Smoking bans in apartments

[Fash]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/us/05 ... nted=print

Jill and Joanie Shockley just want to breathe clean air in their homes. Neighboring tenants want to smoke in theirs.

The Shockleys are sisters who live down the hall from each other in an apartment complex in a suburb of St. Paul, where tobacco smoke from other units wafts daily into their homes.

“It’s frustrating,” said Joanie Shockley, 59. “I like to have my grandchildren come over, and I don’t like for them to be exposed to people smoking.”

The Shockleys are part of a growing movement to restrict smoking in apartments and condominiums that is having some success.

This year, two California cities passed laws restricting smoking inside multiunit residential buildings. In the last 14 months, two large residential real estate companies with apartment complexes in several states banned smoking inside units.

Thousands of smaller apartment complexes across the country have taken similar steps, said Jim Bergman, founder of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, which is based in Michigan.

And about 60 public housing authorities across the country have smoke-free policies, compared with less than 10 three years ago, Mr. Bergman said.

Health advocacy groups call housing one of the smoke-free movement’s final frontiers.

Owners of apartment buildings have largely ignored the issue but are starting to recognize the demand for smoke-free housing, said Mr. Bergman, one of the organizers of a meeting of about 75 smoke-free housing advocates from around the country held in October in Minneapolis.

Edward Sweda Jr., senior lawyer at the Tobacco Control Resource Center of the Northeastern University School of Law in Boston, says he has studied the legal issues of secondhand smoke for 28 years and knows of no law in the United States prohibiting residential property owners from banning smoking.

At least 27 lawsuits have been filed since 1991 over smoking in multiunit housing, and judges have often sided with the nonsmoker, Mr. Sweda said.

But many in the real estate industry believe that banning smoking in such buildings would be discriminatory and therefore illegal. When asked by residents to enact a smoke-free policy, property managers often say they cannot because of federal fair housing laws.

In fact, the federal Fair Housing Act protects nonsmokers in cases where people have breathing disabilities aggravated by smoke.

In the summer of 2006, First Centrum, based in Virginia, adopted a smoke-free policy for more than 5,000 units at its 46 apartment communities for older residents in Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia, said Robert Couch, president of the company’s management division.

Over the last seven years, Guardian Management, which is based in Oregon, has banned smoking in units at five properties, and in August extended that policy to 8,000 rental units at 100 properties in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Texas and Washington, said Tom Brenneke, the company president.

“It was an easy decision,” Mr. Brenneke said. He said Guardian was motivated primarily by health and financial considerations, and he pointed out that a smoker’s apartment cost $1,500 to clean when a tenant vacated, compared with $400 for a nonsmoker’s.

Cities in California have taken the lead in adopting smoke-free housing ordinances.

On May 8, Temecula passed an ordinance that applies to apartment buildings with 10 or more units. The law requires landlords to designate at least 25 percent of their units, including balconies and patios, as nonsmoking. The ordinance is being phased in over five years.

On Oct. 9, Belmont adopted an ordinance that bans smoking in all units of multistory, multiunit residences, including balconies and patios. The ordinance goes into effect 14 months after passage.

The City Council of Calabasas is drafting an ordinance to regulate smoking in multiunit housing and is scheduled to discuss the issue on Nov. 28. The city’s existing smoking ordinance states that owners and managers of private residential property may voluntarily prohibit smoking throughout the property.

Smoke-free housing legislation has also been raised at the state level.

Utah passed an amendment in 1997 stating that tobacco smoke may be considered a nuisance when it drifts from one residential unit into another. It also states that apartment complexes and condominium associations may adopt smoke-free policies.

Though smoke-free housing legislation is hailed by many nonsmokers as a step toward healthy living, it has drawn opposition from smokers and real estate groups.

The power to enact such policies should remain with the property owners, said Mark Ingrao, vice president of government affairs for the National Apartment Association. Smoke-free housing laws are “an erosion of private property rights,” he said.

Some who oppose smoke-free-housing laws argue that if smokers can contain the smoke in their units, they should have the right to smoke there.

