Wisconsin, Michigan -- No Smoking Rooms In Hotels -- Period. Thank Liberals. (fence, politicians)

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by sware2cod

You would lose the lawsuit. Smokers are NOT a protected class.

It is perfectly legal for a landlord to deny a rental unit to a smoker simply because the person is a smoker.

Just like it is perfectly legal for employers to deny employment to smokers. Please see the links 2 posts above. Big name companies are denying employment to smokers. They wouldn't do this if it was illegal.

Stillkit....aren't you one of those that said private property owner should decide on their own and not have government specify rules? Now you want smokers to be a "protected class" and have the government force private property owner to accept smokers in rental units?

Yes, I do support private property owners having the right to refuse service to anyone they choose...within certain restrictions. Just as with minorities, there is a limit beyond which a private business owner cannot and should not go.

Given the findings of Congress in the act which placed tobacco under FDA control, I think the game has changed and would be interested to know if anyone has sued for relief under that provision of the act. Though a non-lawyer, I think it has possibilities to once again level the playing field and stop the rampant discrimination against smokers.

And, I am not alone. I once approached several law firms engaged in shepherding Social Security disability claims through the system, proposing that my wife, who smoke 2 packs a day, might be eligible for a disability rating because of the finding of Congress. Since Congress said she has a "chronic disease," and she cannot find work which compensates for her "disease," I questioned whether or not that might be grounds for SS disability.

Naturally, most of those law firms laughed and said, "No thanks." But...Binder and Binder called back wanting to know more. I couldn't get my wife to pursue it, but they were interested enough in the concept to make a long distance phone call.

I can only hope that they are out there somewhere, chasing that dog every day until they catch it.

I might also note that discriminating against minorities, and even AIDS sufferer's, was legal and normal too...until someone challenged it. That's one of the reasons we have courts.

[suzy_q2010]

Smoking is not a right, it is a privilege, and as such it may be regulated, just as the privilege of driving is regulated.

The difficulty with allowing smoking anywhere in a hotel is that it is impossible to confine the smoke to specific rooms. It inevitably leaks into the common spaces, is picked up by the HVAC system, and contaminates all the air in the building. The hotel is the same as an airplane, just on a larger scale. This forces nonsmokers to inhale air containing tobacco smoke, even if they are in a nonsmoking room. The only way to provide a truly nonsmoking environment for the nonsmokers is to make the entire structure nonsmoking. That means that a hotel cannot just provide nonsmoking rooms or floors, it would have to have a completely separate building for smokers. And now there are not enough smokers to make that economically feasible.

For anyone building a totally new motel, to allow smoking would be an extremely poor business decision. Ask any of the landlords on the renting forum what is required to remove tobacco smoke from a rental unit after a smoker leaves. It is actually impossible to completely get rid of all of it. Once a hotel room has been smoked in, it is a smoking room forever. That means that you cannot at some point convert that room to a nonsmoking room. No matter how much "air freshener" you use, a nonsmoker will smell it.

So, what happens when smoking bans go into effect? The health benefits are almost immediate. The effects in Wisconsin were dramatic enough that the governor, who initially opposed the ban, now supports it.

See here for what happened in Switzerland:

Incidence of acute myocardial infarction afte... [Swiss Med Wkly. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Heart attacks in one down went down significantly after the first year of a smoking ban.

In Massachusetts:

The impact of Massachusetts' smoke-free w... [Am J Public Health. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Heart attack deaths decreased 18.6% after smoking ban was in effect for twelve months.

And a meta-analysis:

Cardiovascular effect of bans on smoking i... [J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

"Using 11 reports from 10 study locations, AMI [heart attack] risk decreased by 17% overall (IRR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.92), with the greatest effect among younger individuals and nonsmokers. The IRR [incidence rate ratio] incrementally decreased 26% for each year of observation after ban implementation."

Smokers like to key on the cancer risk from smoking, but that ignores the other risks. An effect on cancer rates will take longer to show up. And the bans do protect nonsmokers more than smokers, who get much greater exposure from their first hand use than from second hand smoke.

Since we all pay for the medical care for smoking related illnesses, these reductions have a direct effect on everyone's wallets, through lower health care costs.

