Smokers In California City Face $100 Fine For Smoking In Apartment, Condo

[The Straight Story]

Smokers In California City Face $100 Fine For Smoking In Apartment, Condo


Miami, FL (AHN) - A town in California became the first in the country to make it illegal for residents to smoke in their apartments and condominiums.

The Belmont City Council voted 3-2 on the ordinance on Jan. 23. It will be enforced by code enforcement officers who will respond to residences if they receive complaints from neighbors.

Smokers face $100 fines if they violate the new law.

Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach, who introduced the ordinance during her term as mayor in 2007, has faced harsh criticism from smokers and other critics of such "nanny state" laws. She said she introduced the law because of complaints from apartment residents who said they could smell their neighbors' cigarette smoke through the walls and vents.

Other cities in California have banned smoking in certain sections of apartment complexes, but Belmont was the first to enact a total ban, the San Jose Mercury News reported.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7013896511

[Runcible Spoon]

1. I fear that some day soon, we will be blissfully reminiscing about the time...

we had the luxury to squander concern on stupid shit like this.

"Hahaha remember when they tried to fine everyone for smoking in their apartments?" "Yeah, I remember what it was like having an apartment..."

[Blue_In_AK]

2. I don't smoke cigarettes anymore,

but I think they're going a little overboard on this.

[CreekDog]

37. it's because there's no way to get away from smoke in apartments

with shared ventilation and close quarters.

[Merlot]

3. Only apartments? Not homes? Financial discrimination.

So then a bunch of smokers will be outside where there will be more chance for everyone else to breath it.

This wasn't thought through and probably will not stand up in court.

[kiranon]

12. They are not allowed to smoke outside either. Limited to apts. and

condos because they have adjacent walls and floors that the smoke travels through. I believe this came up in the context of elder adults who bought units in elder care residential facilities and could not stop smoke from coming into their units despite years of attempts to do so. One person had emphysema and his health was seriously impacted but his neighbor could not stop smoking and no way was found to prevent the smoke from infiltrating the other person's unit. The city is Belmont, CA. If you google it, lots of info is available.

[KamaAina]

57. Well then, why not ban smoking in elder care residential facilities?

rather than just use that as the thin end of the wedge for their anti-smoking jihad? :shrug:

edit: spelling

[Occulus]

84. Weren't we told by the DU antismoking contingent that this would absolutely never ever happen?

When the drive to ban smoking in public places was first getting started, this was. I very very clearly recall several antismoking DUers saying that nobody was ever going to stop you from lighting up in your own home.

Lying schmucks.

[The Brethren]

4. This is b.s.

The backers of this may as well have wasted their time and money passing laws to make it illegal to watch television in one's apartment in their city. Or how about it's illegal to stand within 3 feet of an open window in your apartment? I am sick of the anti-smoking control freaks. They're doing this because someone is ticked off they can smell smoke through a neighbor's walls?? LOL That is hysterical.

Let's see now, I have never noticed the smell of smoke through someone's wall. However, I have heard people talking through walls on occasion.....and have even heard other sounds I won't mention through walls. LOL So why doesn't Councilwoman Feierbach and others like her pass laws that no one in their areas can make any sounds in their apts. for any reason 24/7.

If the anti-smokers are soooo concerned about health issues for ex. of the general population, then they should really do everyone a favor and outlaw vehicles that produce toxic fumes....especially in areas where there is a lot of congestion at stop lights for ex. I am a lot more worried about the health risks of auto exhaust then I am of 2nd hand smoke from a cigeratte.

[Donnachaidh]

5. Wonder how many of the banners drive SUV's?

It's amazing, the amount of misguided fury the hall monitors have. Go after renters, but look the other way as more and more CARS pollute the entire environment around them. :eyes:

I'm not surprised -- these are the same nutbags that voted AH-NULD into the Governor's mansion. Dumbasses.

