It is now Illegal to Smoke IN YOUR OWN HOME

In a semi-free country like the US it’s difficult to impose tyranny in one fell swoop. It has to be done slowly, little by little, baby step by baby step. And it’s important that those first few steps seem reasonable.

The first anti-smoker law was passed in the sixties. It demanded smoking and non-smoking sections in airplanes. That seems pretty reasonable, and it was passed with little objection. If someone said “In a couple of decades this will lead to it being illegal to have a smoke in a bar,” everyone would have laughed at him. And if he said “In forty years this will lead to it being illegal to smoke in your own home” he’d have been written off as being batshit crazy.

This week the city of Belmont CA passed a law that does just that. If you live in an apartment or a in a condo you’ve paid for, your private property, it will soon be illegal to smoke in it.

Fellow citizens, how long are we going to put up with this kind of shit? What will it take to wake up the American Sheeple?


34 Comment(s)

  1. The way this is written is JUST NUTS.

    That’s right, this non-smoking theist liberal nanny says this law is NUTS.

    In a condo, you own the inside walls and the space within. Common areas, okay, I can see that being an issue, but COULDN’T THE CONDO ASSOCIATION DEAL WITH THAT???

    And in apartments, okay, I could see the common areas being subject to health law, but the inside of the apartment?

    I could see this in buildings with common ventilation systems, but I have NEVER lived in an apartment with a common ventilation system.

    Did I mention this is NUTS?

    Watch for regulations on wearing perfume and cooking onions or fish next.

    Cindi Knox | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply

  2. You could also view this as class discrimination as the poor smoker is more likely to live in an apartment complex or condo.

    Don Venardos | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply

  3. We had an apartment neighbor who used to complain about our cooking smells, even though I though hers were far worse. Then she wanted us (as non-smokers) to gang up on another tenant who smoked (out her window, no-less). I think SHS is unpleasant, to say the least, but I think a reasonable amount of noise, smells, etc should be assumed in apartment/condo living.

    Dan Pearson | Oct 16, 2007 | Reply

  4. I agree with Dan. There are acceptable and unacceptable levels of noise and smells which vary from person to person and should be decided privately.

    Harley | Oct 17, 2007 | Reply

  5. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA! I wish this could be passed in more places. Sound crazy? I cannot tell you how much money I’ve spent on air freshners, air purifiers, you name it to keep the smell of smoke out of my apartment. Here are some things people aren’t considering:
    -The smoke doesn’t just affect the smoker (at least not where I live
    -If someone is smoking indoors, how can they possibly have a working smoke detector? FIRE HAZARD.
    -Why should people be allowed to kill themselves and other people just because they are paying for something? Regardless of the fact tobacco is legal, IT KILLS PEOPLE. DAILY.
    -For the sake of the apartment complex, it takes so much more work for them to remove the smoke smells and stains from the apartment, it may not be worth their time/effort. They lose money because they have a unit no one wants to live in.

    No one with any sense is going to say smoking is good for you; and what’s worse is it’s bad for anyone around you. THIS is what we should be fighting to keep. When’s the last time gays were scientifically proven to cause cancer? Maybe try to pick battles that don’t involved DEATH.

    HUMANBEING | Sep 21, 2009 | Reply

  6. Humanbeing, you are exactly the kind of selfish, ignorant, mindless clone that government bureaucrats and nanny do-gooders love. I’d love to be there when the nannies shut down something YOU like. And they will, eventually – their list is endless.

    Hittman | Sep 22, 2009 | Reply

  7. Since HUMANBEING thinks this is such a great idea, I can tell him/her right where to go to experience it, sounds like he/she would fit right in. The only problem is he/she would need a time machine, as it was Germany in the mid-1930’s and early to mid-1940’s. Anti-gun, anti-smoking, state-regulated health regimes, required physicals, dietary dictatorship, it was all there. HUMANBEING, you are welcome to it, plus it would get you out of our country, whiuch most us prefer to remain FREE.

    celtblood | Aug 30, 2010 | Reply

  8. HUMANBEING, you do know that smoke detectors don’t detect cigarette smoke right? Carbon minoxide detectors detect cigarette smoke. If you don’t like the smell in your apartment there is a quick solution…MOVE!

    ussailor | Feb 24, 2011 | Reply

  9. Do you people not believe in property rights? Why should it *ever* be legal to pollute somebody else’s property? The air in your house/apartment is yours and yours alone. You can stink up your own home all you like, but that right ends at your neighbor’s window/wall/fence/doorstep.

