HUD, please don’t ban e-cigarettes in public housing

[OneBadWolf]

Why can't a landlord decide for him/herself whether they will or will not allow vaping in their property? What makes you so special as to be able to tell others what they can or can't do in respect to their own property?

The key point in law is a mans home is his castle. not his house, It may be your property, but unless you cohabitate, it is not your home. If you accept their money, you limit your rights to your own use of the property. If you don't like that, don't rent it. Pulse vape gave me the impression that he does not enjoy sweeping syrings. I give him the benefit of doubt that he has actually done as he described, and is not just talking out of his ass. If he finds that distastefull, perhaps he has no choice, as druggies are the only people willing to pay what he asks. If he tolerates IV drug use, a clear and bona fide concern that affects his property, how will a jury percieve any validity to an arbitrary decision that he cannot provide any basis in fact for?

I did ask how he went about cleaning the VG out of his HVAC system, as that was all he could think of to justify his arbitrary descision.

I wrote earlier,

"For example, you might decide in your own home, that 03:00 is the optimal time to change your furnace filter. On the other hand, thankfully the law protects your tenants from your OCD, and accessing their home, whether you own it or not at 03:00 on a whim"

Or Time, do you believe that a landlord should be able to check that filter at 03:00?

Why shouldn't a landlord be able to? What determines this legally is a test of reasonableness. That is precisely why I asked what reasonable grounds would a landlord have to prohibit a legal activity, that does not in any concrete manner affect his property?.

 

[OneBadWolf]

A landlord did not have his property seized

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/landlord-liability-for-criminal-acts-of-tenants.html

Police can seize not only cash from cars but real estate such as a person's home. For example, homes have been seized even if it was somebody other than the homeowner on the premises who committed drug crimes without the owner's awareness.[7] If the IRS suspects that property is involved with crime, or has been produced as a result of crime, then it has a pretext with which to seize it.[22] From 2010 to 2013, two motel owners were under constant threat of their property being seized after there were incidents of drug selling on the motel premises.[2] A judge ruled in 2013 that the owners could keep their motel since the owners did not know about the illegal activity and took all reasonable steps to prevent it.[2]

Now, if the motel owners were syringe sweepers, it would have had a different ending.

 

[pulsevape]

The key point in law is a mans home is his castle. not his house, It may be your property, but unless you cohabitate, it is not your home. If you accept their money, you limit your rights to your own use of the property. If you don't like that, don't rent it. Pulse vape gave me the impression that he does not enjoy sweeping syrings. I give him the benefit of doubt that he has actually done as he described, and is not just talking out of his ass. If he finds that distastefull, perhaps he has no choice, as druggies are the only people willing to pay what he asks. If he tolerates IV drug use, a clear and bona fide concern that affects his property, how will a jury percieve any validity to an arbitrary decision that he cannot provide any basis in fact for?

I did ask how he went about cleaning the VG out of his HVAC system, as that was all he could think of to justify his arbitrary descision.

I wrote earlier,

"For example, you might decide in your own home, that 03:00 is the optimal time to change your furnace filter. On the other hand, thankfully the law protects your tenants from your OCD, and accessing their home, whether you own it or not at 03:00 on a whim"

Or Time, do you believe that a landlord should be able to check that filter at 03:00?

Why shouldn't a landlord be able to? What determines this legally is a test of reasonableness. That is precisely why I asked what reasonable grounds would a landlord have to prohibit a legal activity, that does not in any concrete manner affect his property?.

I stopped getting mad about the people that abuse the system, I also stopped thinking about anything really that has to do with government, I'm gonna live my life without worrying about it. I own my house and I hate my job and I'm in debt... I am living the American Dream fuckin yay.

