Encroachment! 5 yard penalty.

I'm not sure how my audience feels about smoking cigarettes, but I loathe the act. I grew up in a home in which my parents smoked freely. I would show up to school and other children would ask me if I smoke, and, when I replied in the negative, was asked if my parents smoke. It was rather embarrassing, but I managed to push through those awkward moments by bringing levity to the situation or other such subterfuge. My hatred for the act, however, does not lead me to support any sort of anti-smoking legislation. I do agree with the separation of smokers and anti-smokers when the disgusting act of smoking infringes on an anti-smokers life, liberty, or property. This is the basis of this blog which was spurred on by an article I recently read.
The aforementioned article stated that a couple in Golden, Colorado was ordered by a judge that they could not smoke in their condominium. The condo obviously had other tenants residing juxtapose or above and below these smoking condo owners. The tenants and the condo owner both have complained to the couple about the smoke leaking into the other units in the complex, but to no avail. One tenant, the article notes, spent thousands of dollars attempting to "smoke-proof" his unit from the fumes emanating from the smoker's unit. The smoking couple now has to perform their habit out on the street away from the complex.

Let's start with the couple's response to the whole ordeal. These wonderful people have stated that they don't believe they shouldn't be able to perform a lawful act in their home. This is true, except that their act is now infringing on another citizen's rights. If they are adjacent to a unit that contains non-smokers and their smoke is infiltrating the neighbor's unit though, as mentioned above, he has spent thousands trying to bar the substance from entering his premises, then the owners should step in. If the owners do everything they can and still this sordid act's consequences are limiting the liberty of the neighbor, then the law must rule on the matter. Law must be limited to protecting citizen's rights. The smokers had an opportunity to perform their habit in privacy until it encroached a neighbor's privacy. Reasonable measures were implemented to prevent this encroachment and the privacy invasion continued. At the point at which all non-legally based corrective actions are perceived not to be working, the law must step in and rule accordingly.

The couple's second response to the ruling by the smoking couple stated that, if a blizzard were to hit, they would have to placate their addiction while enduring the outdoor elements. Since we have already defended the fact that the judge's ruling was legitimate, the cure for this ailment is that the smoking couple can either give up the habit, endure the elements, or find a new place in which to reside. These citizens knew for a long time that their smoke was annoying their neighbors, knew that they were a part of a home owner's association which governed the complex in which they lived, and chose to continue breaching other citizen's rights. This is blatant disregard for common liberty and should be punished as such. They are receiving just reward for their actions.

Allow this to be a lesson to all of you who are selfish in your habits, whether it be loud, obnoxious music, smoking and/or drinking, boisterous or raucous behavior, or any other act that infringes on other's ability to enjoy their freedoms. Americans will not tolerate immature or irresponsible behavior. Just as you have the right to act, think or feel the way you do under the First Amendment, we enjoy the same liberty. We will use our First Amendment right to petition the law to limit your abuse of your freedoms. Be vigilant is seeing that your behavior doesn't limit the rights of others. Heeding the idea behind this demand will allow all of us to enjoy the freedom we receive in the United States.