[Touchdown]

6. The city must be a pothole free paradise.

I guess that what happens when you have a perfect city, with none of the problems a normal city would have. I mean they have to have the best public schools, hospitals, fire protection, corruption free council, building contractors that are competely honest and and a budget surplus to have enough time to worry about this shit. :eyes:

[CreekDog]

39. Belmont is a nice city with low crime, decent schools, high cost of and high standards of living

lots of high tech jobs

and now is a place where people who live in apartments and condos with respiratory problems can breathe easier without second hand smoke impacting them in their homes.

and by the way, the city council does not run schools, hospitals (Belmont is small anyway near two hospitals, one of them Stanford).

as for the city council, Belmont studied this issue for a long time and passed it because people were complaining of not being able to get away from cigarette smoke in their living areas --often elderly people in retirement homes or apartments as well as people with respiratory disease who could not afford to live in a house.

i think your message is rather dismissive of the people this law was intended to protect, people who do not typically have much power in society and people asking for nothing more than to breathe without the added stress of cigarette smoke.

the city council carefully considred it and passed it after deliberation.

i would like to see my own city, just 10 miles to the north, approve the same ordinance.

and i worked in the air quality field for 8 years.

[Touchdown]

54. OK.

I guess I've been told.:eyes:

[david13]

7. Smoking is b.s.

Down with smoking. No smoking.
dc

[Better Believe It]

10. As an ex-smoker this law is total bull shit!

Don't these folks have anything better to do than spy on their neighbors?

[CreekDog]

40. who is spying?

you can't get away from your neighbor's smoke even with your apartment's own windows and doors shut.

[Better Believe It]

70. Nonsense

"you can't get away from your neighbor's smoke even with your apartment's own windows and doors shut."

I think your point lacks merit. You just don't like smokers even if they light up a mile from you .... because some of that smoke might travel down the road and attack your lungs! Get real.

Go hide under your bed.

And don't go outside because you might get hit by a car.

[liberalhistorian]

76. You sound just like my son's father and his fiance

years ago when they not only refused to refrain from smoking around him during his visits, which greatly aggravated his asthma among other things, but got furious if he even mentioned any discomfort or said anything, then pooh-poohed my concern. I had to get my lawyer to set them straight on the state's family law regarding smoking to get them to quit pulling that shit, and they did that by not seeing him as much. If they, like other smokers, wanna poison and kill and bankrupt themselves, then that's their choice. They do NOT get the right to make that choice for everyone else, including their children, as well. My son's father is now on permanent disability with COPD in only his forties, which we're all paying for, and he STILL fucking smokes, even in front of his other son, but that's okay as long as his rights are respected and the hell with everyone else.

[CreekDog]

79. you didn't even bother to argue with my point

actually.

i don't dislike smokers at all. one of my friends smokes, wishes he could quit but drives his family crazy when he tries. this good man smokes, but he does it outside away from people at work and at home he smokes in the yard careful not to let his kids see him doing it.

this isn't about me liking or not liking smokers, it's about what smokers should do to see that their smoke doesn't harm others.

[Better Believe It]

86. So do you support the law that infringes on privacy rights or not?

[Donnachaidh]

13. How's that Governator working out for you?

It might help if Californians made an effort to pull their heads out of their asses and took a look at the REAL problems they are facing. :eyes:

Obama said it's time to grow up.

[kestrel91316]

21. Californians didn't do this. Belmont city council did this.

And if it protects otherwise unprotected elderly respiratory patients from harm, I'm actually ok with it.

I have to breathe second-hand smoke inside my vet clinic every time the people at the print shop nextdoor sit out on MY back porch and smoke like chimneys. It all seeps in through the back window, and there is nothing I can do. Good thing I don't have asthma.....so I can understand why it might REALLY be a problem for some people.

[Lionel Mandrake]

25. Have you asked them to smoke somewhere else?

Most smokers will move when informed that their smoke is causing a problem.

If I were in your predicament, I would start by asking nicely. If that didn't work, I'd ask not so nicely. If that still didn't work, I'd threaten to take the owner of the print shop to small claims court. Then, if necessary, I would take him to court.

[Lionel Mandrake]

26. The governator is part of the problem.

He smokes cigars in a special tent, because it's illegal for him to smoke in a public building.

It's true we have other problems in California. But priorities are debatable, even among grownups.

[CreekDog]

41. maybe you should grow up

protecting people from air pollution is more mature than calling people names such as you referring to Californians having their "heads up their asses" for passing laws like this.

[TahitiNut]

18. How many suppositories in that ASSertion?

:eyes:

[anonymous171]

8. Wow. Just wow. nt

[TahitiNut]

9. Those "apartment residents" should be hired as bomb-sniffing dogs at airports.

Their 'skills' should be put to better use.

