Coun. Shannie Duff says city council should have no role policing lifestyle choices.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/07/29/city-smoking-ban.html
No butts about it: St. John's enacts no-smoking housing rule
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Coun. Shannie Duff says city council should have no role policing lifestyle choices.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/07/29/city-smoking-ban.html
I hope these places don't have communal hallways. If you're going to make the building non-smoking it should apply to everyone on the same day.
I can't get why anyone would compare a drinking problem or obesity to smoking. I have yet to see a home need to have its drywall stripped because the resident was fat. Or have to have the carpets removed because of the whiskey stink. The sheer damage to a building because of (irresponsible) smokers is BAD. Yes, there are some who have the good sense to ventilate, but, not all do.
So can an ugly tempered sober person. An ugly tempered woman going through postpartum.
But, ALL smokers do some smoke damage to a home if they smoke indoors.
Not disputing. A landlord can sue to recover physical damages. Smoke? Not likely. The place is supposed to be painted between tenancies anyhow. This gives them some recourse.
Exactly... not to mention the carpet is supposed to be shampoo'd. Any and all damages made during your ocupation of the home are covered either with your security deposit, or through normal coverage of typical living exercises protected in the tenancy act, such as nails in the walls for pictures, etc. All of those things should be removed, repainted and made brand new before you or any other potiential tennant moves in, so someone's smoking there in the past shouldn't matter if the people owning the building were doing their job in the first place...... which I know they didn't where I live.
But I smoke, and my home isn't as dirty as you would like to make it out to be Karrie.... thanks though.
What about grease stains from their bodies as they lie asleep against the walls in their beds because there isn't enough space to support their girth?
Apparently you've never been over to my Ex's mother's place.
If those other people are not paying your rent and don't live with you, they have no say what you do within your own apartment or wherever.
Where I live, there's plenty of smokers, non-smokers, pot smokers, and more.... I live in a building that's built out of wood and is about 25 or so years old now.... it's shifting to one side, it's built near a river, ventilation is crap at best...... but nobody else's smoke or smell enters my apartment, they're not affect my health any.... and to me, they can do whatever they please, so long as I can do the same.
Alright, what about the people subsidizing your rent? Keep in mind this isn't a typical rental situation they're discussing.
well the rights and laws still apply.... when you move out, they gotta make sure the place is spick and span when the next person moves in... if you smoke or don't, they're still need to fix up the walls, holes, any other damages that may occur. Smoking isn't some radioactive material that's going to stay there and kill people for 50 years... just scrub the walls when you move out, the company which owns the building paints it as they should, the carpets are shampooed... what more does one need?
Better yet.... where's the justification for such a rule?
If other tenants are complaining about breathing problems in places they move into, because it smells like ciggs.... then the landlords/company didn't do their job in cleaning the place and slacked off.
What are the rights and laws exactly? I've seen 'adult only' rentals, 'no pet' rentals, and 'no-smoking' rentals in the past. What grants a person a 'right' to smoke in a building they don't own? From what I gathered the complaint wasn't the fact that tenants have a 'right' to smoke, but that because they're living in profit free housing, they can't afford to shop around for an arrangement that better suits their habits. The complaint seemed to be that it was coercing the poor into a lifestyle change... not breaching any rights.
The poor are having to be forced to quit something that isn't illegal where there is no justification or reason valid enough to make such a rule. Oh, I currently live in a "No Pet" apartment at the moment.... the landlord has his own cat, along with half the building, including myself.... not to mention fish, etc.... and through my own experience of living in various apartment buildings in the last number of years, the No Pet's rule is subjective.... not to mention it's enforced very little.
I dispute the claims of damaged walls, stained carpets and other damages from smoking, as it's no worse then most other things out there which is done in every household through common living.
Let me guess, soon we're not allowed to use candles or incense because they smell and stain the walls?
If people would get off their lazy asses and clean up after themselves, it wouldn't be an issue. If landlords and companies renting out the places did their jobs and cleaned up the apartment as they should as stated in the Tenancy Act, then there wouldn't be a problem. If builders designed their buildings with proper ventilation, there wouldn't be a problem.
But let's hack all over smokers and make them quit their legal habbit as it's easier to crap all over them then to do what you're supposed to be doing.... which is cleaning up after yourself when you move.
There is no need to dictate to other people how to live their personal lives when all that is required is for people to get off their lazy arses and clean up after themselves.
