One more example of how the $#@%& liberals are turning America into a fascist state:
HOA Rule Forbids Couple To Smoke In Their Own Home.
Please try to convince me, a conservative/libertarian, how this is a good thing. Explain how the “greater good” is served by prohibiting two taxpayers from performing a legal activity ion their own home. Convince me that is a good thing.
What’s next?
I think they should sue the builders; I’ve lived many places where people have smoked heavily, and it never seeped into other units.
“One more example of how the $#@%& liberals are turning America into a fascist state”
We had to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban smoking, including in your own home if your home doubles as a business, in the election. There was another proposed amendment written by the business lobby counteracting the smoking ban. It was reasonable but I voted against both amendments. I think businesses originally proposed their amendment in response to an ordinance ban on smoking and other interest groups introduced their amendment.
I’m sorry the ordinance to ban smoking ever passed, but I voted against both amendments. Smoking it a trivial subject and has no business being on a state constitution. That didn’t stop Ohioans from passing the statewide ban on smoking. According to you by default liberals are responsible for that vote, but I wasn’t aware we outnumbered conservatives and moderates in this state by several millions. The truth of the matter is that conservatives love being regulated by the government as much as liberals, and libertarian ideology has been on the decline since WWII.
Oh and by the way George, an HOA is a private group. They can set up whatever ridiculous rules they want: no pets, no kids, no smoking. What shouldn’t have happened here is the judge even hearing the case on the legitimacy of HOA’s rules, because ruling in favor of the association is viewed as state action, and state action can be discriminatory.
As Ventanita points out the problem is not that they smoke in their own home, but that the residents of that apartment cannot stop the emissions from leaking out. If rational thoughts prevail then something will be done about the intrusion of carcenogenic vapors and particulates into the space of others…
George,
As a non-smoker, I previously had this difficulty in two apartments that I rented. In one situation, the person that lived in the floor below was a heavy cigarette user. The smoke came up into my apartment through the bathroom and kitchen areas and the space between the dry wall. Since nothing in the rental contract prevented this situation, I had to buy expensive air filters to ameliorate the smoke that irritated my throat and nostrils. When my lease expired, I was the one who had to move at great discomfort and expense.
This summer, a research grant helped defray the expense of a rental apartment at The Lafayette in Washington, D.C., on N.W. 6 Street, one block from the National Archives. The rent for a furnished one bedroom apartment with parking garage is $3,000 monthly. The building had a no smoking policy but a neighbor renting during my last month there decided to violate the rule. The smoke was filtering through the electric outlets and the medicine cabinet in the bathroom. Other tenants complained of the same problem and the neighbor ended up smoking on the balcony. Smokers are a nuisance when they affect the health of others. I compare this to the effect of your neighbor’s dog constantly coming over and crapping in your yard, or the neighbors being loud and obnoxious at all hours.
Lesly, I know that an HOA is a private group. I was president of one many years ago. That’s why I would never buy property if it had to be part of an HOA. Every proposal to regulate our lives, be it tobacco or trans-fats or seat-belts, has come from the socialist nannies in the Democratic Party. name me one conservative or libertarian think tank that advocates the regulation of tobacco to the extent that the liberals have and I’ll retract my words in public.
Regardless of where it comes from, fascism is here to stay.
I’m not a fan of HOA’s myself, but they do have their place. I grew up in Houston, where that nice shopping center next door to your house can become Trixie’s Dungeon and Strip-o-Rama at the drop of a hat, and you can kiss the investment in your home good-bye. So I can see wanting to keep ones neighbors from painting their house to match the flamingos in their yard.
If the law could override the HOA on smoking, they can override the HOA on puce house paint and running a shooting range in the back yard.
What next?
How about controlling the sexual behavior of adults?
I’m against that too, Rick. That should be left to the parents — the way it used to be. Liberals (of both party flavors) have inserted themselves into legal activities were they have no place.
(And don’t bring up abortion. That is the calculated murder of babies, pure and simple. I will not budge from my pro-life position.)
“Name me one conservative or libertarian think tank that advocates the regulation of tobacco to the extent that the liberals have and I’ll retract my words in public.” – George
I can’t think of any off the top of my head. However, I can think of plenty of free-market types that support the HOA’s right to dictate anal policy. The residents freely and knowingly sign a contract with the association that is subject to change. This isn’t a liberal/conservative issue. It’s a private/public issue. If you’re a free market type anal stipulations between party shouldn’t put you off. Nobody guaranteed a free market would yield the greatest liberty. I think this case makes that shortcoming apparent.
They are not true free-market types then. I refreshingly agree with you, though. It is a private/public issue, in which case the individual’s rights always trumps the state’s right to impose an unreasonable law.
