Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why should I move? What if I lived here first and they moved in recently? Should I still be the one who has to move?
I feel your pain, I have lived in apartment buildings before. People can bother their neighbors with loud music, unruly kids, bad smells, noisy friends etc... That's life, and either you can change your neighbor's behavior, or you suck it up and live with it, or you move. Or, you can have your city make disagreeable smells against the law.
Now they need to make it against the law for next door neighbor's kids to bounce tennis balls off the walls, run up and down the halls, leave their alarm clock blasting it's alarm all day and night, fry those little dried fish and stink up the entire apartment floor etc... Basically, they need to make it illegal for people to do things that bother other people.
"The Compton City Council has unanimously approved an aggressive smoking ban that its backers call the most restrictive in the state. By Jan. 1, 2013, it will call for persons living in multi-unit residences to refrain from smoking inside their own living quarters."
Instead of the knee-jerk reactions usually posted on smoking ban threads here on this forum -- I admit I'm culpable with my own predictable replies since I abhor smoking -- let's imagine this scenario:
The upstairs/next-door/downstairs neighbor in your apartment complex has complained that your cigarette smoke is infiltrating their living space. Would you agree to refrain from smoking in your apartment in the absence of this kind of restrictive ban? Would you move if this kind of ban went into effect at your complex -- or would you quit the habit?
I predict Compton will be at the forefront of a wave of smoking bans in multi-unit residences. (I will now refrain from making any comment about how long it's going to take to go into effect in Compton.)
Compton approves strict ban on smoking | Los Angeles Wave - Community News, Sports & Entertainment | West Edition (http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/local/west-edition/Compton-approves-strict-ban-on-smoking-133127938.html - broken link)
If a neighbor told me that my smoking was indeed bothering them, then yes, out of courtesy, I would go outside. (I don't need the government to tell me how to be courteous.)
If this ban went in to affect, I would move, if I ever found myself living in a multi-dwelling household again especially in Compton.
I would not support this ban until they banned stomping, loud television sets, thin walls and door slamming as well as leaving trash outside the door to take down the next day because the neighbor "doesn't want it in their house", the cooking of any and all fish/seafood, (which smells FAR worse than cigarette smoke in my opinion...heck, I'd rather smell a cigar than cooking fish and cigar smoke is disgusting), loud screaming children, etc.
Hey, if they have the right to be comfortable in their own home without being "bothered" by something I do, then I have the right to be comfortable in my home without being "bothered" by things they do.
Personally I think smoking should be done outside or by an open door or window, but that's MY personal preference and I do not have the right to dictate what others do in their own home.
If a neighbor told me that my smoking was indeed bothering them, then yes, out of courtesy, I would go outside. (I don't need the government to tell me how to be courteous.)
If this ban went in to affect, I would move, if I ever found myself living in a multi-dwelling household again especially in Compton.
I would not support this ban until they banned stomping, loud television sets, thin walls and door slamming as well as leaving trash outside the door to take down the next day because the neighbor "doesn't want it in their house", the cooking of any and all fish/seafood, (which smells FAR worse than cigarette smoke in my opinion...heck, I'd rather smell a cigar than cooking fish and cigar smoke is disgusting), loud screaming children, etc.
Hey, if they have the right to be comfortable in their own home without being "bothered" by something I do, then I have the right to be comfortable in my home without being "bothered" by things they do.
Personally I think smoking should be done outside or by an open door or window, but that's MY personal preference and I do not have the right to dictate what others do in their own home.
Agreed! They need to outlaw kids playing in their room on the floor above me, it's just so noisy, and definitely make fish frying illegal, those secondhand smells kill me.
When we ban the stench that comes from cooking a cauldron of curry, THEN we can talk about multi-unit apartments and smoking.
The responsibility should be on the landlord to prevent cross contamination of air quality from apartment to apartment.
That's not a technical possibility with current construction methods. How would it be possible to truly and irreversibly prevent cigarette smoke particles from passing through walls and effecting a person, for example, with asthma? Till such technology exists these bans are the only option. And even then, smoking too close to entrances or outside walls should also not be permitted since some people like to open their windows for fresh air from time to time, to have someone smoking directly by your window would present another problem. That is why many smoking bans on properties include a parameter ban outside (usually about 25 feet or so). This is primarily a health issue, not an odor issue, like so many people like to erroneously frame it.
Good. The only place a person should be allowed to smoke is in their own private home, which is not connected to another person's dwelling, and only so long as no one under 18 lives in the home. Oh, and you can smoke in your car as long as you leave the windows up.
do you really like to control other peoples lives? this is the sort of tactic that i would expect coming from the soviet union or some other oppressive country.
You have been drinking the koolaid of the anti smoking bigots. Nobody has ever been harmed by a whiff of smoke coming down the hall to their apartment.
That second hand smoke garbage is just one of the propaganda tools that the anti smoking bigots use to try to tell others how to live their lives.