:puke:

[SoCalDem]

73. Something tells me the neighbors might all have the same last name

Kravitz

[Waiting For Everyman]

11. If they allow cigarette sales, then it's entrapment.

[4 t 4]

14. So if I own my condo

in this town I can now be fined for smoking in it. That is so big brother. Whats next alcohol and overeating

[TahitiNut]

20. No-knock search probable cause = neighbor smells tobacco smoke.

Uh-huh. Gotta love them 'priorities.'

:puke:

[The Brethren]

29. I haven't checked CA's laws

on purchasing cigarettes and taxes. However, some states, like mine, not only charge a tax for smoking, but that money is used to help "community needs" as some have called it. In other words, one of the hypocrisies with anti smokers using laws to limit smokers from where smokers can legally light-up, including as in the case in CA, in their homes, is that anti-smokers sure don't seem to mind using tax money from cigarettes to help them.

So I'm wondering if the anti-smokers get their way and are able to ban smoking everywhere....including in every type of home that smokers may own, then where exactly are they going to get the money they have been using from cigarette sales taxes to pay for their communities? I have yet to see 1 anti-smoker on a local level request or demand from our local politicians that they stop cigarette taxes, since it is hypercritical of them to then use that money...as well as even budget it into the city's new fiscal plan.

[Occam Bandage]

15. I hate smoking and want to see it banned from all public spaces.

But really, this is nuts. People should be allowed to smoke in their own residences. The solution to this problem is not to ban smoking, it is to fix the ventilation system or to create smoking and non-smoking floors.

[4 t 4]

16. Honestly it is still legal

and until and if it becomes Illegal you should not be told what you can do it your own home.

[Occam Bandage]

17. I agree. A consenting sane person should be allowed to do

whatever they want to in their home.

[liberalhistorian]

77. So, does that mean I can kill someone

or rape them as long as it's in my own home?

[CreekDog]

43. lots of laws tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home

ever hear of zoning laws?

disturbing the peace?

let's not be thick about this.

[FourScore]

30. Exactly. You said it perfectly. n/t

[4 t 4]

64. Sorry not even close to the same thing

[FourScore]

75. Huh? I think this reply may have been intended for the post above mine.

[taught_me_patience]

35. What if their smoke blows into other people's apartments?

The fuckers above me smoke and it blows cancer causing toxins into my apartment. I approve this move.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

69. I support it, too.

I owned a second floor condo, with smokers in all three adjacent units. I could smell their smoke through my front door. The hallway reeked. Smoke from the adjacent upstairs unit wafted into my kitchen when I opened the window. I could even smell it wafting through the tub faucet from the unit below. Perhaps their sense of smell is so compromised that they've lost touch of how DISGUSTING it is.

Smokers are quick to let loose with the "My rights! Nanny state!," but what about my rights? (And to whomever responds that I could live isolated on X number of acres, save the keystrokes...)

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. What's next? Fat people refused service at restaurants?

[Lionel Mandrake]

22. Some nicotine addicts have the wrong idea.

The purpose of the ordinance is not to cure smoking. It is to protect others from second-hand smoke. Addicts are free to poison themselves by other means or in other places, if they choose to do so.

Councilwoman Coralin Feierbach, who introduced the ordinance during her term as mayor in 2007, ... said she introduced the law because of complaints from apartment residents who said they could smell their neighbors' cigarette smoke through the walls and vents.

Why should anyone be allowed to introduce a class-A carcinogen into his neighbor's home?

[Occulus]

85. We were assured by several DUers that this would not ever happen

back when the laws against smoking in public were first getting passed.

I submit, they lied.

[Starry Messenger]

23. My mom used to work for the City of Belmont.

It's an...interesting little town. I wonder if they were expecting all the national attention this has garnered.

[Upton]

24. Smokers are nothing but drug addicts

If I lived in an apartment complex I sure as heck don't want their drug of choice wafting over into my place.

[aquart]

27. Seems a trifling sum to charge after a building has burned down.

Or an apartment has been gutted. People killed.

Seems disproportionately small to me.

I guess they're just trying to stop that from happening.

[anonymous171]

28. Candles, stoves, ovens, and all electrical appliances should probably be banned too then. nt

[yodoobo]

31. How do you enforce? Smoking search warrants?

Suspicion of smoking?

