From the London Times (Pointer: Ann Althouse):
“Carlsbad, a surfing hot spot near San Diego, has decided to prohibit people from lighting up inside apartments, condos and other shared buildings where multiple families live. From January residents will not be able to smoke or vape cannabis and nicotine products indoors or on balconies, porches and decks. The law does not apply to single-family homes or hotels and motels…At least 84 of California’s 483 municipalities — including Beverly Hills, Cupertino and Pasadena — have enacted similar bans in multi-family private residences, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation…Many residents in Carlsbad said the smoking ban would improve public health while making housing more pleasant despite concerns over how it will be enforced. Due to limited resources police will not enforce the law, but landlords and other tenants will be able to take legal action against anyone smoking indoors.”
You know that privacy thingy, one of the unenumerated Constitutional rights that the Roe court used to make killing fetuses a “right”? This law violates it. Melanie Burkholder, a Carlsbad council member, told the San Diego Union-Tribune: “I wrestle with the idea of how can I tell somebody what they can or can’t do in the confines of their own place where they live. But … we have to watch out for the best interests of the majority of the public.” Oh.
Do you have any doubt, any doubt at all, what the political affiliation of the Carlsbad council members who voted for that law is?
Next up: these “we know best” local governments ordering citizens to only eat what the city councils believe are healthy foods.
The laws are unconstitutional. They must get to SCOTUS as soon as possible to be struck down.
Meanwhile, someone needs to ask Kamala Harris, who is marinated in the undemocratic culture that produces such threats to individual liberty, her opinion of the measures. (I know: she’ll just laugh.)
“The ban has been criticised by some residents,” the article says. Gee, that’s encouraging…
Ethics Alarms 
The Supreme Court is going to have to put on their ‘big boy’ pants. These laws by cities and states are rampant. The Supreme Court cannot help to try to address the unconstitutional laws coming out of these places. The Court cannot continue to play this game.
The Game:
(1) City or State passes obviously unconstitutional law.
(2) District and Appellate Courts uphold obviously unconstitutional law under the rationale “We need to do this because there is a problem”.
(3) Supreme Court says ‘No, you obviously can’t do that, but we are going to very narrowly say that you can’t do that’.
(4) City or State passes almost identical law, perhaps with a different name or in a different font. They may just make it MORE unconstitutional. In this case, they could ban smoking in all private dwellings, with warrantless ‘health checks’ to make sure people aren’t smoking (for their own good).
(5) Rinse and repeat.
The Supreme Court is gong to have to broadly state that you can’t pass unconstitutional laws. They can’t keep lopping off hydra heads (after first applying anesthesia and using a qualified surgeon). They need to say clearly that the state can’t dictate restrictions on legal behavior in people’s homes. They need to define homes as both owned, mortgaged, or rented (even for a short time). They need to impose a significant fine for violating people’s constitutional rights personally on the legislators who passed such laws (that will require a change to the qualified immunity legal concept, but that isn’t a law, so…). The Court needs to stop sending cases down to lower courts to revisit, only to have the lower court reach the same, erroneous conclusion, ignoring the Supreme Court’s guidance completely. These lower courts need to be slapped down mightily. I now there is supposed to be collegiality and respect, but the lower court judges don’t seem to be showing any and it is time for the Supremes to face reality.
The Supreme Court is in danger of being eliminated. If Harris/Walz is the next administration, I expect that the Supreme Court will be reduced to the judicial version of MSNBC. I don’t think that they understand what danger they are in. There will be court packing, term limits, and possibly some type of administrative review of the Supreme Court if they don’t take a strong stance on things.
“(4) City or State passes almost identical law, perhaps with a different name or in a different font. They may just make it MORE unconstitutional.”
Yeah, one example in my state of residence, NYSRPA v. Bruen – Hochul Convenes Extraordinary Session to Pass Gun Safety Legislation in the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen
The new law is more unconstitutional.
Yes, exactly. You can’t enable such behavior. You stop it by not being nice anymore and enforcing the law instead of allowing a different set of exceptions to the law.
Clearly, they’re going after the Fourth Amendment, just as they’re going after all the others. Seizing people’s air space. Who knew?
I’m confused. Do apartments not have their own non-smoking policies? Mine does. Are people who want smoke-free environments unable to find places with such policies?
Difference between a law and a residence policy.
Right, exactly. If you already have a residence policy, why would you need a law? Is it just that difficult to find apartments where people don’t smoke? I strongly suspect this is more of a problem with affordable housing options, and they’re just using layers of laws to try and cover up the symptoms of serious economic economic problems that were caused by corrupt or incompetent policies.
Correct. I support a no-smoking policy in apartment buildings because cigarettes are fire hazards. I would not support a government law banning smoking because it’s overreach.
Now you have me worried about how many Americans grasp that foundational concept..
California has rent control. This might affect people’s ability or desire to move to a non-smoking apartment building.
I would think people could petition their landlords for a change in the smoking policy, but there’s probably a law against the landlord making changes that affect the enjoyment of the home or that would exempt existing tenants from changes. (I don’t know if there’s such a law, but I wouldn’t be surprised since I think CA is tenant-friendly.)
Newer apartments where I live (KY, where smoking is still considered somewhat socially acceptable) ban smoking on the properties. I would be very surprised if the same wasn’t true in CA. My guess is that this a law to make the poors make better choices.
I can probably count on one hand the number of times, in the history of this country, an official has claimed to weigh an individual liberty interest against something that they wanted to do, and decided the former outweighed the latter.
What about crack pipes? Is it an affirmative defense that the tenant was smoking a crack pipe and not cannibis or nicotine?
The above from the ordinance, I’m pretty sure could be bastardized in court to ban candles and incense. Smelling is a function of inhaling; therefore, wouldn’t anyone who smelled the smoke be guilty of inhaling under number 1 above?