Researchers have analyzed whether smoke can be contained in various kinds of apartment buildings and found that the percentage of shared air generally ranges from 10 percent to 50 percent, with upper floors most at risk, said James Repace, a biophysicist who performs research on secondhand smoke in collaboration with the Tufts University School of Medicine.

“There is a tremendous unmet demand for smoke-free housing in America,” Mr. Repace said, “and it boggles my mind that the real estate industry has not recognized that and tried to profit from it.”

So... I assume most of you think this is great. I don't. I believe it should be the decision of the property owner, much like smoking in bars or restaurants. There should be no city/state/federal laws prohibiting this... The market should decide where it is acceptable based on demand.

[Morgrym]

As an ex heavy smoker, I could never understand why someone would want to smoke in their house anyway. It makes everything stink something awful. Same for a resturant...can't wait that long? A bar however is another animal and people should be permitted to smoke there. Not a bar inside a resturant, but a real bar.

[Wulfran]

I don't have any issues with smoking bans in public bldgs and even extending it to restarants and bars (is there anything more gut churning than being seated at the edge of a non-smoking section and having someone across a 3 ft aisle light up and start fumigating your meal?). This crosses the line. I think it should be the prerogative of the building owner. Smoking in your own car or your own home is a lifestyle choice. If you rent and the bldg owner is willing to accept the stink and cost of repainting etc, then why shouldn't you be allowed to smoke in your apartment? For the sisters in the beginning of the article, yes, moving sucks but especially in a rental situation the tennant can always move somewhere else if they don't like the existing conditions. I've lived in bldgs where they didn't care if I smoked or not and some where it was no smoking: I will honestly say I preferred the no-smoking bldgs but it was always my choice to move (or at least start looking for a new place) if I didn't like the way things were.

[Ashur]

It should be up to the property owners/management. If it makes sense, financially or otherwise, it will take care of itself.

This is easy for me to say however, as the only apartments I've ever lived in were townhomes. The closest I can actually relate is hotel rooms and I can say that being inside rooms where smoking is/was allowed made me want to puke.

I was married to a smoker for several years and I'll never deal with that shit again.

[Winnow]

Smoking makes your home stink. It makes your car stink. It irritates people in public places. That's a pretty good indicator that smoking might be a good habit to break, ignoring the health risks altogether.

It's still a physically addicting habit that people need to break, but I have no sympathy for smokers as I can't stand getting even a whiff of smoke while walking past a smoker 20 feet away if the breeze is blowing on the way to my car.

Do what you want, but do it in an isolation chamber or while camping.

I can see why apartment complex owners would want to ban smoking but it should be left up to the owners, and not be a law. When the smoking apartments start to have trouble filling up compared to non smoking complexes, things will adjust...and vice versa if smoking apartments seem to be popular, the owners will do whatever pulls in the money.

[Aslanna]

As someone who lives in an apartment where smoke filters in from .. somewhere (I think it's the apartment below me but not certain), I think it's great! I don't have a problem with smoking if it doesn't affect me. But I shouldn't have to be subjected to it in my residence.

And yes I'll be moving as soon as I can find something decent.

[Fairweather Pure]

It's a decent start.

[Sylvus]

I think it's fine (and good!) for people to offer non-smoking housing, but I think it's horseshit if they try to mandate it.

If you want to make laws, make them so that apartments are adequately ventilated and insulated so that my smoke won't go into your apartment, and the sound of your baby crying or the smell of the sauerkraut or kimchi or whatever stinky food that you're cooking won't come into mine.

As far as it costing like $1k more to clean an apartment after a smoker moves out vs. a "regular person" (emphasis mine), fuck you! I think there's a certain level of wall-washing and carpet shampooing that should also be pretty standard regardless of whether people smoked in the house or not. If they aren't doing that for non-smoking tenants who moved out, the next resident may want to get tested for scabies, among other things...

Please note that I smoked since high school, have lived in probably 15 places since then, and haven't smoked in any of my own residences in the last 8-10 years. I personally don't like my place smelling like smoke, but I don't think the law should prevent people from making that choice for themselves.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I think it's fine (and good!) for people to offer non-smoking housing, but I think it's horseshit if they try to mandate it.