"Yes your honor, I had reason to believe the crime of smoking cigarettes was being committed, so I performed a dynamic entry of the residence. While we did not find evidence of active tobacco consumption, we did find mattress tags that have been removed"

[20score]

32. I quit smoking a while ago, but laws like this make me want to take it up again. (I won't.) But I

truly hate these wimps. This is what they spend their time on?
There is no excuse for being this whiny. Period.

[MrSlayer]

33. If they fined me for smoking, I would fry a large piece of liver without oil every day.

I hate the smoke nazis more than any other "concern" group.

[CreekDog]

44. you sound like a real prize

:eyes:

[MrSlayer]

47. Hey, fuck em.

If I can't smoke in my own paid for living space then let's really give them something to bitch about.


Actually I am quite the prize. I'll give you the shirt off my back. But if I'm fucked with, I fuck back hard.

[CreekDog]

48. because when asthmatics complain about smoke they are just "bitching"

right?

[MrSlayer]

52. Probably not all of them.

I know people with asthma that smoke. If someone's respiratory problems are so bad that the hint of smoke in diluted air (it's not like someone is blowing a full drag in their face or that cigarette smoke is fogging up their apartment) is going to send them into an attack, they couldn't walk out their door for the car exhaust. If it's that bad they should be in an oxygen bubble or something.

[CreekDog]

53. i don't think you have medical training or you would be aware of the following:

How Does Secondhand Smoke Affect Asthma?

Secondhand smoke can trigger asthma episodes and increase the severity of attacks. Secondhand smoke is also a risk factor for new cases of asthma in preschool aged children who have not already exhibited asthma symptoms. Scientists believe that secondhand smoke irritates the chronically inflamed bronchial passages of people with asthma. Secondhand smoke is linked to other health problems, including lung cancer, ear infections and other chronic respiratory illnesses, such as bronchitis and pneumonia.

Many of the health effects of secondhand smoke, including asthma, are most clearly seen in children because children are most vulnerable to its effects. Most likely, children's developing bodies make them more susceptible to secondhand smoke's effects and, due to their small size, they breathe more rapidly than adults thereby taking in more secondhand smoke. Children receiving high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those with smoking mothers, run the greatest relative risk of experiencing damaging health effects.

source: http://www.epa.gov/asthma/shs.html

[NaturalHigh]

92. Great idea!

I second that motion. Certain types of fish also come to mind.

[MindPilot]

34. just supposin' I live in a Belmont condo and i have a fireplace

Can I still have a fire?

How about if I blow my smoke up the chimney?

Does the law apply to pot smoke? Cooking smoke? BBQ Smoke?

Seriously if smoke travels from one private dwelling to another in sufficient quantities to be a problem, then the building inspector needs to be involved because there are some serious code violations going on.

And is it just cigarette smoke or does the allergic kid next door have a seizure every time I crack open a jar of Jiff?

[CreekDog]

63. you can't burn in Belmont or the Bay Area on "spare the air" days

so the answer to your question is "yes".

second thing is that the kid next door is not going to go into seizure because you open a jar of peanut butter, it doesn't work like that.

third thing is that if you have shared ventilation systems, your smoke will contribute to that kid next door's respiratory problems if they have them and if they don't it will increase the likelihood that they will develop them.

and it will do these things without accomplishing a single good thing.

smoking is not delivering any goods, it is not driving anybody to gainful employment, it is not feeding the poor. it is done for enjoyment and/or to service an addiction. that it harms others in its midst is yet another reason to quit. finally, if you can't quit, that's probably the biggest indication that it's something you don't want to be doing.

[CreekDog]

36. Asthmatic apartment dwellers can breathe some relief

you see you can choose to have or not have a cigarette.

an asthmatic cannot choose whether or not to breathe.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. Glad we wouldn't have a problem. I smoke cigars.

[Skittles]

38. can they get rid of wind chimes too?

[CreekDog]

45. lol

but it provides important notification of the wind blowing! :rofl:

i know you have often argued how important that is!!!

[kiranon]

67. Actually yes if condo rules say so or if they are a nuisance. Not saying it is

right or wrong just "yes" they can ban wind chimes.