I don't even know what the argument is about anymore, I'm gonna have me a fucking vape.

this is the begining of wisdom

 

[pulsevape]

The key point in law is a mans home is his castle. not his house, It may be your property, but unless you cohabitate, it is not your home. If you accept their money, you limit your rights to your own use of the property. If you don't like that, don't rent it. Pulse vape gave me the impression that he does not enjoy sweeping syrings. I give him the benefit of doubt that he has actually done as he described, and is not just talking out of his ass. If he finds that distastefull, perhaps he has no choice, as druggies are the only people willing to pay what he asks. If he tolerates IV drug use, a clear and bona fide concern that affects his property, how will a jury percieve any validity to an arbitrary decision that he cannot provide any basis in fact for?

I did ask how he went about cleaning the VG out of his HVAC system, as that was all he could think of to justify his arbitrary descision.

I wrote earlier,

"For example, you might decide in your own home, that 03:00 is the optimal time to change your furnace filter. On the other hand, thankfully the law protects your tenants from your OCD, and accessing their home, whether you own it or not at 03:00 on a whim"

Or Time, do you believe that a landlord should be able to check that filter at 03:00?

Why shouldn't a landlord be able to? What determines this legally is a test of reasonableness. That is precisely why I asked what reasonable grounds would a landlord have to prohibit a legal activity, that does not in any concrete manner affect his property?.

OK wolfie ...so if a train leaves Austin Texas at 3:00 PM headed for New York city traveling at 40 mph and carrying 3 tons of sun ripened watermelons....what will be the cost of said watermelons in Albuquerque.

 

[OneBadWolf]

OK wolfie ...so if a train leaves Austin Texas at 3:00 PM headed for New York city traveling at 40 mph and carrying 3 tons of sun ripened watermelons....what will be the cost of said watermelons in Albuquerque.

You do understand that the moment you made a statement of fact, not an opinion, that I voted for Obama, your views are insignificant. Now, go sweep your fucking syringes.

 

[pulsevape]

You do understand that the moment you made a statement of fact, not an opinion, that I voted for Obama, your views are insignificant. Now, go sweep your fucking syringes.

you realize your train has derailed don't you...it's laying in a smoking rubble...you appear to be a demented ping pong ball bouncing from one rant to the other....please for your own sake stop this public exhibiton of self flagelation, before you hurt yourself even more than you already have....for god sakes take your meds.

 

[OneBadWolf]

ou realize your train has derailed don't you...it's laying in a smoking rubble...you appear to be a demented ping pong ball bouncing from one rant to the other....please for your own sake stop this public exhibiton of self flagelation, before you hurt yourself even more than you already have....for god sakes take your meds.

I'll give a slumlords advice all due consideration.

 

[Time]

The key point in law is a mans home is his castle. not his house, It may be your property, but unless you cohabitate, it is not your home. If you accept their money, you limit your rights to your own use of the property. If you don't like that, don't rent it. Pulse vape gave me the impression that he does not enjoy sweeping syrings. I give him the benefit of doubt that he has actually done as he described, and is not just talking out of his ass. If he finds that distastefull, perhaps he has no choice, as druggies are the only people willing to pay what he asks. If he tolerates IV drug use, a clear and bona fide concern that affects his property, how will a jury percieve any validity to an arbitrary decision that he cannot provide any basis in fact for?

I did ask how he went about cleaning the VG out of his HVAC system, as that was all he could think of to justify his arbitrary descision.

I wrote earlier,

"For example, you might decide in your own home, that 03:00 is the optimal time to change your furnace filter. On the other hand, thankfully the law protects your tenants from your OCD, and accessing their home, whether you own it or not at 03:00 on a whim"

Or Time, do you believe that a landlord should be able to check that filter at 03:00?

Why shouldn't a landlord be able to? What determines this legally is a test of reasonableness. That is precisely why I asked what reasonable grounds would a landlord have to prohibit a legal activity, that does not in any concrete manner affect his property?.

You keep adding mud. The premise is a very simple one. There is no need add a bunch of bullshit, extreme "what if's" and all manner of convoluting circumstances. I'm not talking about a landlord walking into an apartment and jacking off in the kitchen while the tenants kids are watching scooby doo.

The subject is vaping.

The landlord has every right to establish a no vaping clause in the agreement. It has been done. It will continue to be done.