If you want to make laws, make them so that apartments are adequately ventilated and insulated so that my smoke won't go into your apartment, and the sound of your baby crying or the smell of the sauerkraut or kimchi or whatever stinky food that you're cooking won't come into mine.

As far as it costing like $1k more to clean an apartment after a smoker moves out vs. a "regular person" (emphasis mine), fuck you! I think there's a certain level of wall-washing and carpet shampooing that should also be pretty standard regardless of whether people smoked in the house or not. If they aren't doing that for non-smoking tenants who moved out, the next resident may want to get tested for scabies, among other things...

Please note that I smoked since high school, have lived in probably 15 places since then, and haven't smoked in any of my own residences in the last 8-10 years. I personally don't like my place smelling like smoke, but I don't think the law should prevent people from making that choice for themselves.

What he said.

[Ashur]

...or the smell of the sauerkraut or kimchi or whatever stinky food that you're cooking won't come into mine.

lol, so true! When I shared an apartment with my best friend we had an agreement that I wouldn't cook tuna fish and he wouldn't cook sauerkraut.

After my divorce I rented a room from him in his new house and the rule was now "No cooking tuna fish", sauerkraut was fair game.

[Wulfran]

Sauerkraut doesn't stink! It has a tart aroma that enhances your dining experience!

[Sylvus]

Sauerkraut doesn't stink! It has a tart aroma that enhances your dining experience!

I like eating it, but something about the smell of it cooking...

[Ashur]

Having smoked a bit in college, I have to admit cigarette smoke is like the smell of gasoline: the first faint whiff is actually somewhat pleasant, and then it just gets nasty. The stale smell of cigarette smoke that's gotten into clothing and furniture is downright nauseating.

P.S. Sauerkraut stinks!

[Canelek]

Ash - explain this part about the smell of gasoline beign pleasant.

[Boogahz]

mmmmm, sauerkraut

I know what I'm having for lunch now, thanks!

[Ashur]

Ash - explain this part about the smell of gasoline beign pleasant.

What's to explain? I find the smell of gasoline to be pleasant for a second or two before it becomes an assault on my nose; just like cigarrete smoke.

[Canelek]

Ash - explain this part about the smell of gasoline beign pleasant.

What's to explain? I find the smell of gasoline to be pleasant for a second or two before it becomes an assault on my nose; just like cigarrete smoke.

It gets better if you keep smelling it!

[Asheran Mojomaster]

I actually love the smell of gasoline...I don't know why, I always have haha. But I agree, if the owner wants to have a smoke free residence that is their choice. Smoking isn't allowed in my condo so I step outside to smoke if I feel the urge. I don't smoke like I used to but I still usually smoke 3 or 4 cigarettes a day. Thats completely fine with me, I don't mind going outside to smoke. I prefer my clothes to not smell like ass..

[Fairweather Pure]

the sound of your baby crying or the smell of the sauerkraut or kimchi or whatever stinky food that you're cooking won't come into mine.

Unfortunately, neither of these are health risks, unlike smoking. That is the fact that smokers cannot seem to comprehend. Second hand smoke affects the health of those around you. That is the crux of the anti smoking bans, and what allows them to become laws.

[Sueven]

I get the health argument, especially as it relates to restaurants and other confined spaces where you're forced into contact with the smoke for an extended period of time.

I'm not sure how much weight I'm willing to give it here. You're not talking about spending hours in an environment saturated with the smog of several smokers, you're talking about the smoke from a cigarette winding its way from one apartment to another, whether by going under doors, in and out windows, through ventilation systems, or whatever.

Is there really a substantial health risk remaining at that point? I honestly don't know, and I would love to see a good, neutral overview of the state of our scientific knowledge of the risks of second-hand smoke. If anyone knows of such a resource, I'd appreciate being pointed in that direction.

I'm not willing to support banning smoking when the second-hand smoke creates only a negligible risk. There are all sorts of activities that create risk-- exposure to certain smells can set off migraines among people with certain sensitivities, for instance. Banning any leisure activity that creates any public health risk is ludicrous public policy.

