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.
The economics of having a smokefree building will win out over any so-called personal liberty issues. The government of Montana, for example, is already behind it, too, for example. Insurance companies are not far behind.
I hadnt thought of that. Thanks for the info . When the first lawsuits arrive from non smokers who are sickened by second hand smoke that will bring about a big change.
Yes, why don't we just move all smokers out into tents in the middle of a big field and make them live there for the benefit of non-smokers? Why not just treat them like pedophiles and tell them they can't live within so many feet of non-smokers? But while they smoke let's tax the living s*** out of their tobacco so that we can put the money into a big state slush fund for other projects not related to smoking? But on the same token let's make marijuana smoking legal and okay and allow those people to live anywhere they want even though they are still burning and inhaling a burning product into their lungs and holding it there for a time period. Yes marijuana...GOOD. Tobacco....BAD.
I have nothing against smokers just their smoking. Studies have shown it affects my health so why would I want to be forced to breathe it? The honest truth is that many non smokers think that smokers simply have no concern for the health of others. They just don't get it. Why would they want to make others sick ?
As for medical marijuana that is a different issue but I personally feel that breathing anything into your lungs is not the best idea and that it should be taken in herb form for the health benefits instead.
My mom's perfume can't bother anyone she is dead from lung cancer caused by her smoking. Maybe you are right maybe everyone who hates smoking should refuse to rent in an apartment that allows smoking. Of course that will probabaly bring about a big change in the laws since apartments will sit empty.
Why should the laws be changed to accommodate the landlords? Landlords have certain rights. As long as they don't discriminate based on specific criteria that already exists, they have the right to rent to smokers, or to non-smokers. In fact, if they want, they can say "Smokers ONLY permitted in this building." Non-smokers aren't a protected class, and smoking is legal in this country.
This isn't about people going to a bar, having a few drinks, and leaving again. This is about who has the right to -live- somewhere. And those rights trump over the desires of anyone else. So, it isn't likely that the law is going to step in and tell a guy who lives in a 4-bedroom house that he owns, that he is no longer allowed to smoke in it, because he rents two of the bedrooms out to tenants, and that he's not allowed to rent those rooms to smokers.
In some states this would fall under the privacy laws, in others, the Club Laws. If you have a private club that is members only, you can do anything that is already legal, inside that club.
Apartments are private, "members-only" entities, where the only people allowed to live in them, are people who pay for the privilege. The landlord has the right to decide for himself, whether any of those members/tenants are permitted to smoke in his building. If he says "smoking is permitted" and all the non-smokers move out, then he's out tenants and will just have to find new ones to replace them. Or, he can change his house rules. But they are HIS rules.
The law has no place inside *private* residential dwellings. In public housing - it's the government that is the landlord so yes, the government has the right to say "no smoking in these public-housing-funded apartments." In private dwellings where the landlord is NOT the government, the government does not have the right to forbid legal activities.
This anti-smoking nonsense is getting out of control. It's tax, tax, tax, tobacco products. Ban smoking in restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. Let's test for nicotine and refuse to hire someone who has nicotine in their system, even if it is nicotine from smoking cessation products. It's getting out of control.
Yet, alcohol is protected. You don't see outrageous increases in the prices of alcoholic beverages. You don't see an anti-alcohol campaign in commercial places, and you don't see alcohol tests for employment hiring.
I've never seen cigarettes cause car crashes or tear families apart because someone had a smoking problem. Why is alcohol protected and cigarettes not? It's ridiculous. BTW, I do not smoke.
They say apartments force non smokers to breath second hand smoke even if their own apartment is smoke free. The smoke seeps in through windows, doors, walls, and ventilation. Even when a smoker is outside on the porch the smoke lingers and travels to the apartments nearby. it's not fair to the non smokers , they pay to live there too and deserve to breathe clean air .
Its also bad for landlords. It will sink into the carpets and the lining of the carpets. It sinks into walls and curtains and makes a mess that is expensive to fix.
Second hand smoke is a known health risk. It causes cancer, emphysema, it makes health problems you already have worse and creates new ones.
I saw my mother die of lung cancer. She smoked my whole childhood . She quit for 20 years but still got lung cancer. By the time they found it they were too late. I hate smoking. I take it seriously
I think smokers should be allowed to smoke only far away in a designated area on the property . I think most apartments should be smoke free . Especially those with children or elderly living there.
There can still be separate housing for smokers in apartments where the people don't care about the issue or in their own personal homes . Those that do care should be allowed be breathe smoke free air.
Then the first thing some non smoker will do is sue the apartment building owner for discrimination because "the smoker's apartment is nicer than a non smoking apartment or the view is better or the tile is pink or the laundry room is 3 steps closer than the one in the non smoking building or......."
If all non smokers want a non smoking place to live, buy your own house, that way you don't have to worry about someone smoking near you. It doesn't really matter that the "fresh, clean air" that you crave to breathe is filled with so much pollution it is nowhere near "fresh or clean". If you as a non smoker drive a vehicle you are adding to the air pollution more than a smoker is.
Never will there be a true SMOKE FREE apartment building.......unenforceable or never enforced.
True it is hard to enforce . I know many smoke free hotels charge a $250 fine if the customer is caught smoking in the room. I guess they could try to enforce it.
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.