No amount of mud you throw at the subject changes it. You really need to pull your head out of your ass so you can see through the mud you are creating.

 

[freemind]

You keep adding mud. The premise is a very simple one. There is no need add a bunch of bullshit, extreme "what if's" and all manner of convoluting circumstances. I'm not talking about a landlord walking into an apartment and jacking off in the kitchen while the tenants kids are watching scooby doo.

The subject is vaping.

The landlord has every right to establish a no vaping clause in the agreement. It has been done. It will continue to be done.

No amount of mud you throw at the subject changes it. You really need to pull your head out of your ass so you can see through the mud you are creating.

This is exactly what I have said all along. I doubt it's getting through his skull.

I am not against vaping anymore than you are. But I also recognize the absolute right of the property owner to deem what use a renter may do with HIS/HER property.

If the landlord is fine with it, I'm ok with it. If the landlord denies it, I am ok with that too. Their reasons are their own. Good enough for me.

 

[OneBadWolf]

The landlord has every right to establish a no vaping clause in the agreement.

And I asked by what right?, and for a instance of case law. Just cuz is not sufficient. Where is the right in law that relates to vaping?

 

[OneBadWolf]

But I also recognize the absolute right of the property owner to deem what use a renter may do with HIS/HER property.

Was it not you that made a big deal about there being no "absolute rights"? And you call me disingenous.

Ah. what is this?

Exactly.

There are no absolute rights.

You cannot even keep what you say straight. lolol

 

[pulsevape]

 

[Time]

And I asked by what right?, and for a instance of case law. Just cuz is not sufficient.

Do your own research, I'm not your mom.

 

[freemind]

 

[OneBadWolf]

Those syringes arn't going to sweep themselves...

 

[pulsevape]

 

[OneBadWolf]

Do your own research, I'm not your mom.

Sorry, just thought that for somebody so certain of their beliefs, you could direct me. Like when I provided you some links above to ease your ignorance about seizeures..

 

[OneBadWolf]

As I said before

if you can show me any specific case law that supports a residential landlord having an unhindered right in law to dictate whether a person may or may not vape in their own home (not a shared dwelling or rooming house) I will conceed that point to you.

that was 2 days ago. All you have produced is slander and insults, sprinkled with hypocracy.

 

[pulsevape]

 

[Time]

Sorry, just thought that for somebody so certain of their beliefs, you could direct me. Like when I provided you some links above to ease your ignorance about seizeures.

LOL. You linked a wiki that said "A judge ruled in 2013 that the owners could keep their motel".

But here, I'll be your mom. Vaping is already banned by some landlords.

http://realtime.blog.palmbeachpost....nt-complex-no-smoking-no-vaping-even-outside/

You even have to submit pet DNA so if you don't pick up your dog doo, you're busted.

http://postnow.blog.palmbeachpost.c...ent-complex-no-smoking-no-vaping-no-dog-poop/

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic...t_this_email_from_my_apartment_manager_today/

Apparently, The landlord has every right to establish a no vaping clause in the agreement. Just like I said.

Again, because vaping in one’s apartment is not a protected tenant right, you’d be on safe ground if you instituted a rule at your building that it will be vape-free. (Except for new tenancies, such a rule would have to be instituted gradually for existing tenants, at lease-renewal time, because you can’t unilaterally change an important rental term mid-lease.)

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/can-a-landlord-prohibit-e-cigarettes-a-multi-tenant-b

 

[Time]

As I said before




that was 2 days ago. All you have produced is slander and insults, sprinkled with hypocracy.

Sorry, if you had used google to find the information yourself rather than using it to argue about other things, you could have went away 2 days ago and not endured the well deserved insults. That's your fault for being wrong. Not mine.

 

[OneBadWolf]

http://realtime.blog.palmbeachpost....nt-complex-no-smoking-no-vaping-even-outside/

if you can show me any specific case law that supports a residential landlord having an unhindered right in law to dictate whether a person may or may not vape in their own home (not a shared dwelling or rooming house) I will conceed that point to you.