    Louis | Jan 24, 2012 | Reply

  10. To Louis:

    If you’re going to take that position (your rights end at your neighbours’ window/wall/fence/doorstep), then no one should ever be allowed to start their cars or, especially, mow their lawns with a gasoline powered lawn mower. No more firing up a charcoal grill, either. All of these activities produce FAR more airborne carcinogens than you would inhale from so-called “secondhand smoke”. Do the research, you’ll find I’m right. Following your train of thought, let’s take it a step further… no more TV or music. No radio. The sounds may infringe on my peace of mind and my right to enjoy absolute silence in my own home and on my own property. Don’t dare stand outside and carry on a conversation with your family or friends, it infringes on my right to perfect quietude. Take it inside, but keep it at a level by which there will be no danger of my having to hear it on my own property. Nor do I want to smell odours from your kitchen, so no more cooking at home, I resent it and I have a right to be free from unwanted cooking smells. Unless you can contain them on YOUR property alone and keep them COMPLETELY away from mine, go eat out. I have the right to demand this. And if you have trees, keep the leaves on YOUR side of the fence. Unwanted leaves are an infringement on MY rights, and pose a health threat because they may carry some toxin my trees don’t have. Remember your own words… your rights end at my window/wall/fence/doorstep. No tolerance!!!

    celtblood | Jan 24, 2012 | Reply

  11. Fence? So if I’m smoking outside and a bit of smoke drifts over the fence to where my neighbor can barely smell it, I’ve committed a property rights violation?

    Sheesh. People like you are the enemies of a free society, and the reason we no longer have one.

    Hittman | Jan 24, 2012 | Reply

  12. If you’re living in an urban area where your home is located literally only a couple of feet from your neighbor’s, then yes, activities like smoking, barbecuing, playing your stereo too loud, or using a stinky out-of-tune lawnmower do become a problem and can be restricted by law. The politicians and the cops aren’t some aliens from another world, they act only because the majority of the people in their area complain and want them to do something. If you don’t like it, then go live out in the woods or on a farm where your neighbor literally lives miles away from you, and then you can do pretty much whatever you want.

    Louis | Jan 25, 2012 | Reply

  13. Or I could move into a neighborhood where the people who lived next to me weren’t unreasonable twats like you.

    I think that’s a better solution. As for you, you prissy little dick, if you are so allergic to the sounds and smells that inevitably accompany living near other people you should be the one living in the woods, far away from us normal people who might impinge on your pathetically tender sensibilities.

    Hittman | Jan 25, 2012 | Reply

  14. Geez, what a crass lout. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth of yours? I suppose it hasn’t dawned on you that these laws get passed and remain in place simply because the majority of people support them? We do live in a democracy, after all, and an overwhelming majority of the US population doesn’t smoke anymore. Hence, the laws will naturally reflect the wishes of non-smokers, rather than the smokers. I also don’t see anything in the constitution or anywhere else that makes smoking a protected right. If the use of other drugs can be legally restricted, so can YOURS. And in any case, you don’t have a right to impose your drug habit on other people, you filthy junkie.

    Louis | Jan 25, 2012 | Reply

  15. Louis, tobacco is not considered a drug per se, anymore than coffee or tea.

    As for tobacco use in the US, the current situation is the direct result of a government pogrom against tobacco which began under the claim of public health, but was actually a social engineering experiment to see how willingly the public could be manipulated. The actual health threat is not from tobacco, but from the chemicals used on the tobacco, both in the field and during processing. These are many of the same chemicals which go into our food, ergo this is not really about public health. If it were, the real issue (the chemicals) would be addressed.

    Tobacco is an easy target, and, like firearms, following WWII those corrupt politicians and officials who were behind this knew the general public would not accept limitations on their basic freedoms, as we were still in the time frame of the “great generation” of heroes who had just defeated totalitarianism on the world stage. (Incidentally, Hitler’s Third Reich were big proponents of smoking bans and gun control, a fact that would not be lost on those who had just returned from the war.) So those who spearheaded what totalitarian regimes have long referred to as behavioural modification experiments waited and bade their time.