You're obviously uneducated on this subject and are ill equipped to comment. There are studies linking second hand smoke to all the forementioned diseases and conditions. Studies, you know? Not opinions. I know science might be a tad bit difficult for you to digest, but give it a try before you imitate a smoking chimney again.
LOL! Actually, I lived with someone for a while who was quite fond of cooking both a type of very fatty bacon/porky kind of thing PLUS a lot of frying fish. If people want to start bringing legislation based upon SMELLS... well, watch out if the vegans ever come to power.
In terms of medical harm from the levels of interapartmental smoke, it's nonsense. While it's possible there could be occasional EXTREME situations, in any normal real world scenario there's no harm. You can see an extended debate I just had on the subject with one of the world's leading "Secondhand Smoke Consultants" during a break period in the court trial he was "expert witnessing" at. You'll see that despite being asked on THIRTEEN SEPARATE OCCASIONS over the span of three weeks, he was NEVER able to come up with even a single valid study to support his point. See the exchange between me and James Repace at:
The case is now over btw. The complainer lost on 8 of the 9 counts, and on the one count where he sort of "won" the judge simply said the smoker should continue doing exactly what he had been doing before: smoking on his balcony!
This is not scientific at all. And obviously it was not occurring in a building where there was a non-smoking ordinance in effect which did not permit smoking within 25 feet of the building.
But since you are so thick headed to actually have the arrogance to assume that your non-stance is a stance and that there is no correlation and it is merely 'propaganda' as you so erroneously stated, here are some references to actual studies I plucked out of the wind from an extensive database.
Mind you, I can pluck up a hundred more at will if you like. Please, take this time and learn to read and educate yourself on the truth, and remember, scientific studies are objective and non-biased. That is the whole point of science to begin with. Sorry to have to treat you like a child, but you act like one. In any event, here are the references.
Lung cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality associated with ambient air pollution and cigarette smoke: shape of the exposure-response relationships," Environmental ealth Perspectives [Epub ahead of print], July 19, 2011.
H
This research study compared the exposure-response relationships of particulate matter (PM2.5) with lung cancer and cardiovascular mortality and considered the implications of the observed differences to estimate the disease burden of PM2.5. Excess risks for cardiovascular disease mortality increased steeply at low exposure levels and leveled off at higher exposures—reaching relative risks of approximately 2-3 for cigarette use. At low exposure levels, cardiovascular deaths are projected to account for most of the burden of disease, but at high levels of PM2.5, lung cancer becomes proportionately more important
"Cigarette smoking, passive smoking, and non-hodgkin lymphoma risk: evidence from the California Teachers Study," American Journal of Epidemiology [Epub ahead of print], uly 18, 2011.
J
The California Teachers Study collected information about lifetime smoking and household secondhand smoke exposure in 1995 and about lifetime exposure to secondhand smoke in 3 settings (household, workplace, and social settings) in 1997–1998. Among nonsmokers, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) risk increased with increasing lifetime exposure to secondhand smoke, particularly for follicular lymphoma . The study provided evidence that smoking and secondhand smoke exposure may influence NHL etiology, particularly for follicular lymphoma.
"Reduction in acute myocardial infarction hospitalization after implementation of a smoking
ordinance," American Journal of Medicine 124(7): 647-654, July 2011.
This study examined the impact of Greeley, Colorado's smokefree ordinance on hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction. The authors found a reduction in heart attacks of 27 percent overall, with a greater reduction among smokers than among nonsmokers, and noted that, "a smoking ordinance in Greeley, Colorado was associated with a significant decrease in acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations of a magnitude identical to ordinance enactment in Pueblo, Colorado. No differential impact on type of myocardial infarction was noted.
^^^ which means that people were forced to smoke less, thus suffered a lesser incidence of infarction. But in both groups there was notable reduction!
it's hilarious how serious second hand smoking threats are to people who don't understand mathematics nor science..
you have just about a better chance of being hit with lightning twice in the same week than ever catching cancer from second hand smoke
if you really care about people's health, you should institute laws to make it illegal to have sex with anyone other than the 1 spouse you choose to be with for the rest of your life
that would save a lot of lives, suffering, pain, and wipe out aids in no time.
But instead the libs worry about something that isn't really harmful at all , unless your that one person out of 984,209,230 or so that catches cancer possibly from second hand smoke...
Now that our conservative amateur doctor has arrived to the thread, would you like to explain the "science" behind that one.
Also how come no one is complaining about all the smoke exhaust that comes from our transportation, or from hairspray products, or how about all those industries that pour loads of toxic gases in our air?
First of all this statement is not entirely accurate, since there are plenty of epidemiological studies on environmental pollutants, particularly in large, congested cities, like new york. But most studies linking diseases with toxin exposure draw the conclusion that second hand cigarette smoke is the culprit of increased incidences of such diseases. That means there is statistically significant correlations here. This is why such bans are feasible in apartment complexes. Private homes are obviously another matter, but public apartment complexes are not up for you weighing in on. It is a mere inconvenience to you, but for someone with asthma or a severe allergy to even particulates of cigarette smoke, it could be the difference between life and death.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