That means that it is entirely reasonable to pass legislation that regulates where smokers may smoke.

I applaud Wisconsin and Michigan for having the courage to implement strong bans.

Originally Posted by linicx

The #2 killer behind heart is not cigarettes. It is Mold Spores. It makes life interesting as there is no place os earth where anyone can escape Mold Spores except in a mold free building such as your home. It leads to more interesting challenges to make a home mold free and keep it that way.

But a leading cause of heart disease is smoking. "Cigarettes" themselves are not actually listed as a cause per se. The second leading cause is cancer, followed by stroke and lower respiratory disease. Smoking is a significant contributor to all of those.

Mold actually does not cause a lot of illness. The risk of actually getting sick from "toxic" mold is pretty small. Some people with respiratory allergies may react to molds. However, mold related deaths are extremely uncommon.

There is no way to make a home "mold free." Mold spores are in the air, just like pollen. You can filter some out, but there is no way to completely avoid all mold exposure, even at home.

Originally Posted by stillkit

If "third hand smoke" is such a mortal danger, why aren't my kids dead yet? Or, my grandkids? Or, great-grandkids? They ALL have grown up crawling around and playing in my house, which must be ankle deep in "third hand smoke" after 40 years of my wife and I smoking 2 packs a day in it.



(sarcasm on) Third hand smoke! Snort! You suckers will believe anything, won't you? (sarcasm off)

Scoff if you will. I am disturbed that you appear to care so little for the health of your grandchildren.

Third-hand smoke contains carcinogens too, study says | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

"A team of researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that remnants of a smoke don’t just inertly settle onto surfaces, they can react with a common gas (nitrous acid, which is emitted from gas appliances and vehicles, among other sources) to create carcinogenic compounds known as tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)."

"Third-hand smoke is a relatively new concept, but like the better-known bugaboo, second-hand smoke, the most vulnerable population is likely children. "Dermal uptake of the nicotine through a child’s skin is likely to occur when the smoker returns, and if nitrous acid is in the air, which it usually is, then TSNAs will be formed," Gundel said. Young children are also more likely to consume more dust—and thereby any present TSNAs—than adults, they report."

Your refusal to admit the hazards of second and third hand smoke to children is a form of magical thinking to justify your own smoking. If you really want to see what your smoking is doing to your great grandchildren, ask a pediatrician to measure cotinine (one of the break down products of nicotine) for the youngest one. Unfortunately, you will not live long enough to know ultimately what harm your smoking caused to your family.

Originally Posted by gizmo980

So again I will bring up my perfume analogy, since nobody has addressed that one. Wearing perfume/cologne is (in my opinion) a nasty habit, which infringes upon my rights to not want to smell it - and my rights to not have a severe allergy attack, followed by a migraine. When I'm at work I serve the public, in a job supported by taxes, and I cannot escape a customer who's wearing perfume. Do I have the right to demand non-perfume libraries, hotels and restaurants? Or do my rights not trump their right to wear perfume?

FWIW I support most non-smoking laws, which are quite extensive in this state. I am also very considerate, even when smoking outside AND in my own home... if a non-smoker is visiting my home, I'll keep it outside & far from the door, just to keep them comfortable. I also wouldn't seek to ban perfume, since I don't think my allergies should outweigh your right to wear the stuff. Why can't people have this same attitude towards smoking? Keep it out of the shared public spaces, fine, but leave us to our habits in an enclosed smoking-designated hotel room. Is that so tough?

If you have allergies, you really should not smoke.

How do you keep the cigarette smoke confined to your hotel room?

Originally Posted by TexasReb;22272848

The 2nd hand smoke argument/studies is/are iffy at best, and the 3rd is just bizarre. You are exposed to more cancer causing chemicals/odors -- and in greater amounts -- especially if you live in the city -- than that caused by next generation smoke.

And actually, I have seen some credible stats that indicate even those who [I

smoke[/i] less than half a pack of cigarettes a day do not have a really statistical significantly greater risk of cancer than does a non-smoker. Whether this is true or not, I don't know...but the studies are out there for anyone who wants to look at them.

Yes, we all know of sad stories like that. But the point you and some others consistently seem to miss is this is not about "smokers rights" or that it is not harmful. Many of us here have quit and are glad we did. It is about private property rights

Great. Your heart is in the right place. But why not leave it up to the individual to make that decision, and the business owner to decide whether or not to allow it on their own property!

