Are you, by chance, aware of a new state law in California, that applies statewide, that states that a landlord renting to a tenant is now required to, a) provide full disclosure to tenants of where the smokers might be residing inside one of their buildings and b) provide full disclosure about the dangers of SHS along the lines of the warnings on cigarette packs?
There was a massive amount of expensive billboard sized subway and transit signs all over downtown SF this last month that were hailing this new state law as a major victory and demanding that all renters in SF and California for that matter go to their landlords and demand full disclosure of a) where “the smokers” live and b) the dangers of SHS.
Just curious if you heard about this new law – ad it’s been highly promoted all over SF this month, encouraging people to run to landlords and complain about SHS – using highly provocative anti-smoker propaganda of the hateful and devisive variety to accomplish its goals – the kinds of billboards one would have expected to see in East Germany or during Nazi occupation.
Tom also provided a link to the relevant legislation.
(b) (1) Every lease or rental agreement entered into on or after January 1, 2012, for a residential dwelling unit on property on any portion of which the landlord has prohibited the smoking of cigarettes or other tobacco products pursuant to this article shall include a provision that specifies the areas on the property where smoking is prohibited, if the lessee has not previously occupied the dwelling unit.
So, the same disclosure will conversely show where smoking is permitted, and thus where the smokers live. A bit like showing where non-kosher food is served, and thus conversely where kosher food is to be found, and thus where the Jews live.
The landlord can still choose to “exercise the authority provided to prohibit smoking.” But how long before he is required to exercise that authority? Like in Pasadena:
On July 11, 2011, the City of Pasadena passed a “no-smoking” ordinance for multi-family homes, defined as two or more units, applicable to both those now existing and to be built, effective January 1, 2012. The ordinance provides that it will be unlawful to smoke in any common area (broadly defined in the statute to include all areas other than a unit), patio, balcony or inside a unit within any multi-family building, and yes, this applies to condominiums…
The actual enforcement of this ordinance will commence on July 1, 2013 and prohibit smokers from not only smoking on association common areas, but also within their condominium, which includes townhomes and, as it applies to non-association properties as well, rental and owned apartments. The ordinance will be enforced by the City, not by the associations.
More in Tom’s later comment here.
It’s a sort of creeping pogrom, that makes life harder and harder for smokers. Once one restriction has been accepted, another one is immediately added.
If I lived in NorCal, I’d be looking to get out, just like a Jew in Nazi Germany. But I guess that, to do that, you’d have to be fairly wealthy, just like in Nazi Germany. And I guess that in NorCal, the smokers are hoping that one day the antismoking pogrom will all blow over, just like Jews in Nazi Germany hoped the antisemitic pogrom would. But maybe it won’t.
I’ve been vaguely wondering this evening whether to include a Warning in my margin, advising NorCal smokers to get out while they still can. Would that be a good idea? Maybe SoCal and out-of-state smokers might consider setting up some organisation to help NorCal refugee smokers escape? And get some arms to the ones that remain, so that they can defend themselves?
But then, the votes on the money-grab Prop 29 continue to trend toward increasing the No lead, which is up some 700 votes today to 29,500. How bad a blow is the loss of $735 million to California’s antismoking Nazis? It seems that federal money has dried up. So where’s all the money coming from to fund the billboards and the antismoking TV ads that Tom is talking about?
I’ve read recently that not only is the State of California broke, but that it also poses a threat to the US economy much like Greece or Spain pose a threat to the EU economy. It doesn’t surprise me, because any economy is bound to suffer when a large section of its most productive members are marginalised and demonised.
I guess that the fact that this is a creeping pogrom suggests that the people who are organising it are aware that there’s a backlash likely if they move too fast to
exterminate persuade smokers to quit smoking.
It’s the job of bloggers like me to raise the alarm, and create that backlash. I’ve maybe helped a bit, these last few weeks, to defeat Prop 29, and snatch $735 million out of the thieving hands of Stanton Glantz. As a result I’ve become a marked man (although they’ve hidden the page now).
And if I should die soon, suddenly and unexpectedly (of a heart attack or something), then all I have to say is: