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.
It should not be the landlords' and/or building mgmt.'s responsibility to provide clean air to tenants. Smokers are the problems in buildings and the onus should be totally on them. Most important is that laws must be enforced and the violators given stiff penalties. Just as there are more and more laws prohibiting smoking in places of employment, there should be likewise so that normal, healthy people can rent out apartments without having to become victims of second-hand smoke. I see no difference between being forced to breath in fumes from leaky gas pipes and other forms of toxicity, and being forced to breathe in second-hand smoke. I am including pot. The local and federal health dept.s have been extremely tardy in making it possible for normal, healthy people to live in apartment buildings without having to become victims of second-hand smoke. This includes apartment building which rent out to Section 8 / subsidized tenants.
I agree that smokers are vile, foul creatures who care not about he olfactory, respiratory etc., distress they inflict on others, and there needs to be some mechanism to prevent them from such assaults. Drinking is legal too, but you can't hit people over the head with your empty bottles, so to speak. Obvoiusly, the two are not to the same degree, but the effects are simiilar. Both are assaults on unwilling parties.
Yes, I think it is time for society to recognize that the rights of the majority not to be assaulted with tobacco-filth out-weighs the priviledge of tobacco use.
Perhaps they could put nicotine in small inhalers, like asthma users use, so the smokers could get their hit without harming others.
It should not be the landlords' and/or building mgmt.'s responsibility to provide clean air to tenants. Smokers are the problems in buildings and the onus should be totally on them. Most important is that laws must be enforced and the violators given stiff penalties. Just as there are more and more laws prohibiting smoking in places of employment, there should be likewise so that normal, healthy people can rent out apartments without having to become victims of second-hand smoke. I see no difference between being forced to breath in fumes from leaky gas pipes and other forms of toxicity, and being forced to breathe in second-hand smoke. I am including pot. The local and federal health dept.s have been extremely tardy in making it possible for normal, healthy people to live in apartment buildings without having to become victims of second-hand smoke. This includes apartment building which rent out to Section 8 / subsidized tenants.
I say we should outlaw all of the anti-(whatever) people out there and this country would be a much safer and pleasant place.
Here is the thing.... I live in a condo. So if let's say you move in next to me. You being the new tenant and coming in barking orders, I'm going to tell you to kiss my a**! On the other hand, if I'm the new neighbor and you'd complain, then I'd comply. See how that works? Last time I checked, cigarettes are legal. They ain't going anywhere. Sooner or later the feds are going to wake up and remember that prohibition does not work, and therefore cannabis will be legal too. The bottom line is the government, nor you are my mother.
".......the bottom line is the government, nor you are my mother." (nor, am I your father, for that matter)That works both ways - you are certainly not my mother, either, although you very authoritatively indulge in certain activities which could harm me. (For starters, any mother worth her while would be concerned that her child was suffering from the effects of second-hand smoke.) Aside from that, I should not have to follow your dictatorship regarding what you want, either, regardless of any informal protocol of "who was here first".
At the very least, your frame of reference must be very limited for you to actually think that a smoker would just say, "oh, yes, my smoking is causing my neighbor to have poor health", and then not smoke any more in the apartment.
You are living in a fantasy land, if you think that a smoker would care, especially about a stranger, regardless of "who was there first". I have the concept of reasonable expectations on my side. I have the right to reasonably expect that breathing in secondhand-hand smoke, which is a major hazard to my health, does not preclude having a decent place to live. I believe that "quiet enjoyment of the premises" is a phrase that is a usual a condition of a lease. Enjoyment of anything is impossible when your health is compromised. Incidentally, my goal is to create enormous legal difficulties for smokers. So, I offer you the same hypothetical invitation to kiss my lower extremity, just as you might have hypothetically offered me in the situation you cited.
I believe that All smokers are in need of adult supervision.I contend that there is something emotionally wrong with adults who hurt other people for no reason.
Be my guest, smoke (whatever you want) yourself into oblivion I don''t care. Do not interfere with my right to good health.
Last edited by smokersaremiscreants; 03-18-2013 at 10:48 PM..
I agree that smokers are vile, foul creatures who care not about he olfactory, respiratory etc., distress they inflict on others, and there needs to be some mechanism to prevent them from such assaults. Drinking is legal too, but you can't hit people over the head with your empty bottles, so to speak. Obvoiusly, the two are not to the same degree, but the effects are simiilar. Both are assaults on unwilling parties.
Yes, I think it is time for society to recognize that the rights of the majority not to be assaulted with tobacco-filth out-weighs the priviledge of tobacco use.