The Swiss study accounted for air pollution other than tobacco smoke.

"Compared with the two years preceding the implementation of a smoking ban, the incidence of AMI [acute myocardial infarction] remained significantly reduced in the second year of the ban in Graubünden, whereas no similar reduction was seen in a comparable area without smoke-free legislation. Changes in outdoor air pollution or the use of lipid-lowering drugs did not substantially contribute to the decrease in the incidence of AMI that occurred after adoption of the ban in Graubünden."

You are wrong about "light smokers" not having an increased risk of tobacco related diseases.

Just One To Four Cigarettes Daily Triples Risk Of Dying Of Heart Disease Or Lung Cancer

"Smoking just one to four cigarettes a day almost triples a smoker's risk of heart disease and lung cancer, reveals a large study in Tobacco Control."

Originally Posted by stillkit

Um...you do know that up until, oh, about the late 1980's or early '90's, smoking on the job was actually quite normal and accepted. Even in airplanes!

Yet, I don't see any evidence that flight attendants are dropping like flies from breathing all that smoke back then, do you?

Flight attendants exposed to second hand smoke have abnormal lung function.

Pulmonary function abnormalities in neve... [J Occup Environ Med. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

"This cohort of healthy never-smoking flight attendants who were exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke in the aircraft cabin showed pulmonary function abnormalities suggestive of airway obstruction and impaired diffusion."

Flying the smoky skies: secondhand smoke exposur... [Tob Control. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

"In-flight air quality measurements in approximately 250 aircraft, generalised by models, indicate that when smoking was permitted aloft, 95% of the harmful respirable suspended particle (RSP) air pollution in the smoking sections and 85% of that in the non-smoking sections of aircraft cabins was caused by SHS [second hand smoke]. Typical levels of SHS-RSP on aircraft violated current (PM(2.5)) federal air quality standards approximately threefold for flight attendants, and exceeded SHS irritation thresholds by 10 to 100 times. From cotinine dosimetry, SHS exposure of typical flight attendants in aircraft cabins is estimated to have been >6-fold that of the average US worker and approximately 14-fold that of the average person. Thus, ventilation systems massively failed to control SHS air pollution in aircraft cabins. These results have implications for studies of the past and future health of flight attendants."

Studies of cancer in flight attendants are ongoing and will need to control for expposure to other carcinogens, including ionizing radiation.

For those who think nicotine is not addictive:

Division of Periodontology: Tobacco Use Cessation Program

"Tobacco is as addictive as heroin (as a mood & behavior altering agent).
Nicotine is:
1000 X more potent than alcohol
10-100 X more potent than barbiturates
5-10 X more potent than cocaine or morphine
A 1-2 pack per day smoker takes 200-400 hits daily for years. This constant intake of a fast acting drug (which affects mood, concentration & performance).. eventually produces dependence."

For the poster who believes a lot of doctors and nurses smoke:

How many medical doctors smoke? | Freedom From Smoking | Healthline

About 5% of doctors smoke. It is likely that they became addicted before they ever went to medical school.

How many nurses smoke? | Tobacco Free RNAO

This Canadian article gives numbers of 3.3% for physicians and about 15% for nurses.

And, finally, for those who wonder whether smoking is a "lower class" phenomenon:

Cigarette Tax Will Affect Low-Income Americans Most

" ... 34% of the lowest-income Americans smoke, compared with only 13% of those earning $90,000 or more per year."

Smoking rates go down as education level and income go up.

Smoking bans are in the public interest. I predict more states will follow the lead of Michigan and Wisconsin.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Yes, I do support private property owners having the right to refuse service to anyone they choose...within certain restrictions. Just as with minorities, there is a limit beyond which a private business owner cannot and should not go.

Given the findings of Congress in the act which placed tobacco under FDA control, I think the game has changed and would be interested to know if anyone has sued for relief under that provision of the act. Though a non-lawyer, I think it has possibilities to once again level the playing field and stop the rampant discrimination against smokers.