[Starry Messenger]

87. I'm going to send this thread to my mother.

After nearly two decades working in Belmont, she said she was going to title her memoirs "Dog Shit and Wind Chimes". Those were the top two complaints she got calls for. :D

[Skittles]

89. I do like windchimes - when I'm awake

but I work nights, sleep all day and hearing those damn things on the patio above on a windy day really pisses me off

[CreekDog]

42. With few exceptions, the DU'ers in this thread are acting disgracefully

for mocking people who simply want to breathe air without second hand smoke in their own apartments, people that often are elderly and live with respiratory disease which cigarette smoke from neighbors exacerbates.

Belmont is an expensive place to live and many residents there do not have a choice to live in less crowded housing that might afford them respite from neighbors' cigarette smoke.

if the smokers in question took responsibility for their own smoke, the city council never would have had to pass this ordinance.

it is a smoker's responsibility to see that their smoke does not affect others, they should not be smoking where others are exposed, especially children and sensitive people.

second hand smoke is a documented and proven danger to public health --deal with this fact before you dismiss it.

if anyone here does not do that, then they are not acting responsibly and have no standing to lecture the town of Belmont.

:rant:

[MadBadger]

49. I'm not quite sure how irresponsible it is to smoke in your home

You arent doing it in public, they are doing it in the privacy of their own home. I'm not quite sure what the problem is. I think the problem is with the people who own the apartments and their crappy walls and ventilation.

[CreekDog]

50. it's a smoker's responsibility to not expose others to their smoke

period.

that includes their own family members, not to mention their neighbors.

[kiranon]

68. Building in question in Belmont is an older quite large elder residential building.

Efforts were taken to improve insulation and other measures but smoke still got through and was seriously impacting a resident's health. Did not follow that closely why it applied city wide in Belmont but it does. A study was recently done on smoke free restaurants in Las Vegas casinos and they are not "smoke free" as the smoke travels everywhere in the hotels. What will ultimately make commercial establishments and shared residential homes/apartments smoke free will be the law suits for those injured by smoke. The cost to most employers from their employees claims will be enough to make areas smoke free in the future. I am a non smoker who has severe asthma as a result of having had 2 parents who were heavy smokers. They didn't know that would happen. My mom died of lung cancer and my dad of pancreatic cancer. And, yes I know smokers who lived a long time but not sure their children will.

[kiva]

55. So please be specific...

how do you expect smokers to "take responsibility" for their own smoke? You don't want anyone to smoke in public indoors, nor apparently within a mile of anyone else outdoors. They shouldn't smoke in their cars if anyone, especially children, ever rides in said vehicle. You don't want them to smoke on their patios or balconies, and now you don't want them to smoke within their residence. At least be honest--you want all smoking banned everywhere, regardless of the fact that tobacco is still legal.

[CreekDog]

59. Wrong, you have presented a caricature of my argument rather than what I actually said

you shouldn't smoke where you will expose others to your smoke. alone in the car? i don't see how that exposes others to second hand smoke. in your house alone? same thing. in your apartment? due to close quarters and shared ventilation, if you expose others to your smoke, then you shouldn't do it.

get the idea? that doesn't mean banning smoking everywhere.

[kiva]

60. The problem with your argument is that you have

specified exactly 2 places you think it's appropriate for someone to smoke--their car (if they are alone) and their house (not an apartment). Since many people (including me) don't smoke in their car out of consideration for passengers--yes, I'm the first to acknowledge that the smell lingers, and many people find it unpleasant--that leaves home. If anyone living in an apartment or condo cannot smoke, then you have effectively banned smoking.

[CreekDog]

61. outside

:)

[kiva]

74. Then we are in agreement,

since that's where I do smoke. ;)

[liberalhistorian]

78. If you think this thread is bad, you should have seen the other

thread here today on this. People were being unbelievably hateful, rude, nasty and completely insensitive to those with respiratory issues or who had physical problems with smoke. It was really disgusting and infuriating.

[CreekDog]

80. it's disgraceful isn't it?

i see it time and time again on these threads.

[sendero]

83. What is disgraceful ..

... is the government telling me I cannot smoke in my own home.

You whiny ass morons better not eat cabbage and fart within ten miles of me or I'll have a conniption fit all over your ass.

Idiots.

[Lucian]

51. Good.

I once lived in an apartment building and the assholes below me would smoke in their apartment and the smoke would find its way up to my apartment. I hated it! Not only did it smell bad, but it was literally hard for me to breathe because I have asthma.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. I hear you.