Perhaps they could put nicotine in small inhalers, like asthma users use, so the smokers could get their hit without harming others.
Nah, I think that wiping smokers out finacially through law-suits is better. Possible poverty might be an incentive to not smoke/destroy other people's health. Anyway, with the way things are geared towards helping people who can't help themselves, the Feds would have tax-payers paying for smokers' "fix", just as tax-payers are forced to pay for their "therapy" and aids/"fix" to help them to stop smoking. Tax-payers on a state level should have to pay for the medical bills that victims or second-hand smoke accrue, just as the victims of other types of crime are granted monetary compensation.
BTW, if you ever have to use an asthma inhaler I am sure you will think about the funny image of a smoker using such for their nicotine "fix". Yes, that would be hilarious. Especially if they were joan-sing for a fix and their hands were shaking so badly that they couldn't get the top off. That would be very funny to watch. Its almost as funny as watching smokers try to fit in socially with other people when on some level they know that they are social outcasts and that most normal people view them as infantile.
What if they're smoking marijuana which is being legalized in so many places? How are you going to tell them they can't smoke it if it's legal?
Regular smoking is legal. My apartment complex went smoke-free. I don't know why but smoke comes through the walls. As an apartment dweller I'm not fond of smoking neighbors (including marijuana) especially if they smoke in the bedroom as most apartment complexes have bedrooms back to back. I wouldn't be surprised if apartment property owners think they'll cover the marijuana thing if they ban smoking now. Maybe they get better fire insurance rates, too.
A dead giveaway to a shrill, bugeyed, fist-in-the-air whiner who wants to interrupt, hassle, and injure members of some chosen group (smokers in this case).
Time to file this thread under "Life's too short to deal with idiots".
"interrupt, hassle, and injure members of some chosen group (smokers in this case)". Thank you, I hope that I am doing just that. I can't think of any "chosen group" who deserve to be the recipients of such, more than do smokers. However, the personal characteristics of the "idiotic" person --- assuredly, me ------ are much more befitting in describing a weakling, which I am not. In fact, these personal characteristics fit smokers to a TEE.
Its time for youto create a thread entitled: Protectors of Self-Centered Infantile Adults. Smokers need your "protection", as they depend on well-meaning, but, presumptuous, defenders of the "underdog" to keep their atrocious behavior going. Aside from their "loved ones" and friends who "understand" them, and "accept" them regardless of their dysfunctional activities, they need people like you to fight their battle for their "right to smoke".
I am a victim of second-hand smoke and there are countless people like me. Perhaps you would like to advocate for us because you might have a genuine streak of altruism that's just been misplaced. You probably really do believe in fighting for the underdog, you are just confused as to who the true under-dog is. Smokers are very deceitful when they think their crutch is going to be taken from them.
Smokers will beg, cry, lie, steal, threaten, and brain-wash others into thinking that what they are doing is OK, when it is not. They will physically attack and fight with a person who stands in the way of obtaining the object of their obsession. They are insidious and pernicious. Defending their warped obsession is where their energy is spent.
Perhaps your friends, or, loved ones, smoke; you might smoke, yourself; however, you sound more like someone who is concerned about the rights of others, judging from your opening remarks. Maybe you are trying to rectify within yourself whether, or, not, your relationship to smokers can remain neutral when deep down inside, you know that they are harming others, including yourself. No-one who is sane would not have considered this.
Anyone who is fairly in their right mind and/or is at least possessing a remedial IQ, knows that second-hand smoke is dangerous. In fact, I am really surprised that, after so many decades of the general public knowing this, that there are people who are still victims of second-hand smoke. After countless amounts of $ and time being spent on these shrill, bug-eyed, fists-in-the-air, whiners (read: smokers) who can't stand the thought of living without an emotional crutch.
However, my total concern is for the victims of second-hand smoke. Having to deal with smokers who will fight us every inch of the way is just an unfortunate burden, something that comes with the territory.
"interrupt, hassle, and injure members of some chosen group (smokers in this case)". Thank you, I hope that I am doing just that. I can't think of any "chosen group" who deserve to be the recipients of such, more than do smokers. However, the personal characteristics of the "idiotic" person --- assuredly, me ------ are much more befitting in describing a weakling, which I am not. In fact, these personal characteristics fit smokers to a TEE.
Its time for youto create a thread entitled: Protectors of Self-Centered Infantile Adults. Smokers need your "protection", as they depend on well-meaning, but, presumptuous, defenders of the "underdog" to keep their atrocious behavior going. Aside from their "loved ones" and friends who "understand" them, and "accept" them regardless of their dysfunctional activities, they need people like you to fight their battle for their "right to smoke".