“It is a private/public issue, in which case the individual’s rights always trumps the state’s right to impose an unreasonable law.” – George
In the case of Ohio and other states banning smoking in private businesses I agree 100%. In the HOA case I think they’ve gone too far but they have the right to go too far. I’m not a free market type because when it comes to discriminatory practices in business I don’t have a problem with state regulation. The smoking issue has gone off the deep end, though, and although I consider it a nuisance it doesn’t compare to refusing to hire minorities and therefore doesn’t warrant state intervention.
Tony:
sorry to disagree with you since your opinions usually strike me as correct. The way I see it is what is a stake here is not a person’s right to smoke in his own residence, but the right of a non-smoker not to exposed to the carcinogens in cigarette smoke. Thus in my opinion this is a poor case to defend, since such cases usually do not stand up in court “bad cases make for poor decisions”.
Sorry again Tony,
Tony sorry that should have been addressed to George, getting old I guess…
There is not one shred of 100% proven scientific evidence of the dangers of second-hand smoke. It’s all smoke and mirrors, if you’ll pardon the pun, and a clever game to extort money from one of the more successful business sectors in the world. And it has worked like a charm. Why? Because a lot of folks (including some commenting here tonight) have bought into the hysteria and well-designed bullshit.
The same thing is happening now with “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever the hell they want to call it, calling for taxes or “monetary penalties” on polluters. What a crock of shit!
It’s all about the money, guys and gals. They don’t give a fuck about anyone’s health. And do you know why I know that? Because cigarettes are still legal and saddled with confiscatory tax rates. If they want to prove me wrong, make the damn things illegal. Wouldn’t that be the honest move for a group looking out for all of us to be healthier? Hmmm?
George, my support of this ruling is more due to the larger issues at stake than any nonexistant belief of mine that the state should ban smoking. If the judge had overridden the HOA on the smoking issue, it would invite a ton more cases of people trying to violate terms to which they agreed in order to buy the house by appealing to the courts when the HOA says no. Banning smoking may be silly, but so is banning tacky yard decorations and requiring a date when all Chrisrtmas lights need to be taken down—at least they are silly enough that the law cannot find substantial legal differences between them.
I think if anyone’s local college is doing an undergraduate law course, mostly a business law course, one should avail ones self of the opportunity—especially if you are critical of modern jurisprudence—or should I say juris*im*prudence? Criticism of judicial activism is better when one can point to judicial activism, instead of cases that are arguably ruled based on larger issues.
In short, the law says that B occurs in all cases of A. This means that A needs to be very specifically defined—sometimes in ways that may not seem to make sense. To do otherwise may cause B to happen in situations for which it was not meant.
Or maybe prohibiting a homeowner in association from displaying an American flag because the HOA deems flags on flagpoles “tacky decorations”? That happened right here in Florida a while back.
Do you see why the HOA is wrong? Where does the exercise of one’s rights end and begin? After all, they were smoking inside their property (where smoking was disallowed) not the commons (where it was not). Maybe they’ll just ban it everywhere. And while they’re at it, prohibit children from entering, or not allowing ugly people because it doesn’t fit the ideal of the HOA’s goals for handsome and beautiful tenants.
I ask again, where does it end?
Nazi’s maybe alot of things, but anti smokers they are not:
German’s will not give up their right to smoke
Of course the HOA was wrong—and the answer is to make these terms so public that new home buyers start thinking twice about moving into that neighborhood.
The purpose of a HOA is to insure the continued high value of the property into which one has bought. When the HOA acts like unreasonable arseholes, that affects the demand for properties under that HOA. When demand is lower….the price gets lower.
Ooops, looks like the HOA would *cause* tanking of the property values they were put in place to protect—-better throw the bastards out or backtrack!
The sad fact is that nobody in the US actually owns real estate outright, or as they used to say, ‘in fee simple absolute’. Between HOA’s, officious town ordinances, zoning and land use rules, exorbitant property taxes, and eminent domain, what todays homeowner can call his or her own is fast approaching nada. Blame? Creeping communism.
Creeping Communism indeed.
“Creeping Ccommunism” – that coins what is happening in this country exactly. Out here in California, a threatened ACLU lawsuit led to the redesign of our state seal, costing tax payers millions, but that was less than battling the ACLU in court would have cost. The result? The removal a very small image of a California Mission with cross from the seal which most people weren’t even aware of. George-where does it end? If they have their way, it will end when when Americans live like Cubans. God help us.
Second hand smoke may or may not have any dangers, but it stinks anyway. I wouldn’t want smoke smell seeping into my condo or apartment. Imagine if a neighbor caused sulphuric or other rotten odor to waft into your home on a regular basis. It may not be a health hazard, but it’s still disgusting. Mmm, dinner sure tastes great with that rotting flesh smell all around. Bleah.
So maybe it is the builder’s fault for not adequately separating each living space. It’s still a problem that needs some kind of solution. I don’t like this HOA rule either, but something had to be done. Maybe the fuss over the decision will get them to consider a different solution.
Related: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/ban_violated/