Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Assemblyman Wood: Anti- Second Hand Smoke Zealot

John Chiv reports Assemblyman Jim Wood has introduced legislation which would allow landlords to prohibit the smoking of marijuana in their rentals, the reasoning seeming to be that second hand smoke from marijuana is just as bad as that of tobacco.

I actually find this somewhat refreshing. I've wrote before here of what I see as the irony of so many of those proposing legalizing marijuana also seeming to be in favor of at least defacto prohibition of tobacco. At least Wood- an anti- tobacco zealot himself- seems to also appreciate the irony.

But, no, it doesn't change my opinion of him, at least not much. I don't see this as the assemblyman suddenly coming to a higher plane of consciousness. He's still falling for the second hand smoke hoax, as do most people nowadays. I see him as simply trying to follow what he sees as popular public opinion. It has nothing to do with acquiring principles.

As an aside, some of you older folks might remember that back when they started with the smoking restrictions those of us who suggested those restrictions might eventually apply to our homes were considered paranoid nut cases. History has shown we were right on the mark. 


At 9:35 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Let's try to look at this solely on political logic, as opposed to faux zealousy.

Logic: 1) rentals and the aspects of renter/rentee, lessor/lessee, payer/payee are the same in that they are active forms of "business".

2) CA. Bus. & Prof. Code makes it illegal for places of business to allow inside a structure any smoking of tobacco or other smoke creating products to protect both employee and customers.......based upon the idea that fresh air, cleaner air is a public health and safety tenet and confined spaces don't 100% allow for a smokeless experience......however, it seems an exception is if a certain noticed area for smoking is " legally approved" because it has a smoke extraction venting system as part of its operation as a business........ doubt residential or commercial style bathroom fart fans or stovetop fans count as smoke extraction systems........besides fart fans don't move hardly any air.

Landlords know that smoke particulates damage structures on the inside and the cigarette butts being a fire cause for such discretionary regulation.

Plus, liability from smoking inside that creates health and safety impacts onsite to any other person, like a guest.

The arguments will be that pot is not like tobacco, it's a medicine....or, it is the residents home and the resident should be able to do whatever......

Longtime smokers cause walls and ceilings, shelves, cabinets........everything is covered with a stick film of nicotine/tar/smoke particulates that takes hours upon hours to properly clean and/or reprime and repaint.......lots of costs.

Business wise, this is a legal "tit for tat", "you got to eat your cake, but no longer", etc.

Lots of logic to justify, but so too lots of dissent.

Since minimum wage is going up, since monetary policy is devaluing the dollar that causes costs to increase, there needs to be adjustments to the various baselines in political regulations that are monetary in nature like:

A. Allowing a landlord to increase a deposit demand, increase a first and last demand (reinstitute older policies to reverse the discrimination upon landlords), etc...

B. Loosen eviction requirements, etc...

Essentially all the bullshit rights takings from landlords that the state and feds created by way of regulations to help aide people from homelessness because they deserve to be punished for the breaches of their obligations and duties as a renter, lessor, payer.......but the state forces the punishment onto the landowner......renting is a crap shoot, like trusting employees not to tip you off because times are really tough and only getting tougher.

Tit for tat politics, yay.

At 10:26 AM, Blogger Sally Sheffield said...

He's right, non smokers should not be forced to absorb 2nd or 3rd hand carcinogens.

At 10:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for the record his name is Wood, not Woods.

At 11:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Private property rights take another falling. Funny thing is, the junk science that the regulators adore for taxing justification, have a basement full for Mmj too. Need I also mention the war on vapor? Good news is, the politicians are freaked over a possible ban of vaping products which will then limit their taxing scheme on vapor while forcing real tobacco into the blackmarket. Money talks.

Speaking of vapor, call the Gov right away and veto SBx2-5 (Leno). Urgent.

At 11:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This bill goes hand in hand with the new non-car, non-garage, non-parking, clean sustainable living communities aka stack-n-packs. Parkletts reduce parking, encourage walking. New apt complexes without garages encourages walking and bicycles. A train through the middle encourages public transit. Brought to you by your local council of governments aka UN. The politicians, of course, get to keep their jets, limo's, & cabin getaways. Unless you're a politician, enjoy the walk.
It's called preventative measures. Preventative diseases. Preventative crime. Preventative Liberty. Preventative living.

At 12:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The doses of carcenogens in second hand smoke are so minute, it would take 400 thousand years for any single person to receive a dose strong enough to become concerned about. Most anti-smokers don't care to share this info. They seem to only care about taxing.
Another fact, they hold in secret? By the time the lungs filter, yes, the lungs have filters, the exhaled "smoke" is mostly just water or vapor. Lungs are an incredible organ. So incredible, in fact, that non smokers & never smokers & never been around smokers, have seriously questioned why healthcare, ALA, ACS, CDC, have dismissed their symptoms of lung cancer simply because they don't smoke. It's an avoidable tragedy, but they refuse to put the money into research. They have their taxable culprit, end of story.

At 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Experts say they have historically over estimated the link between smoking and lung cancer.
(other articles, other experts, confirm this. Google)

At 7:34 PM, Blogger Sally Sheffield said...

Years ago experts (speaking for the tobacco companies) said smoking was beneficial to health. Think about it on a molecular level. DNA is fragile. Why play Russian Roulette? Also, smoke is a bane to those with allergies and asthma.

At 8:13 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Funny thing is if it is "new development by permit", city and county planning departments DEMAND:

more parking, not less
more paved roads, not less
more paved Infrastructure accessories
paved trails
land clearing for parking spaces onsite

Funny shit, not, but costs a lot, no really, a lot.

Dear Affordable housing,


At 8:20 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Ah, but natural materials like that which are found in a forest, are beneficial to the environment when burned.

Carbonizing the material in a smoke particulates form that travels miles is actually a natural form of "self fertilization"....... Promotes rejuvenation through re-nutrification that also keeps pests(wood boring insects, etc....) at a minimum.

Yearly, fruit trees are aided by smoke to keep the bugs to a minimum. Then, the birds swoop in, clean house.

Chirp, chirp, da widdle birdie.

At 10:27 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:34 Sally, now it's surprise surprise big pharma touting nicotine as the wonder drug.
To deny the pros & cons, is to set an agenda. The agenda won.
People smoke because it benefits them personally. People like anti-smoking zealots can't handle that. They think every smoker wants to quit, but it's not true. They are being forced to quit. They say it increases your years here on earth, yet most lung cancer victims are never smokers and EX smokers. The centurions just keep on keeping on. Imagine that.


Post a Comment

<< Home