I don't need to hear what a landlords opinion is. Or am I going to have to explain the difference between opinion and law? The test will be applied in court.

Your post does not include any case law, and refers to a shared dwelling.

From the link you provided:

Answer: Vaping, like smoking, is not an explicit legal right, but to conclude that you can safely impose a ban on e-cigarettes would be hasty.

The answer was provided by a lawyer.... But I suppose you know better.

It continues...

But, according to the Minnesota Department of Health, the Act does not regulate vaping. So, you are not required to ensure that tenants and guests do not vape even in common areas. Bottom line: your vaping tenant is allowed to use e-cigarettes anywhere in your building under state and local law.

 

[freemind]

 

[freemind]

.

 

[Time]

I don't need to hear what a landlords opinion is. Or am I going to have to explain the difference between opinion and law? The test will be applied in court.

Your post does not include any case law, and refers to a shared dwelling.

From the link you provided:

Answer: Vaping, like smoking, is not an explicit legal right, but to conclude that you can safely impose a ban on e-cigarettes would be hasty.

The answer was provided by a lawyer.... But I suppose you know better.

It ontinues...

But, according to the Minnesota Department of Health, the Act does not regulate vaping. So, you are not required to ensure that tenants and guests do not vape even in common areas. Bottom line: your vaping tenant is allowed to use e-cigarettes anywhere in your building under state and local law.

Again, because vaping in one’s apartment is not a protected tenant right, you’d be on safe ground if you instituted a rule at your building that it will be vape-free. (Except for new tenancies, such a rule would have to be instituted gradually for existing tenants, at lease-renewal time, because you can’t unilaterally change an important rental term mid-lease.)

 

[OneBadWolf]

And you define reason by refering to absolute rights in one sentence to justify your right in law, and then say that there are no absolute rights in another sentence before refering to your absolute rights yet again in another. You set a sterling example as one who employs the use of reason. I do not think reason means what you think it does.

 

[OneBadWolf]

Again, because vaping in one’s apartment is not a protected tenant right, you’d be on safe ground if you instituted a rule at your building that it will be vape-free. (Except for new tenancies, such a rule would have to be instituted gradually for existing tenants, at lease-renewal time, because you can’t unilaterally change an important rental term mid-lease.)

This was in response to a issue in a SHARED dwelling. K here it is again........

if you can show me any specific case law that supports a residential landlord having an unhindered right in law to dictate whether a person may or may not vape in their own home (not a shared dwelling or rooming house) I will conceed that point to you.

English motherfucker can you read it? (a homage to Pulp Fiction) Cant have you all whiney.

 

[Time]

Again, because vaping in one’s apartment is not a protected tenant right, you’d be on safe ground if you instituted a rule at your building that it will be vape-free. (Except for new tenancies, such a rule would have to be instituted gradually for existing tenants, at lease-renewal time, because you can’t unilaterally change an important rental term mid-lease.)

This was in response to a issue in a SHARED dwelling. K here it is again........

What part of "not a protected tenant right," do you not understand?

Look them up. Let me know when you find one that says vaping is a protected tenant right, for any dwelling. Don't come back until you find it. I'm bored with you.

 

[pulsevape]

Again, because vaping in one’s apartment is not a protected tenant right, you’d be on safe ground if you instituted a rule at your building that it will be vape-free. (Except for new tenancies, such a rule would have to be instituted gradually for existing tenants, at lease-renewal time, because you can’t unilaterally change an important rental term mid-lease.)

This was in response to a issue in a SHARED dwelling. K here it is again........




English motherfucker can you read it? (a homage to Pulp Fiction) Cant have you all whiney.

 

[OneBadWolf]

If you can show me any specific case law that supports a residential landlord having an unhindered right in law to dictate whether a person may or may not vape in their own home (not a shared dwelling or rooming house) I will conceed that point to you.


Do you understand that you have produced not one shred of case law?