I'm fine with private landowners being able to ban smoking in their apartments or homes, as long as it's not the result of market-distorting subsidies or other incentives.

That is the fact that smokers cannot seem to comprehend.

I don't like the way this is phrased. I don't smoke, I comprehend the fact just fine, and I still disagree with you (absent more evidence).

[Fairweather Pure]

I get the health argument, especially as it relates to restaurants and other confined spaces where you're forced into contact with the smoke for an extended period of time.

I'm not sure how much weight I'm willing to give it here. You're not talking about spending hours in an environment saturated with the smog of several smokers, you're talking about the smoke from a cigarette winding its way from one apartment to another, whether by going under doors, in and out windows, through ventilation systems, or whatever.

Is there really a substantial health risk remaining at that point? I honestly don't know, and I would love to see a good, neutral overview of the state of our scientific knowledge of the risks of second-hand smoke. If anyone knows of such a resource, I'd appreciate being pointed in that direction.

I'm not willing to support banning smoking when the second-hand smoke creates only a negligible risk. There are all sorts of activities that create risk-- exposure to certain smells can set off migraines among people with certain sensitivities, for instance. Banning any leisure activity that creates any public health risk is ludicrous public policy.

I'm fine with private landowners being able to ban smoking in their apartments or homes, as long as it's not the result of market-distorting subsidies or other incentives.

That is the fact that smokers cannot seem to comprehend.

I don't like the way this is phrased. I don't smoke, I comprehend the fact just fine, and I still disagree with you (absent more evidence).

Well, I agree with your disagreeing. It dosen't change the fact as to why these laws are able to push through our legal system. Second had smoke is bad for others. The amount, quanity, and everything else is just mud for the water. The basic truth is there, and certian officials are using that as a basis to enact these sorts of laws.

And no, many smokers (including those I work with) refuse to believe that their smoking impacts others. I don't need a team of scientists to prove that second hand smoke makes asthma kick in on several people I know both at work and through other channels. Many people just don't realize that.

Btw, if someone has copd, chronic bronchitis, or emphysema, and they are a current smoker, they need to pay some extremely strict medical co-pays whenever they visit the hospital or ER with a breathing related problem. These types of people are FAR too common. I would say I code 3+ every single day that come through the ER.

[Fash]

Well if you have serious breathing issues and you're smoking, you're an idiot.

I don't view asthma as all that serious, I've had it since birth and I'm a smoker. I don't find that smoking aggravates my asthma much at all... much less so than spending 5 minutes in the vicinity of an animal or high humidity.

I don't believe second hand smoke has much of an effect. If I'm actually inhaling the entire drag, processing half of it, and blowing the rest into open air... you're getting the tiniest of fractions of what's left over. I'd love to see some actual research.

Those people who feel so affected by it are probably the same who fall for the placebo effect.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Second hand smoke affects the health of those around you.

Much like global warming......this has never been proven.

[Somali]

I don't believe second hand smoke has much of an effect. If I'm actually inhaling the entire drag, processing half of it, and blowing the rest into open air... you're getting the tiniest of fractions of what's left over. I'd love to see some actual research.
Those people who feel so affected by it are probably the same who fall for the placebo effect.

I imagine the threat of second hand smoke is less significant if it is a single person smoking in a crowded restaurant than it is if say 3/4 of the restaurant is smoking. Then again, I've never looked at the research either, but I do know that smoky rooms dry out my eyes and occasionally make me cough. Neither of which are enjoyable.
As for the placebo affect: Smoky rooms make me cough a bit, but I don't think wandering into one every so often has given me the black lung. I would explain the coughing the same way I would explain people coughing when they take their first drag though. If it isn't something your system is used to, it attempts to reject it. I'm not desensitized to the smoke.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I don't believe second hand smoke has much of an effect. If I'm actually inhaling the entire drag, processing half of it, and blowing the rest into open air... you're getting the tiniest of fractions of what's left over. I'd love to see some actual research.
Those people who feel so affected by it are probably the same who fall for the placebo effect.