I live in a 100 year old condo building and we have zero insulation between units. We smell each other's cooking between floors.

My downstairs neighbor smokes. Fortunately for me, she realizes what a disgusting filthy habit it is and only smokes outside on the deck. Her desire to keep a clean house is a benefit to me and my neighbors. I suppose if we got some chain-smoking pig who didn't care about her or her neighbor's property we might have to enact rules.

[KamaAina]

56. But not in single-family homes

which, especially on the wealthy Peninsula south of SF, are occupied by the, shall we say, comfortably well-off. :eyes:

[NoPasaran]

58. Singapore is starting to look like the wild wild west in comparison

[4 t 4]

65. I feel that we are all missing the big picture

it's not about smoke although to quite a few of you it is actually about the smoke and I respect that 100% but you don't have to rent to smokers and you don't have to live in a building that rents to smokers that is entirely another story but you should not be able to tell someone who owns their Condo Or owns their home what they can and cannot do in it. My god this is one step away from 1984 and Big Brother. I think the reason for such controversy is because we are talking about two things, actual smoke and our rights-NO ? First they come for your smokes, next they'll come for your ____

[Greyhound]

81. You sent me 3 PMs in 30 min and then freak out because I didn't reply

to a reply that I didn't even make to you.

From the tone of this reply, we probably agree.

Please take a deep breath and relax

[Greyhound]

66. The Handicapper General has spoken.

extra geezer geek points if you get the reference.

[EraOfResponsibility]

71. There's no such thing as privacy anymore

that's a damn shame. :eyes: I'm an ex-smoker, but that shit is unnecessary.

[justabob]

72. will the smokers be allowed to break their lease?

I mean that rule wasn't in place when they moved in... are they going to be forced to stay where they are not wanted? What about the people who bought their condos based on a different set of rules? I am not unsympathetic to the second hand smoke issue, just wondering what options smokers who want out have.

[Withywindle]

90. That's a very important question.

I think forcing someone to stay in a lease or mortgage agreement when the rules have changed so dramatically is unethical.

I mean, I don't pay $800 a month to stand outside and smoke in a Chicago winter. (That's what my parents' house, where I stay for free when I visit, is for. :D) I would never sign a lease with those terms if I had any kind of choice or warning.

[justabob]

93. I think it is

Renters can probably get out easily enough, but I feel for anyone who owns a condo and had this happen. They are just going to be stuck.

[Pryderi]

82. Ok. That's going too far. Reminds me of Denis Leary's old skit about police with megaphones o

outside his house blasting, "Ok, we know you're in there! Throw out the cigarettes and come out with your hands up!"

[mwooldri]

88. But is it constitutional?

Whilst I wish tobacco was banned, fact of life is that the whole country is hooked on it... the government can't get away from the tax money it brings in, tobacco companies manage to make money from selling it still, and people still smoke the stuff.

If people after been given all the lectures about the risks and everything and still want to screw up their life then why should anyone stop them?

Here's another way to do it without the problem of "fines". Allow landlords and condo-owner associations to impose a "smokers' tariff". You don't smoke? No problem, you pay $750/mo in rent. Smoke? Oh dear, we'll have to install smoke filtration equipment and for that inconvenience we'll have to charge you an extra $100/mo in rent. This still allows the smokers' freedom to smoke in their own home, without causing a nuisance to their non-smoking neighbours. Plus if they constructed the apartments/condos properly in the first place then there wouldn't be the problem of smoke coming through walls (cheap plasterboard rather than actual bricks in the wall), and vents - well that's just plain bad ventilation planning.

After all, smoking is a hazard. Sure you should be free to enjoy it but be responsible for the hazard you create. It's an increased fire risk, health risk, sanitation risk. We have to pay pet deposits and sometimes pet rent for our pets in apartments, why not the smokers surcharge? And smokers pay increased health insurance too.

And in any case about the law, what if you get fined the $100 once, what happens after that? You smoke again and they complain and you get another $100 fine, or are there other consequences?

Mark.

[NaturalHigh]

91. I thought California was having a multi-billion dollar budget crisis.

This is how law enforcement dollars are going to be spent?

Some people desperately need the sticks pulled from their butts.