 

[Time]

If you can show me any specific case law that supports a residential landlord having an unhindered right in law to dictate whether a person may or may not vape in their own home (not a shared dwelling or rooming house) I will conceed that point to you.


Do you understand that you have produced not one shred of case law?

Again, I'm not your mommy. You find it. Don't come back until you do. Meanwhile, anti-vaping rules are in effect at thousands of rentals across the country.

 

[OneBadWolf]

Don't come back until you do.

Jahol. I'm so sorry, please understand that I was unaware that you owned this forum, Or do you claim some sort of slumlord superpower which gives you a right to banish me?

You do own this forum, correct? Or do you you claim some other right I'm unaware of? Maybe you also think you can tell me who to vote for, or flat out lie about who I voted for like Pulse does?

 

[pulsevape]

Jahol. I'm so sorry, please understand that I was unaware that you owned this forum, Or do you claim some sort of slumlord superpower which gives you a right to banish me?

You do own this forum, correct? Or do you you claim some other right I'm unaware of? Maybe you also think you can tell me who to vote for, or flat out lie about who I voted for like Pulse does?

 

[freemind]

Here.
I'll put forth some legal info for our resident mentally challenged troll...

http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/Tenants_Rights_doc.pdf

You will NOTICE in this document, there is NO legal right of the tenant to smoke or vape. You will also notice, a landlord may seek eviction for breaking a term of the lease.

AND if you want a more in depth review of landlord-tenant laws and obligations:
https://www.landlordology.com/indiana-landlord-tenant-laws/

You should ALSO notice the absence of laws that prohibit landlords for banning vaping.

You are no wolf. You are acting like a dog turd. Now shut the fuck up. Your position is completely wrong.

 

[pulsevape]

Here.
I'll put forth some legal info for our resident mentally challenged troll...

http://www.in.gov/isdh/files/Tenants_Rights_doc.pdf

You will NOTICE in this document, there is NO legal right of the tenant to smoke or vape. You will also notice, a landlord may seek eviction for breaking a term of the lease.

AND if you want a more in depth review of landlord-tenant laws and obligations:
https://www.landlordology.com/indiana-landlord-tenant-laws/

You should ALSO notice the absence of laws that prohibit landlords for banning vaping.

You are no wolf. You are acting like a dog turd. Now shut the fuck up. Your position is completely wrong.

why did you do this ...it's like giving cheese laced with crack to a lab rat.

 

[Zamazam]

Not exactly using the Socratic method of argument folks. Chill a bit.

 

[freemind]

why did you do this ...it's like giving cheese laced with crack to a lab rat.

Not really. This jerk off has contended from the get go
1 You can't legally evict a tenant for vaping if you term it in your lease. (false)
2 You can't legally make such a term of the lease. (false)
3 It isn't enforceable if you did. (again, false)

So now that all his claims have been proven false he can either slink away like the defeated shit for brains that he is, or he can continue his fit and show everyone just exactly how stupid he is. Either way, I don't care. He's a complete fool.

I don't run around like an idiot claiming to know Canadian law, like he does in respect to American law. Fuck, he doesn't even know the laws of his own country, why should we expect him to know ours.

 

[OneBadWolf]

If you can show me any specific case law that supports a residential landlord having an unhindered right in law to dictate whether a person may or may not vape in their own home (not a shared dwelling or rooming house) I will conceed that point to you.

 

[OneBadWolf]

Pulse, you are a liar. This is not opinion, this is a statement of fact. I believe it is an integral part of your character.

 

[freemind]

Yep, here we go!

Prove a negative you ninnies! How could you people believe a landlord could DO such a thing absent a law or case law showing he could!

Well derp. Maybe the is no case law because it is perfectly LEGAL to do so. I don't need a law to tell me it is legal to pump my own gas. And the absence of laws against me pumping my own gas, leads me to logical conclusions.