I imagine the threat of second hand smoke is less significant if it is a single person smoking in a crowded restaurant than it is if say 3/4 of the restaurant is smoking. Then again, I've never looked at the research either, but I do know that smoky rooms dry out my eyes and occasionally make me cough. Neither of which are enjoyable.
As for the placebo affect, people "feeling" affected by it and being affected by it are different things. Smoky rooms make me cough a bit, but I don't think wandering into one every so often has given me the black lung. I would explain the coughing the same way I would explain people coughing when they take their first drag though. If it isn't something your system is used to, it attempts to reject it. I'm not desensitized to the smoke.

You have the choice not to frequent a public establishment that has choosen to allow smoking. Both of you should have that right to choose.

[Aslanna]

You have the choice not to frequent a public establishment that has choosen to allow smoking. Both of you should have that right to choose.

Wrong. But we've had this same debate in at least four threads here now so it's pointless to go into it again. It's not like anybody is going to change their mind.

[Zaelath]

Any argument that says, "incidental exposure" is a higher risk than "direct and incidental exposure" just makes me laugh. And that's what the second hand smoke idiots have said for years.

Anyone who lives in the NY or Jersey or anywhere like that, and thinks "second hand smoke wafting across open space" is the biggest environmental threat to their health needs to be publically ridiculed.

[Aslanna]

Second hand smoke affects the health of those around you.

Much like global warming......this has never been proven.

Oh you're also wrong about that. It has been "proven." Just because you choose to not do a little research (and then throw out idiotic statements like above) doesn't mean someone else hasn't.

Hmm lets see one of the first search results:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 35,00.html

Researchers have known that secondhand smoke can be just as dangerous for nonsmokers as smoking is for smokers, but now there's fresh evidence quantifying just how hazardous the after burn from cigarettes can be, and how quickly it affects your body. Scientists at the Oregon Department of Health documented for the first time an hourly buildup of a cancer-causing compound from cigarette smoke in the blood and urine of nonsmokers working in bars and restaurants in the state.

Reporting in the American Journal of Public Health, the researchers found that waitstaff and bartenders working a typical night shift gradually accumulated higher levels of NNK, a carcinogen in cigarette smoke, at the rate of 6% each hour they worked. NNK is known to be involved in inducing lung cancer in both lab rats and smokers.

"We were somewhat surprised by the immediacy of the effect and the fact that we could measure the average hourly increase," says Michael Stark, the lead author of the study and a principal investigator at the Mulmomah County Health Department in Oregon.

Previous studies conducted in homes where one family member smoked, or in work environments where some employees lit up, had found that nonsmokers in these environments on average increased their risk of developing lung cancer, as well as other health conditions such as heart disease and respiratory ailments, by 20%. And the Surgeon General, in a comprehensive report last year on the health effects of secondhand smoke, determined that there is "no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke." But until now, it wasn't clear how quickly the carcinogens became absorbed.

The authors are confident that the increases in NNK in the workers they tested most likely came from their exposure to smoke — the study included a control group of similar subjects in restaurants where no smoking was allowed, and these workers showed no differences in the amount of NNK in their urine before and after their shifts.

The findings only underscore what public health officials have been arguing for decades — that cordoning off smokers in indoor environments or relying on ventilation systems in restaurants and bars is not enough. "There is experimental evidence from studies where you put nonsmokers in a room, blow smoke into the room and measure their artery function, that you see the platelets get sticky, which can cause clots and lead to a heart attack, and the ability of the arteries to dilate decreases very rapidly," says Dr. Matthew McKenna, director of the office on smoking and public health for the Centers for Disease Control.

All of which could mean more time loitering outside buildings and in alleyways for smokers intent on grabbing a puff. Thirteen states now prohibit smoking in restaurants altogether (most of these include bars as well), and while 11 states still put no restrictions on lighting up, individual cities within those states — such as Austin in Texas, for example — have passed legislation banning smoking in eating establishments and other public areas. Many of these regulations are the direct result of grassroots advocacy efforts; "It's been a very effective strategy," says McKenna." If the discussion moves to a centralized place like the state legislatures, opponents can concentrate their efforts and water down the argument for a ban. But if there are 40 municipalities working on smoking bans at the same time, it's difficult for opponents to fight so many battles at the same time."

