Did all the smokers move out of Portland? (Mexico: apartment, lease)

[harleyrider1978]

Schuman's Expert Witnesses Testify in Secondhand Smoke Trial

The plaintiff's expert witnesses spoke up on day three of David Schuman's case against his housing cooperative, Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI), for its failure to prohibit the nuisance created by his townhome neighbors, the Popovics', secondhand smoke.

Courtroom and Plaintiff's Townhome Register Similar Carcinogen Levels

But, an incident from Repace’s testimony Thursday came back into play Friday during cross examination. Goecke pointed out that on Thursday, while demonstrating the carcinogen monitor, Repace had measured the concentration of carcinogens in the court room — which is in a smoke-free building — and the amount he recorded there was similar to what Repace had reported recording in Schuman’s townhome in July of 2011.

greenbelt.patch.com/articles/schumans-expert-witnesses-testify-in-secondhand-smoke-trial

As you can see even in a smokefree courtroom the same so called levels were read in Schumans own Kitchen in his house! The so called scientist was none other than a fellow prohibitionist and JUNK SCIENTIST,Tornado Repace!

Talk about being laughed out of court...................btw these prohibitionists create whats called ''risk assesment studies'' Purely fictional and nothing more than statistical magic to create fear and bigotry against smokers!

[harleyrider1978]

We have mandated FSC fire safe cigarettes now! That took care of the fire risks correct.............. Oh you say no now,then why bother with the FSC carpet glue put in cig papers for this purpose.

[harleyrider1978]

In a legal opinion obtained by ASH, J. Melville Williams QC suggests that not only has the date of guilty knowledge passed for employers, but also for the Health & Safety Executive and Commission .
So that could be why the HSE pulled paragraph 9 in HSE in OC255/15
“The Health and safety executive could find no evidence, hence the statement in article 9 from HSE in OC255/15 published in 2006
“The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act”
http://web.archive.org/web/200611100...299/255_15.pdf
H/T Greg Burrows
Mysterious Changes by the HSE.
18th July 2007.
http://www.freedom2choose.info/news1.php?id=290

[harleyrider1978]

They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
...

The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Le Parisien
...

[Snowball7]

definitely an opportunity to make $
for the landlord who will allow it.
not to mention pets also.

[belrazor]

Smoking bans usually cover both tobacco & marijuana use. A card for medical marijuana is not required, it is optional. All that is required legally is a PCP recommendation (and the fees, of course). There is a dispensary on Congress St. as a source for more information regarding Maine Medical Marijuana laws and availability (prices are not worth the trip for your meds, IMO). Although smoking bans are common in Portland, they are rarely enforced by landlords except when used as an excuse to oust unwanted tenants under some nuisance or safety clause. I am a smoker and although there have been no conclusive studies on the impact of second-hand smoke, I believe this does not excuse smokers from infringing on the liberties of non-smokers by not exercising common courtesy and/or respect. Keeping second-hand smoke (or any smoke/emanations/pollutants) at least 20' from common areas or neighbors' windows/doorways does not seem to infringe on my liberties as a smoker and seems like it should be recognized as just being plain ol' respectful of others anyway. Without proof either-way on the effects of second-hand smoke, why risk the the health of anyone else in the community but your own, no matter how negligible YOU think the risk MAY be?

[C-Chelle]

Excellent read HarleyRider1978! Thank you

Sad smokers get the short end of things especially when the "media" reports cell phone use can cause cancer yet no one puts down their cell phone.

There are so many things out there that can make you sick, including the mass produced corporate food we purchase from our local grocery stores. We personally try to stay with local farmers/growers but unfortunately the convenience of Giant Eagle (our grocer chain) gets the better of us at times.

Oh and BTW - There is NO link to marijuana smoke and cancer, I have to look up the link.... sorry, not as prepared as Harleyrider1978 . I also read in one of my cousins medical books (back in the late 80's), marijuana was less harmful than taking 2 aspirin. Hmmmm. lol!

Anyway, sorry if the smell of my cigarette bothers a non-smoker, however there are people who use way too much perfume that can have the same nauseating effect when I am trying to enjoy a good meal in a restaurant. Maybe we should ban perfume indoors too . Or what about the person who had too much to drink with breath that would kill flies and will not leave you alone at the bus stop wanting to talk to you and doing so at an "in your face" distance.

Yes non-smokers, we ALL have things that annoy us, but not all of us ***** about it. LOL

[mainelander]

Sorry but the concept of second hand smoke is not my major issue with smoking. Its a vile smelly habit that impinges on others.

[steeltreehat]

Originally Posted by mainelander

Sorry but the concept of second hand smoke is not my major issue with smoking. Its a vile smelly habit that impinges on others.

I find it very odd that smokers think they are entitled to special accommodations to practice their habit, when there are clearly no reasons that they deserve such treatment. Furthermore, smokers have little concern for non-smokers, in that they do not care that their smoke is annoying, which is why whenever anybody is smoking near me I scream in their face until they stop smoking near me. You see, my habit is screaming in the face of people smoking near me.

[NewToNE]

You are a VERY rude person, Mainelander.
No one needs your lectures.
I'm not a smoker, nor is anyone in my family, but I believe smoking still is legal in this country and the OP was merely asking WHERE they could smoke.
If you cannot answer the question politely, why not just keep your rude replies to yourself ?
CLEARLY, you did not receive training in etiquette as a child... or you just have a massive stick up your "vile" backside.