And, I am not alone. I once approached several law firms engaged in shepherding Social Security disability claims through the system, proposing that my wife, who smoke 2 packs a day, might be eligible for a disability rating because of the finding of Congress. Since Congress said she has a "chronic disease," and she cannot find work which compensates for her "disease," I questioned whether or not that might be grounds for SS disability.

Naturally, most of those law firms laughed and said, "No thanks." But...Binder and Binder called back wanting to know more. I couldn't get my wife to pursue it, but they were interested enough in the concept to make a long distance phone call.

I can only hope that they are out there somewhere, chasing that dog every day until they catch it.

I might also note that discriminating against minorities, and even AIDS sufferer's, was legal and normal too...until someone challenged it. That's one of the reasons we have courts.

Smoking alone would not qualify someone for a determination of disability. A tobacco related illness, such as emphysema, might.

Please provide a link to where "Congress" has determined that smoking is a "chronic disease."

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Smoking alone would not qualify someone for a determination of disability. A tobacco related illness, such as emphysema, might.

Please provide a link to where "Congress" has determined that smoking is a "chronic disease."

PUBLIC LAW 111–31—JUNE 22, 2009

FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL AND FEDERAL RETIREMENT REFORM


The Congress finds the following:

Sec. 2; (33) Tobacco dependence is a chronic disease, one that typically requires repeated interventions to achieve long-term or permanent abstinence.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-11...-111publ31.pdf

[treasurefinder]

Originally Posted by Wayland Woman

The tourist associations and the hotel/motel associations pull a lot of weight in the states. If they didn't want the smoke-free laws, they would have fought hard against them. The fact is they didn't put up much of a fight at all because they know it increases their bottom line and they welcome the law to give them an excuse to tell smokers, "Sorry, no."

Any there you have it, you are exactly right

[detshen]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Your argument fails, if I the owner of the movie theater wish to cater to people that make loud noises and swear during the show I can do that.

Read the post I was responding to, and you will see that my argument did not fail, it was about discrimination, not business owner rights. Please read thoroughly, and make sure you understand what's going on before attacking someone's post.

[detshen]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Was it discrimination to tell blacks they could come to the theater, but they had to sit in the balcony away from all the "good" people? Or, to welcome them in the restaurant so long as they used the back door and sat in the kitchen?

What's the difference?

There is a HUGE difference, those examples are real discrimination. Smokers can go wherever they want, sit wherever they want, they can use any door they want, if there's a rule that NO ONE is allowed to smoke it applies to everyone, no one is getting special treatment, or a separate set of rules, everyone is treated the same, that means there is NO DISCRIMINATION!.

[detshen]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

What about housing units that won't rent to smokers, even if you smoke outside 100% of the time? I'm not saying they don't have that right, but since you asked for an example - there's one.

I had a landlord once who only listed it as a non-smoking house, which I was more than happy to abide by... then he saw my roommate ad (after I'd moved into the house) stating that I was an outdoor smoker, and called me to say "if I'd known you were a smoker, I'd never have rented to you!" I assured him there would never be any smoking inside, and did keep to that promise for the 3+ years I lived there.

Not allowing smoking in a rental unit is NOT discrimination, it's a rule everyone must follow, but refusing to rent to a smoker who agrees to never smoke in the unit, is something I would agree is discriminatory. My guess is that they don't believe the person won't smoke in the unit, and is only saying that to get the place, and evicting someone who is already in is a nightmare. That's a rare instance, for the most part smokers are allowed to go anywhere they want, they just have to follow the same rules as anyone else which is often no smoking.

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by detshen

There is a HUGE difference, those examples are real discrimination. Smokers can go wherever they want, sit wherever they want, they can use any door they want, if there's a rule that NO ONE is allowed to smoke it applies to everyone, no one is getting special treatment, or a separate set of rules, everyone is treated the same, that means there is NO DISCRIMINATION!.

Then black people not being allowed to use the only swimming pool in town because white's feared they'd contaminate the water wasn't discrimination? They could go anywhere they liked, hang around outside the fence, park in the parking lot. They just couldn't go in the water because of public health concerns.

[monkeywrenching]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

Great news!!!

so what would you do if the state said you could not have sex in any hotel or anyplace outside of your home?

not saying it has happened, but with politicians making the laws, it might just happen 1 day.