    Once the ’60’s got underway and the social revolution of that time provided ample unrest and a “battleground” of changing values (two tragic police actions in Korea and Vietnam, challenges to social mores, open questioning of long established ideologies, etc.), they made their move. Scores of “studies” were trotted out regarding tobacco and it’s “dangers”. Chemical additives were completely ignored, just as certain curative properties found in tobacco and long used by the American Indians were also ignored as tobacco was deliberately villified. And just as they had with gun control, the populace then beginning to come into the majority began to buy into the hype.

    The result was, as you stated, a vast reduction in tobacco usage. (Their plan also worked with gun control, but– fortunately– that has suffered a backlash.) What these studies will not tell you is that tobacco itself, without the chemicals, has very little effect on the regular user. Even with the chemicals, similar studies carried out in other parts of the world clearly show so-called “secondhand smoke” is less harmful than many airborne particulates and toxins we all breathe in on a daily basis, the only difference being that SHS can be seen. This is why it’s an easy target, and an ideal model for social engineering efforts.

    Organisations such as the CDC, the ALA, and the AHA have been caught numerous times deliberately misrepresenting the facts about a variety of diseases and illnesses. This is because they are now a political entity, as opposed to a genuine health entity. If they were genuine in their claims and concerns, they would be targeting these dangerous chemicals we are all exposed to instead of just one substance which contains those chemicals.

    Sometimes you have to think outside the box and actually use your brain. Just because the government says something or promotes a certain ideology does not make it true.

    We all get that you don’t like SHS. I don’t like the smell of certain perfumes, or the noise of traffic, or certain types of music. That said, what I dislike far more than any of those is totalitarianism because I have read my history and know how terribly dangerous it is. So I’ll take the smell of SHS and the noise and the occasional sound of rap or whinny country music, because that is the smell and sound of freedom for both my neighbours and myself.

    You should learn to appreciate it. Otherwise, as another poster has already pointed out, you may very well be the next person to lose yours.

    celtblood | Jan 25, 2012 | Reply

  16. Interesting that you should compare smoking to playing music, because in most towns there are ordinances against the latter if it is unreasonably loud. If a cop notices you driving down the street with your stereo thumping, you can get a ticket. If you’re hosting a party late at night and keeping your neighbors from being able to sleep, you can get a ticket. And again you’ve made no argument to demonstrate that smoking is some sort of a right or that smokers are a legally protected class in the first place, so there is no basis for your claim that smoking bans will somehow lead to a revocation of the “rest” of our rights.

    Louis | Jan 25, 2012 | Reply

  17. The operative word is loud music, not ALL music. My point simply is that if your sensibilities are that extreme and you find such small matters that offensive (be it a neighbour smoking, playing music at a reasonable level, watching TV, grilling out, mowing their lawn, whatever), then as another poster pointed out, you may be the one who needs to reconsider your living arrangements and get out in the country where the everyday activities of others can’t bother you.

    My intention has never been to “prove” that smoking is a Constitutional right, though some might make that argument and it would not be entirely groundless (“the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness” might well apply). My point is that someone smoking that far away is such a minor issue that it shouldn’t even be an issue at all. Live and let live, that’s what the American way has been for over two centuries, and it’s worked out pretty well. There are plenty of real issues to concern oneself with, such as the economy, national security, crime, abuses (child, animal, elderly), overtaxation, government waste, pollution, the environment, etc., without harping about someone in the next house enjoying a smoke.

    There’s this thing called common sense, we as a nation have, somehow, lost a lot of it over the past few decades with the rise of this mental illness known as PC. Common sense goes along with things like personal responsibility, tolerance, being a good neighbour, and working a little toward making oneself the sort of person others enjoy being around. It really doesn’t take that much effort, and the rewards are well worth it.

    Creating a major issue out of someone else’s personal choice just because you don’t agree with it (even if you consider it to be nasty, disgusting, and so on), in the opinion of those of us who stand on the side of common sense, tends to make you the problem.

    When this anti-smoking pogrom began it was just an educational effort. Next they came up with smoking sections in restaurants, that was not unreasonable. Now they’re creating laws and demanding absolute bans on smoking under all circumstances, even in one’s own home. If you can’t see a big problem with that, my friend, then you just don’t “get it” when it comes to being an American.

    One cannot embrace totalitarianism in any form while claiming to be a supporter of liberty without making it apparent that what one truly stands for is abject hypocrisy.

    celtblood | Jan 25, 2012 | Reply

  18. One last point to Louis…

    “–there is no basis for your claim that smoking bans will somehow lead to a revocation of the “rest” of our rights.”