I am a victim of second-hand smoke and there are countless people like me. Perhaps you would like to advocate for us because you might have a genuine streak of altruism that's just been misplaced. You probably really do believe in fighting for the underdog, you are just confused as to who the true under-dog is. Smokers are very deceitful when they think their crutch is going to be taken from them.
Smokers will beg, cry, lie, steal, threaten, and brain-wash others into thinking that what they are doing is OK, when it is not. They will physically attack and fight with a person who stands in the way of obtaining the object of their obsession. They are insidious and pernicious. Defending their warped obsession is where their energy is spent.
Perhaps your friends, or, loved ones, smoke; you might smoke, yourself; however, you sound more like someone who is concerned about the rights of others, judging from your opening remarks. Maybe you are trying to rectify within yourself whether, or, not, your relationship to smokers can remain neutral when deep down inside, you know that they are harming others, including yourself. No-one who is sane would not have considered this.
Anyone who is fairly in their right mind and/or is at least possessing a remedial IQ, knows that second-hand smoke is dangerous. In fact, I am really surprised that, after so many decades of the general public knowing this, that there are people who are still victims of second-hand smoke. After countless amounts of $ and time being spent on these shrill, bug-eyed, fists-in-the-air, whiners (read: smokers) who can't stand the thought of living without an emotional crutch.
However, my total concern is for the victims of second-hand smoke. Having to deal with smokers who will fight us every inch of the way is just an unfortunate burden, something that comes with the territory.
You seem to get off on this tirade, so I don't suppose you'd be interested in facts, but for the record, the science is not there. This article reviews the studies and points out the lack of evidence and the biased findings. It's all propoganda to control behavior and further divide us. Divide and conquer.
I would love to see you bring suit against the individuals that you say caused you harm, let's see you prove you are a victim. I suspect you're just another liberal wanting to blame others for your own failings, look in the mirror, that's where I suspect, your problem lies.
With no scientific evidence to back his statement, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City proclaimed that bartenders inhale the equivalent of half a pack of cigarettes a day. In fact, a study from the U.K. showed that the average London bartender inhaled the equivalent of six cigarettes annually (about one quarter of a pack). (Matthews and MacDonald, 1998)
Perhaps one of the better studies was published in the British Medical Journal by epidemiologist James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat (2003). Their study of 35,000 Californians showed that lifelong exposure to a husband or wife’s smoke produced no increased risk of coronary heart disease or lung cancer among the non-smoking spouses. As with most who oppose the anti-tobacco lobby, Enstrom was forced to defend his study on the basis that it had received funding from a tobacco company. The study was condemned as biased, even though it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the statistics were not flawed, and the conclusions were sound.
First of all, you start a thread stating that you want the government to make smoking inside dwellings illegal. Then, you make several posts throughout, many of which I respond to, to no avail. Secondly, you actually do reply to my post and refuse to address the methodology and justification of government intervention in controlling said behavior in the dwelling. As I have posted before, where does this intervention end? If smoking in ones home constitutes a crime, then persons and dwelling are subject to search and seizure without a warrant. How would this be monitored? What other behaviors could be considered assault by statists like yourself? Assault is a physical action. Let's see if I can come up with some other behaviors that fit your version of assault. How about if, a person with respiratory problems lived with a loved one that was an obsessive user of Glade sprays and candles? That is rather suffocating and will affect the air quality. Should the government step in and deem that assault as well? Same situation, different toxin.
For you to compare or even attempt to put someone being exposed to second-hand smoke to child sexual abuse is appalling. But let's humor you for a second, all persons that are in any type of abusive relationship make the active choice to stay in that relationship. Their reasons are different, but they are staying for a reason. Have you ever worked with battered women? I have, actually, that's kind of my field, and let me tell you, until they are ready to leave on their own free will, they will keep going back willingly despite what waits for them.
Your posts indicate that A) You are a former smoker, B) You have medical issues, and C) Now you are in poor health due to the choices that you made or at the very least the condition has been exasperated by it and now you are mad at the world. The result: you have become a statist that believes that the government should make people not do things that you don't like.
This thread is ridiculous. I offer you a mildly challenging debate and you refuse to attempt to engage. You seem to regurgitate the same emotional responses over and over. If you are going to suggest monitoring one's behavior in a dwelling you need to at least have the foresight to entertain the consequences of said action.
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.
Its almost as funny as watching smokers try to fit in socially with other people when on some level they know that they are social outcasts and that most normal people view them as infantile.
