Santa Monica Proposes to Ban Smoking in Apartment Rentals: Do You Agree With the City's Proposal?

by mrosen814 Posted 2012/07/25 22:00:00

Related Topics: smoking, Health, Santa Monica

1,132 votes
Read all 1,154 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	411 votes	36%
	No	721 votes	64%

The city of Santa Monica recently proposed to ban smoking for new apartment and condo renters. Under the proposed ordinance, both new and existing multi-unit buildings would be subject to the ban.

Smokers already renting could continue to light up in their apartments, but the units would be covered by the ban as soon as they became vacant. According to the Los Angeles Times article, "Tenants who break the rules could be fined up to $500 if a landlord or a neighbor takes them to small claims court."

LATIMES.COM reports:
The Santa Monica City Council is scheduled to vote on a plan to bar new renters from smoking inside their apartments and condos. The council should demonstrate restraint and vote no.

plan bar renters smoking apartments condos council demonstrate restraint vote

+32

Add a comment above

dalevic 2012/07/27 14:53:04

No

+8
I am a non smoker and even I am sick of the government sticking their noses where they don't belong. They had no right banning smoking in private businesses and they have no right banning smoking in private property. If We the people do not stand up to these politicians at some point, and that would be NOW they will just keep STOMPING all over our rights. Today it may be smokers tomorrow it will be you "yes people"!!!
>> See Replies

More polls by mrosen814

Windy to Prime T... 2012/07/28 18:19:05 (edited)

+1
No; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are part of the Declaration of Independence, the Constituton was written, passed, ratified and enacted to preserve these unalienable rights:
life = self determination = living the way you want
liberty = self ownership = ingesting whatever you want
"pursuit of happiness" was originally "property" in T. Jefferson's draft, he should have kept it in the final version, it would have made the property rights issues (especially the right to self ownership) far more clear and far less able to be restricted in any way.

reply
Debi.smith to Prime T... 2012/07/30 20:49:17

+1
Smoking in and of itself is not a RIGHT. However the basis of our government is that it cannot prohibit one from doing something in the privacy of his own home that affects no one else. In fact until 1914 you could buy morphine and other drugs out of the Sears catalog. Then they started regulating drugs like they do liquor. (Victimless crime - except for the idiot who is doing it to himself.) It wasn't until 1970 that drugs actually became criminal. The government has no business in my house.

reply
Prime T... to Debi.smith 2012/07/31 00:42:52

+1
I agree that a person should be able to smoke in their own premises and the government should not be telling a person they cannot do so.

reply
Debi.smith to Koma 2012/07/28 02:27:29

+1
No such word as irregardless. Proper word to use in this situation I'd regardless. The prefix "IR" and the suffix "less" mean exactly the same thing. By that token your statement then means "with regard" rather than "without regard." Just sayin' - one of my pet peeves. :-)

reply
Windy to Prime T... 2012/07/28 09:27:02

+1
NO ONE and NO GROUP has the legitimate authority to restrict or remove the unalienable rights of others just because they don't like what those others do. The only legitimate reason to restrict or remove a person's unalienable rights is when they have violated those rights of others (by committing murder, assault, theft, fraud, unlawful imprisonment, or destruction of another's property).

reply
donnaga27 2012/07/27 17:12:39

No

+3
Are you serious, is there no limit to sucking the money out of the American people, what's next?

reply
Bill 2012/07/27 16:24:11

No

+6
It wasn't the city .This was ONE horses ass politician with an agenda. Out that bastard and hold them up to public ridicule and scorn. Make their life so miserable that they will curse their mother for giving them birth. This constant intrusion into peoples private life has got to end and end NOW !!!! BTW I quit smoking 10 yrs ago.

reply
Barb to Bill 2012/07/28 12:24:40

+2
A few years ago in California there was a politician who wanted to ban toys in Happy Meals because they encourage obesity. Is this one of the same ilk? Funny how these guys never want a law to stop themselves from doing something -- it's always somebody else's terrible problem they're trying to "fix".

reply
Bill to Barb 2012/07/28 15:16:37

+1
It's also usually smoke and mirrors to divert attention from the 17 other ways they are trying to screw us. It's long past the time for the people to take back control

reply
Larsa Solidor 2012/07/27 16:15:04

Yes

+1
I have horrible asthma and had to move my brother into an apartment in Wilmore,KY. You could smell the smoke from outside. It was the worst. He also has asthma.
It's more of a "they should make smoke free apartments" but that would hike up costs. People are going to smoke in rented apartments, bill or not.
But it might also help someone struggling to kick a smoking habit by telling them "you can't smoke here now."
My vote is yes. For medical reasons.

reply
NathanS... to Larsa S... 2012/07/28 03:34:42

+3
You can always choose to live somewhere that caters more to your needs. Why would you expect people who pay to live there and choose to smoke a legal product to stop on an account of you.In this case it is your choice to live there or not.

reply
Bill to Larsa S... 2012/07/28 15:25:21

+1
You are asking too much, sorry. Where does the invasion end? Will people not be able to use perfume because one person is allergic? Will people not be allowed to prepare meat dishes because someone is vegan and gets offended at the smell? You are right about the smoke free apartments though. BTW I'm an ex smoke,r 10 yrs ago

reply
Its Me,... to Larsa S... 2012/07/29 07:01:41

Peanuts make me so sick I can not breath, but I do not tell the store I shop in YOU CAN NOT HAVE PEANUTS IN HERE!!!