    Study a few history books, and familiarise yourself with the progression of totalitarianism in any dicatatorial culture you choose. It is instituted in increments. That is my basis. Take a right away here, rescind a liberty there. Start with the small stuff and work your way up. It’s a vicious pattern, and in time it grows like a cancer until it begins to eat up the system which once provided liberty.

    A few decades ago, we had no extensive gun control laws which affected the law-abiding citizen. We had no smoking bans. We had no seat belt laws. Now that we do, we hear of new restrictions on soft drinks, dietary guidelines, an ever-increasing emphasis on preventive healthcare. In the 1930’s a very similar scenario unfolded in Nazi Germany. Gun control led to gun bans. Smoking regulations led to smoking bans. Dietary recommendations led to mandates and required physical exercise, as well as mandated physical exams. Before long, the German citizen was viewed as the property of the government, with a duty to the fatherland to render his or her life to the service of that government.

    Again, study history and, hopefully, learn from it. Every small mandate a free society rejects serves as an obstacle to greater mandates in the future, and thus preserves our collective freedom.

    “The price of liberty is constant vigilance.”
    — Thomas Jefferson

    celtblood | Jan 25, 2012 | Reply

  19. Nicely done, Celtblood. Having dealt with sheep like Louis in a variety of different venues, I can assure you that no one can change his mind, because he doesn’t have much of one. But most readers of this blog do, and will give some thought to what you presented so well.

    Hittman | Jan 26, 2012 | Reply

  20. You’re just a bunch of selfish inconsiderate yahoos, that’s all there is to it.

    Louis | Jan 26, 2012 | Reply

  21. Thanks, Hittman.

    I recognise the fact that Louis is an extremist and it is doubtful that any amount of logic, reason, or proof will sway him. However, when such nonsense is paraded before the people unanswered and unaddressed, that silence is their ally, leaving them free to continue their campaigns of half truths and, most likely in the end, outright lies.

    As one who understands the fragile nature of genuine liberty (as well as one who, like yourself, appreciates and loves that liberty), I feel an obligation to take a stand for the truth at every opportunity.

    Smoking may be “just a habit”, or perhaps a hobby. The world will not end nor continue based upon the people’s ability to smoke. But in the events we see around us, it is becoming much more than that. It is yet another symbol of the personal choice and the individual freedom which marked the times that made America great. It is a thumbed nose to the idea of dictatorship, a swift kick up the rear to any established authority which would seek to expand it’s control beyond it’s rightful boundaries.

    Though I never had the honour of serving in the military, I have had many family members who did. One uncle drove a tank in Patton’s Third Army. Word was out regarding Hitler’s abject hatred of smoking. Our boys blew smoke all the way into the heart of Berlin, then right up the Fuhrer’s butt, so to speak. Their smokes became a personal gesture of defiance against the totalitarian regime of the Nazis. As I look around me today, I see the “right” to smoke becoming a reflection of liberty once again, as more and more Americans wake up and view those cities, towns, and counties which refuse to jump on the PC bandwagon as bastions of the principles of freedom.

    Thanks so much for the support, as long as there are enough out here like you and I and so many other insightful posters as we see here, we can hope and pray there will never be another Third Reich, especially in this wonderful nation which was born of the very breath and essence of freedom.

    celtblood | Jan 26, 2012 | Reply

  22. CB, you’ll probably enjoy this, an article I wrote on that very subject ten years ago.


    Hittman | Jan 26, 2012 | Reply

  23. Hittman, that is an excellent article!

    (And what a great song, I write music myself, have been since I was a kid. We formed a band and got fairly popular back in the ’70’s, played with Steppenwolf and a few others through the years. My little cousin started out with Anthony Smith and Pam Tillis, and is now the drummer for Luke Bryan, carrying on the family musical tradition. Interesting that so many creative people enjoy smoking!)

    Thanks for sharing all this, I will keep the info handy, and with your permission will share the article with others, it’s one of the best I’ve seen.

    celtblood | Jan 26, 2012 | Reply

  24. “You’re just a bunch of selfish inconsiderate yahoos, that’s all there is to it.”

    Well Louis, you’re the one who supports forcing your personal ideologies on the rest of society, even if it means embracing totalitarianism. (Which in essence, may I remind you, is a betrayal of the ideas of personal liberty our nation was founded upon.)