Added:
Oh, and their whole stance is contradicting:
They say anybody signing a new agreement can not smoke inside their dwellings, yet existing tenants are exempt from this rule.... so now you have two sides where one person can smoke and another can't.... all because of the date they signed into the place..... so how come all those reasons of not allowing people to smoke inside the building don't apply to everyone in the building?
Because it has nothing to do with health, or damages or any of the other reasons they mentioned to ban smoking inside... or else they would make the existing smokers sign a new contract agreeing they can't smoke.... but they're not doing this, so it's not right no matter how you look at it.
No smoking in this home either. But that's by choice. We don't need a nanny gov't to tell us we don't want smoke in our home.
I see this as all part of the SLIPPERY SLOPE.
You've already seen prohibitions on smoking lead logically to prohibitions on trans fats, and soon on to additives, fast food.
This approach shares affinity with the idea that we are doing everything to improve ourselves and avoid things that harm.
We want to be healthier, stronger, tougher, smarter.
We want to be without problems of forgetting, having temper tantrums, having depression, or any emotional negativity.
In other words we want to be robots !!!
Coupled with nanotechnology and GPS locators this race will dimly remember nor comprehend the various stupidities we lived with or inflicted on ourselves.
We will make this new race in our own image, our image of what we think is better, our image of what we think is perfection.
So stop smoking.
That's your first step towards improvement.
You've already seen prohibitions on smoking lead logically to prohibitions on trans fats, and soon on to additives, fast food.
This approach shares affinity with the idea that we are doing everything to improve ourselves and avoid things that harm.
We want to be healthier, stronger, tougher, smarter.
We want to be without problems of forgetting, having temper tantrums, having depression, or any emotional negativity.
In other words we want to be robots !!!
Coupled with nanotechnology and GPS locators this race will dimly remember nor comprehend the various stupidities we lived with or inflicted on ourselves.
We will make this new race in our own image, our image of what we think is better, our image of what we think is perfection.
So stop smoking.
That's your first step towards improvement.
I've told myself a million times to stop smoking ,but refuse to listen to myself. Besides, for most of the year St.John's is so fogbound, so one can see what youy're doing even outside.
Face it, smokers stink.
Smoking causes Cancer, even just being around it can cause Cancer.
You can't say that about fat or booze.
Smoking lowers the resale value and costs more to rehabilitate afterward.
If someone who owns the building says no smoking, go elsewhere or quit.
If you are so low on funds to need subsidised housing, what are you doing blowing money on tobacco in the first place?
Smoking causes Cancer, even just being around it can cause Cancer.
You can't say that about fat or booze.
Smoking lowers the resale value and costs more to rehabilitate afterward.
If someone who owns the building says no smoking, go elsewhere or quit.
If you are so low on funds to need subsidised housing, what are you doing blowing money on tobacco in the first place?
So do Drunks and Coffee drinkers, but you don't hear me complaining.
And Alcohol can kill your liver and brain cells, not to mention drinking and driving.... yet we have commercials, advertisements and all of it shoved in our faces daily. Cars and Power Plants, as well as the growth hormones in the meat we eat has all been traced to the same stuff.... I see no difference.
I just did.
It doesn't lower the resale value unless the idiots in charge of upkeep arn't doing their jobs. And there's plenty of other things that need rehabilitation more then just smokers..... and yet nothing is done to this extent.
As already explained, their reasons are futile, as they should be cleaning and repainting the place regardless if the previous tenant was a smoker or not. If you are supplying a service, then you should abide by the same rules and laws as every other person of company in that business.
Because life sucks perhaps? Not to mention, no matter who you are, or what your upbringing/background is.... every human has a vice, be that Coffee, Alcohol, Marijuana, Tobacco, Pepsi, Gum, Toothpick Collecting.....
If the landlords or other tenants lived in the exact same apt as yourself, then I could see some justifcation for this. If you're living by yourself, in your own apt, which you are paying for, then by law, whatever you do in your "dwelling" is no one else's business, so long as it doesn't break the law..... and since smoking is still "Legal" They shouldn't have any position to tell people what to do in their own dwelling.
What's next? Your neighbors trying to force you from your own paid house and property, because the apperance of you smoking takes the value down of their own houses?
This is fk'n retarded in a "Touch my Left Elbow with my Left Hand / Bite my own Ear" sort of way.