More states are also passing laws to override a loophole — known as a pre-emption — that prevents cities and local municipalities from passing more restrictive laws than the state. It's just getting harder to refute the scientific evidence; in a study done in Scotland several months after that nation instituted a ban on smoking in public places, researchers found that following the ban, bar patrons showed stronger lung capacity and reduced levels of inflammation (a red flag for a number of chronic diseases, including heart disease and asthma). "We made it pretty clear that the science on this is pretty irrefutable," says McKenna. And if smokers have fewer places to smoke, that message may finally get heard.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report

Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.

Supporting Evidence

- Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.

- Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.

- Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.

2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.

Supporting Evidence

- Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.

- Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.

Supporting Evidence

- Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.

- Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.

- Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.

- Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.

- Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.

4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.

Supporting Evidence

- Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.

- Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
- Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.

5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence

- Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.

- Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence

- Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.

- Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.

- The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.


The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers’ comments.

Citation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.

I don't know.. To me scientific studies are pretty much "proof". But I'm sure you'll argue against that too. Or stick your head in the sand.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Why deny something when there is proof in front me showing showing me so? I'm not half the asshole I know you are. Sounds like second hand smoke has been scientifically proven to be harmful to non-smokers. I retract my earlier statement. For decades they always said it was bad, but never were able to produce a study backing it up. Looks like that is no longer the case. Thanks for the update.

[Spang]

If they don't want smokers to smoke anywhere, why don't they just ban cigarettes?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

If they don't want smokers to smoke anywhere, why don't they just ban cigarettes?

$$$$$

[VariaVespasa]

Fash:- minor note- 4261 deaths in the US from asthma in 2002. No idea how that rates compared to other causes of death, but its something to stick in ye olde data banks.

[Sylvus]

You have the choice not to frequent a public establishment that has choosen to allow smoking. Both of you should have that right to choose.

Wrong. But we've had this same debate in at least four threads here now so it's pointless to go into it again. It's not like anybody is going to change their mind.

What about that statement is wrong? That you shouldn't have the right to choose? I disagree.

Let the market decide, not the lawmakers. It's not illegal to allow smoking in bars in Ann Arbor, yet there are bars that do not allow it. If it's important to someone to be in a smoke-free establishment, they are welcome to go to any one of those places. I like to smoke when I'm at the bar, and I understand that I can't smoke at those places, so I try to avoid them. It's not that difficult. If the non-smoking places start making money hand-over-fist, I'm sure other bars will follow. I don't see why a law is necessary.

[Spang]

If they don't want smokers to smoke anywhere, why don't they just ban cigarettes?

$$$$$

Well, no shit, but where are the smokers going to smoke when there is no place left for them to smoke?

I'm a smoker and I think they should just outlaw cigarettes.

[Nick]

Why? That makes no sense at all.

As for this idea of stopping smoking in private residences/apartment blocks. Good luck getting them to enforce such an idiotic idea.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Why? That makes no sense at all.

As for this idea of stopping smoking in private residences/apartment blocks. Good luck getting them to enforce such an idiotic idea.

The liberals will have no problem funding such a cause. They love to take away freedom and spend your money doing so.

[Zaelath]

Why? That makes no sense at all.

As for this idea of stopping smoking in private residences/apartment blocks. Good luck getting them to enforce such an idiotic idea.

The liberals will have no problem funding such a cause. They love to take away freedom and spend your money doing so.

Right, yes, it's the liberals that are stifling all your freedoms... fuck me drunk, have you been in a coma for the entirety of the last administration and had a monkey filling in here?

Anyway, like Nick said:

"I'm calling the cops you filthy smoker!!"
<phone rings>
"Hello, yes! There's someone smoking in my apartment building!"
"Smoking what?"
"Tobacco!"
"Oh.... we'll get someone right on it"
"Don't you want my name and address?"
"Uhhh no... that comes up here on the computer when you call in."
*click*

Even if they were interested, I dunno, cause they were supercops, by the time they get to the apartment, there's no evidence of "a crime".

[Nick]

The liberals will have no problem funding such a cause. They love to take away freedom and spend your money doing so.