reply
Kronan_1 2012/07/27 15:44:36

No

+6
People are paying for a home. Maybe it is a temporary home but, it is still home. Thus they should be allowed to be comfortable in their living space. Apartment dwellers already deal with enough rules. This is their place to come home to and relax,unwind. If smoking is part of this ,then they should be able. I am a non-smoker myself but, believe a person should be free in their own home. Rental or not.

reply
stevegtexas@aol.com 2012/07/27 15:21:53 (edited)

Yes

+2
why cant they have "non-smoking" apartments? sounds like a legal question....ask a real estate attorney!!!! Is it an "all bills paid" apartment?

reply
Blunder... to stevegt... 2012/07/27 16:41:15

+2
I agree. It seems like having smoking and nonsmoking units would be the sensible thing to do...much like hotel rooms.

reply
Jean 2012/07/27 14:57:06
toti to Jean 2012/08/12 23:53:20
Jean to toti 2012/08/13 15:56:35

You really need to quit calling yourself bad name retard

reply
toti to Jean 2012/08/16 17:12:22

LOL! Again, you're the douchebag.

reply
Jean to toti 2012/08/20 22:55:32

moron lol lol

reply
Reikyrr 2012/07/27 14:54:55

No

+2
if smoking damages the paint, or whatever. Let them just pay for that.

reply
Kronan_1 to Reikyrr 2012/07/27 15:47:05

+1
That's why they pay security deposits.

reply
fuzzy K... to Reikyrr 2012/07/27 16:00:08

+3
...doesn't cooking also do that?

reply
Reikyrr to fuzzy K... 2012/07/27 18:13:53

+1
That's why there are those sucktion devices (no idea what its called in English.)

reply
fuzzy K... to Reikyrr 2012/07/30 13:40:25

Are you referring to range hoods? Not every apartment has one. I've never had one.
(wouldn't they also be effective for sucking up cigarette smoke?)

reply
Reikyrr to fuzzy K... 2012/08/05 16:02:02

+1
Yeah, thats what I was referring to. Thank you. And yeah they would but they are noisy and people like to smoke wherever.

reply
dalevic 2012/07/27 14:53:04

No

+8
I am a non smoker and even I am sick of the government sticking their noses where they don't belong. They had no right banning smoking in private businesses and they have no right banning smoking in private property. If We the people do not stand up to these politicians at some point, and that would be NOW they will just keep STOMPING all over our rights. Today it may be smokers tomorrow it will be you "yes people"!!!

reply
Its Me,... to dalevic 2012/07/29 06:56:14

The way it was, If a business owner felt that smoking hurt there business...they could ban it. If smoking did Not hurt the business, the owner would allow it. YOU SEE...THIS IS CALLED FREEDOM!!! Now it is just banned...This is called our current government in need of repair.

reply
Pookie to dalevic 2012/07/30 15:08:47

The PRIVATE property doesn't belong to the RENTER/LEASER..it belongs to the owner. The owner should be able to make the choice WITHOUT interference from anyone, e it he overnment or the renter/leaser.

reply
Debi.smith to Pookie 2012/08/25 17:26:23

Actually, by virtue of his rental/lease agreement, the renter/leaser is afforded all the rights and responsibilities, BOTH GOOD AND BAD, as the owner. He may be sued for someone sffering an injury in his home (though this rarely happens - people usually go after the money). He has a right to privacy and the right to EVERY SINGLR RIGHT A PERSON WHO OWNS HAS. If he lives in a complex where the owner states restrictions beforehand or in the lease and he agrees, then he signed with informed consent to those restrictions.

reply
Pookie to Debi.smith 2012/09/17 13:21:51

It sound to me as though you ALL belong to the OCCUPY movement..you want it all and you want it YOUR way.

reply
JudyInc... to dalevic 2012/08/01 13:58:39

Look, if you don't like the no smoking ban, then live somewhere where you can kill yourself sucking on those cancer sticks!!!!!! I live in a complex that is non smoking and I wouldn't have it any other way

reply
darmyman 2012/07/27 14:33:56

Yes

+5
Sure they should. They should also ban all: firearms, knives (yes even butter knives - these can be used as weapons also), stun guns, automobile (these are very dangerous), junk food (cant have people feeding this to children), all animals (huge source of dander and make affect others with allergies and cause consternation to any people that have animal phobias), foul language - (cant have that), I'm a bit torn on ethnic cooking as people may find the smell of this undesirable. Naturally I'm being Facetious. What you have in Santa Monica is the best description of the Nanny State one could provide. Asses.

reply
Debi.smith to darmyman 2012/08/25 17:28:49

LMAO. Perfect description.

reply
LolaLee4 2012/07/27 14:23:40
stevegt... to LolaLee4 2012/07/27 15:24:43

+1
and their dawg crawps on the grass in the complex! theres nothing more fun than schtepping in it at nite on your way home to your apartment!

reply
donnaga27 to LolaLee4 2012/07/27 17:17:59

But you don't have a problem with air pollution each time you take a breath of air outdoors, only people that smoke, hum?

reply
Schläue~© 2012/07/27 13:12:36 (edited)

No

+3
Shouldn't that decision be left up to the owners?

I can see dozens of discrimination lawsuits just waiting in the wings.

reply
jlott069 2012/07/27 13:01:33

No

+3
no. No one has any right to tell people what they can and can not do in their own home. What's next? They ban salt and sex doggy style because some people don't like it?

reply