also includes a requirement that the hole be patched up to prevent the smoke from seeping into their home.

I'm all for personal liberty and personal responsibility. The problem here, though, is that personal liberty is being taken away from the couple because of the hole. The guy has a right to choose to enjoy legal activities, as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights. You rights end where they abridge mine, and mine end where they abridge yours. This guy's right to choose to smoke (which is legal) in his house is abridging the couple's right to choose to not have smoke around themselves and their family. It might sound odd, but I'm good with the decision.

Now, as to why the hold just can't be blocked and everyone continue doing what they want: I have no idea why this hasn't been, or can't be taken care of.



the couples rights being infringed...

lets think about that a moment, because they also have the option to move someplace else...

for instance, you buy a house then later find out at 3:45 am a loud train passes near that house every night...

should we move the train tracks or should you just sell the house and move someplace where whatever disturbs you isn't nearby

I think it becomes a question of who was there FIRST, if the smoker has lived in his house longer, then what right to these people have to move in next door and say, OK we're here now everyone stop doing stuff we don't like...

_____________________________

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Smoking at home - 3/13/2015 10:38:53 AM   
Gauge


Posts: 5689
Joined: 6/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

In addition to the injunction, their lawsuit asks for $500,000 in damages.


This is as far as the article has to go.

quote:

Inspectors determined that Gray’s decaying chimney, in part, allowed smoke to seep into his neighbor’s home.


As a heating and air conditioning professional, this is the most ridiculous statement ever in the history of stupid statements. Secondhand smoke is quite a bit less alarming than the products of combustion from a fuel burning appliance potentially seeping into a home. I have witnessed the effects of carbon monoxide poisoning on entire families, secondhand smoke has got nothing on the potentially lethal effects of CO.

Frankly, there are really no renovations to fix a leaking chimney especially if it is a common chimney which is a chimney that is shared between homes. If the deterioration of the chimney is that bad that it is leaking within the home, the only viable solution would be to put a stainless steel liner inside the chimney. The other, less viable solution would be to abandon the chimney in favor of a direct vent (through the wall) heater.

From what little was shown of the legal documents, the symptoms described were that of carbon monoxide poisoning, not secondhand smoke. In order for cigarette smoke to have that direct of an impact on a body, one would have to have a very serious level of exposure to it, and it would be basically intolerable for an extended period of time. Additionally, what is totally fucked up about this is that no one, not even the inspectors seem to understand how a chimney actually works. Granted a leaking chimney can exhaust products of combustion into a home, but cigarette smoke would be much, much more difficult unless the deterioration of the chimney is that bad that there is direct cross-ventilation between the living spaces. I could get more technical into looking at the connected homes which would go to a certain degree to validate the possibility of the plaintiffs in this case, however that would be a discourse that no one would really want to read. The brief summary of the theory is that connected homes would indeed share some of the same air, even if by accident, or a perfectly intact chimney.

As far as my opinion on this case goes, to the point that the freedom granted to an individual is fairly unlimited until it interferes with the freedom of another individual, the court is right in it's ruling. The "pants on the head stupid" part of this is that they blame the cigarettes rather than the furnace which is the very first place they should have looked.


Edited for a bit of clarity to a statement.

< Message edited by Gauge -- 3/13/2015 11:01:25 AM >


_____________________________

"For there is no folly of the beast of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men." Herman Melville - Moby Dick

I'm wearing my chicken suit and humming La Marseillaise.

(in reply to tj444)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Smoking at home Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.203