    You may want to give that fact some thought.

    celtblood | Jan 30, 2012 | Reply

  25. Careful, Celtblood. You many damage his brain cell.

    Hittman | Jan 30, 2012 | Reply

  26. Non smoker people need to get off their high horses and deal with reality. Why don’t they just live in a bubble if they can’t handle the outside world.

    If you can’t deal with a little smoke lingering your way, then you’re a giant friggin pussy. Like… I can see if someones like blowing it in your face or you’re in an enclosed area where it can irritate your eyes or nose but this outside in parks thing? That’s friggin insane.

    Here’s what ya can do outside at parks if you’re bothered by a smoker…. KEEP WALKING. Or acknowledge this thing called wind… that forever provides an ample source of fresh oxygen.

    Julie Brown | Dec 10, 2012 | Reply

  27. What you fail to understand is that in apartments and condos, the air vents are connected, which means your smoke seeps into my apartment or condo. You certainly have a right to smoke anywhere you want, but your right to smoke ends at my right to not have to smell it!!

    Tom | Mar 13, 2013 | Reply

  28. Please, become a student of science!
    Second hand smoke can travel…
    Fires happen due to cigarettes…
    Who wants to be stuck in a lease agreement or own part of a building where at any moment, some dangerous, disrespectful, nasty smelling smoker can move in and make your life hell, and threaten your well being?!??!!

    Common Sense | Apr 26, 2013 | Reply

  29. I am a student of science. That’s how I know that SHS isn’t harmful. It may be annoying to some people, but it’s not harmful.

    Perhaps if you learned some science you could understand that.

    Dave Hitt | Apr 26, 2013 | Reply

  30. @HUMANBEING: “-The smoke doesn’t just affect the smoker (at least not where I live
    -If someone is smoking indoors, how can they possibly have a working smoke detector? FIRE HAZARD.”

    Scientifically challenged? What emanates visibly from a burning cigarette is over 70% of water vapor. Fire hazard anyone?

    benpal | May 14, 2013 | Reply

  31. @Tom: “the air vents are connected, which means your smoke seeps into my apartment or condo.”

    A ventilation system is designed to EXTRACT air from the apartments, not to distribute it to all apartments. Otherwise, you could receive all the smells from your your neighbor’s kitchen and toilets, all day long.

    benpal | May 14, 2013 | Reply

  32. All you people who are bitching about the “second hand smoke” is real bull shit. The risk of lung cancer for heavy smokers (multiple packs a day for several years) is around 25%, the risk of lung cancer for a light smoker (1-4 cigs per day) is between 5 and 10%. Keep in mind these people inhale the entire ciggerate. So lets say the few wiffs (mabey 2% of that smoke is inhaled by the non smoker from that ciggerate) you get from someone whos smokes, mabey adds up to a tottal of 5-30 ciggerattes in your life time. Your risk of lung cancer from that second hand smoke would be roughly .0002%. Think about it man, theres such greater risks in life than second hand smoke. But i do agree that ciggreattes smell pretty rank (even though i smoke), and the smokers should give the common courtisy of smoking outside in a well ventaled area.

    Smells like semen | May 23, 2013 | Reply

  33. Celtblood, please contact me at business&silverdollarsolutions^com (change & to @ and ^ to .) Your comments here are strikingly astute, and I would like to edit them into an essay form. By edit I mostly mean compile, as I don’t wish to change your content. I would like to give you all due credit, get your approval on the final product, incorporate any other thoughts you think are relevant, and submit it to some ilberty-minded publications to help “light” some people’s thoughts.

    Thank you for the great service you have already done to Liberty, and the cause of sanity.

    Silver_Smoke | Jul 10, 2013 | Reply

  34. I am wondering who is going to enforce this smoking ban? Will places like San Rafael have enough police to hunt down smokers and keep the community safe from real danger? If you arrest the parents because they both smoke in their home, what happens to their children? Do they go into the system while they are in jail? If you loose your job while in jail and can’t pay your rent or mortgage do you then join the ranks of the homeless? This sounds rather expensive to me. If you force people to quit all over the country will the government loose enough tax dollars to be noticeable? If you are in the military can they arrest you or do they need MP’s. Could they end up with a dishonorable discharge for using a product that is being manufactured legally? Rebecca Woodbury is an ignorant pile of pompous poop who is using The Constitution to wipe her fanny. Who is okay with that?

    Sammy Carson | Nov 23, 2013 | Reply

Post a Comment