 

[OneBadWolf]

Landlords do all sorts of things that are unlawfull. The parameters of landlord and tenant rights vary from place to place. What defines the parameters of what is or is not a landlord's or a tenant's right, is jurisprudence. Precedent defines and shapes the way law is interperted. I suspect that there is not yet any definitive law decided so far on this issue, certainly no clear precedents so far.

If I were a renter, and one day my landlord decided that I should not be allowed to vape, and could not provide a bona fide reason for his descision, other than "just cuz" there would be litigation. Again, how, other than in a shared dwelling could a landlord dictate whether I vape or not, with even as much right as he would have to dictate what I cook?

I don't engage in frivilous or vexatious litigation, and never have. I believe that people are people, and that it is patently reheprehensible to refer to tenants as "lowly renters" I asked for some elaboration as to whether all renters were lowly renters, and recieved none.

If you choose without duress to rent a residential property, you can no longer expect to exercise the same degree of control over that property. no 03:00 filter inspections. But to arbitraily declare that you as a landlord can unilaterly and arbitraily impose you whims upon your tenents, or as you refer to them "lowly renters" is fantasy. You can probably bluff and bully them, but that is not the same thing as a judge, jury, or both hearing both sides and deciding the limitations on both parties.

I understand that there are people in this world that derive their enjoyment from bullying and making miserable people they percieve as somehow lesser than themselves, "lowly renters" and such. That is why there are courts. I wish I could have seen the gnashing of teeth, and screaming that would of occured when you found out you could not terminate a tenancy on the grounds of race or color. As you may or may not know, there is ample case law that has decided that issue.

There wouldn't be though if mean spirited people who have Hitler complexes had their way.

 

[zaroba]

I don't need a law to tell me it is legal to pump my own gas. And the absence of laws against me pumping my own gas, leads me to logical conclusions.

Just because I'm very bored...New Jersey and Oregon
Law states no pumping your own fuel.

But did you know that it doesn't cover diesel fuel?
If you drive a diesel vehicle, you can pump it yourself.

 

[freemind]

Just because I'm very bored...New Jersey and Oregon
Law states no pumping your own fuel.

But did you know that it doesn't cover diesel fuel?
If you drive a diesel vehicle, you can pump it yourself.

Lol. I knew Jersey had the law, but didn't know Oregon did.

Here, we have no such law.

 

[freemind]

 

[Time]

Jahol. I'm so sorry, please understand that I was unaware that you owned this forum, Or do you claim some sort of slumlord superpower which gives you a right to banish me?

You do own this forum, correct? Or do you you claim some other right I'm unaware of? Maybe you also think you can tell me who to vote for, or flat out lie about who I voted for like Pulse does?

I own my refusal to discuss it further until you find what you're looking for, dumb ass. Now go.

 

[Zamazam]

Just because I'm very bored...New Jersey and Oregon
Law states no pumping your own fuel.

But did you know that it doesn't cover diesel fuel?
If you drive a diesel vehicle, you can pump it yourself.

Funny thing is that I'm old enough to remember every service station not allowing people to pump their own fuel. Got your oil checked and added to if needed, plus all fluids check and top ups as needed, for the price of the gas. $0.37/gallon for Ethyl, $0.34 for standard and I'm not all that old...

 

[OneBadWolf]

Now go.

You have every right not to discuss it. You havn't done so yet after all.

I own my refusal to discuss it further until you find what you're looking for, dumb ass. Now go.

 

[Time]

Funny thing is that I'm old enough to remember every service station not allowing people to pump their own fuel. Got your oil checked and added to if needed, plus all fluids check and top ups as needed, for the price of the gas. $0.37/gallon for Ethyl, $0.34 for standard and I'm not all that old...

I remember that too. But I wasn't old enough to sit in the front seat.

 

[pulsevape]

Just because I'm very bored...New Jersey and Oregon
Law states no pumping your own fuel.

But did you know that it doesn't cover diesel fuel?
If you drive a diesel vehicle, you can pump it yourself.

Yeah I knew this I took a trip to oregon...I was shocked

 

[pulsevape]

You have every right not to discuss it. You havn't done so yet after all.