This makes absolutely no sense except in bizarro lunatic land.

[Boogahz]

As for this idea of stopping smoking in private residences/apartment blocks. Good luck getting them to enforce such an idiotic idea.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would be very difficult in apartments. Houses, doubtful as they are generally owned by the residents. Austin is actually one of the early adopters of no smoking in "public" businesses. This includes restaurants and bars. The original enforcement method included fining the bar owners for the actions of it's patrons, but that was changed as long as the bar is not providing ashtrays (but they are okay if the person uses a styrofoam cup with a little water in it since they COULD want it for a drink!). I had no problem with the proposal when I was a smoker when they were just referring to restaurants, but when bars were brought up, I was against it fully. I still disagree with that portion as a non-smoker.

I quit smoking almost 2 years ago, after spending around 12 years as a smoker. I originally did not smoke in my apartment, but that changed after a while. Once you have started smoking inside, you might as well keep doing it, because the smell will not go away until you actually quit smoking and wash almost everything you own. I have at least one neighbor, that I know of, which smokes. The only time I ever actually notice the smell is if he has recently opened his door or gone down the stairs. It doesn't ever get inside my apartment. I am more bothered by the smell of Menudo cooking on the weekends than any "cancer sticks" being burned in someone's apartment. I do have a problem with walking through the clouds from people smoking at the bottom of the stairs though (which the management bans). I think this plays into what someone else was saying about one person's smoke not generally being a big deal. Getting 5-7 people in one spot to smoke tends to start clogging the area and making the smoke impossible to escape!

[Winnow]

Smoker's aren't so bad. It's kind of entertaining to watch them go through hoops to smoke a cigarette. It makes for good entertainment sometimes in an "Office" sort of way.

Instead of complaining, smoking areas should be setup within view of office windows, with an obstacle track between the smoking area and the building. Keep making it harder to get to the smoking area to see just how far a cigarette addict will go to get a puff.

[Somali]

I am more bothered by the smell of Menudo cooking on the weekends than any "cancer sticks" being burned in someone's apartment.

Mmmm. Tripe.


Personally I don't care if people smoke in restaurants/bars whatever so long as they adhere to whatever rules the various establishments make regarding smoking. The issue would be that peer pressure may prevent restaurants from banning smokers. Is the non-smoking crowd larger or smaller than the smoking crowd. If everyone else allows smokers, what proportion of the populace are we alienating by not allowing them in our restaurant? /Shrug

[Somali]

Smoker's aren't so bad. It's kind of entertaining to watch them go through hoops to smoke a cigarette. It makes for good entertainment sometimes in an "Office" sort of way.

Instead of complaining, smoking areas should be setup within view of office windows, with an obstacle track between the smoking area and the building. Keep making it harder to get to the smoking area to see just how far a cigarette addict will go to get a puff.

Funny idea. Most of the smokers I know would just say "fuck the sign, I'm smoking here" (standing just outside the front entryway for instance). Asking forgiveness is easier than permission.

[Winnow]

Funny idea. Most of the smokers I know would just say "fuck the sign, I'm smoking here" (standing just outside the front entryway for instance). Asking forgiveness is easier than permission.

Our security guards are authorized to taser anyone smoking within 50 feet of the entrance.

[Spang]

Why? That makes no sense at all.

As for this idea of stopping smoking in private residences/apartment blocks. Good luck getting them to enforce such an idiotic idea.

What makes no sense? I think smoking is retarded and wish I'd never picked up the nasty habit. There's nothing positive about smoking. It's not gonna give you a bigger dick, lower your cholesterol or cure AIDS.

[Nick]

If you hate it so much why don't you quit then?

[Spang]

It's an addiction.

[Zaelath]

So is paedophilia... ban children I say.

[Nick]

It's an addiction.

People all over the world get over their addictions every day. It would probably be a better idea for you to do that than impose a blanket ban on everyone who doesn't feel the same way as you.

[Spang]

If cigarettes did good things for people, I would agree with you.

[Zaelath]

Cue "Demolition Man" quotes in, 3, 2, 1....