...to ask what people do in their own homes.

That's why I oppose a lot of the far right wing...

...and such babysitting-of-free-adults as you've highlighted here.

I won't use the term "nannystate", as it's meaning has been lost on par with "fascism", but the trend, nevertheless, is clear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1 There is no reason that, in a properly designed building, residents should be exposed to air contaminants from another unit. Any building, Fire or Health Code that allows such poor design should be repealed. A proper HVAC system would never allow such a problem in the first place.

2 Someone having respiratory reactions after moving next door to a smoker resides does not automatically implicate second hand smoke as the culprit. Laminates, wall coverings, plastics, carpets, paints and stains all out-gas strongly enough to cause respiratory distress/reactions. The EPA suffered with sick building syndrome at HQ that was resolved after an expensive retrofit of less noxious fabrics, paints and adhesives.

3 Dust mites are a trigger for asthma & concentrate in and on fabrics, dirty filters & ductwork. Elderly people and people with lung diseases are more likely to keep their homes 'bottled up' and use HVAC systems more heavily, exacerbating the problem. Many such people are unable to clean (sweep/mop/dust) as regularly/completely as they would wish to, exacerbating the problem. Such people are also more likely to lead a sedentary lifestyle and spend the most of their time in close contact with dust mite habitat.

4 Many home Air Filters produce ozone- a well known respiratory irritant and asthma trigger. The older the unit, the higher the likelihood that the unit produces ozone. It should also be noted that a dirty filter is worse for people with respiratory problems/sensitivities than having none at all.

What do these points have in common? Not one has a thing to do with someone smoking in their own space in a properly designed apartment. Apartheid for smokers will not address any of these significant triggers of respiratory problems that may or may not be the legitimate (by jumping to conclusions) cause.

I am not here as an apologist for smoking. However, accusing smokers for every instance of respiratory distress by anecdotal evidence when other significant causes & factors are present or possible serves nobody's interest. If the interest is in protecting people from unnecessary respiratory distress, the logical first step is to establish & enforce proper codes for ventilation, air handling and filtration in multi-unit apartments and condos with no grandfathering for old buildings.

Bad laws, based upon bad science or data are not in anyone's interest-- no matter how good the intent. Smokers should respect the rights of people to breathe air free of second hand smoke and most do. But to let the do-gooder, granola & filtered water crowd continue their jihad on anyone with a cigarette or cigar just because they think it might be causing someone's problem is BS.

I do not drink, but have to put up with roadside sobriety checks, ignorant drunks and all the rest. Drunken driving is not the only societal/health cost associated with alcohol consumption, yet drinkers are largely given a pass. I'm not outside protesting liquor stores, bars, restaurants or trying to ban drinking in apartment buildings or public parks. The anti-smoking Jihad has pushed the smokers outdoors- many times more than a football field away from any entrance--and the nonsmokers still bitch and moan.

I know a couple of things for sure:
Smokers are going to smoke
&
Nonsmokers will bitch about it
no matter what accommodations are made (or not).

It's time to call an end to this endless Jihad. Keep it up and the Jesus Camp crowd will make it illegal for you to have a sleep over in your own bed because your neighbor is offended by the moaning/howling/headboard bumping/etc. going on (or down). Our legal system is based heavily upon precedent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smoke ruins everything. Cars, homes, hotel rooms, restaurants. Once somebody has smoked there, the smoke never goes away.

It's a dumb, disgusting, overpriced habit. But if you must do it, go outside. It's not much to ask. We had neighbors who smoked, and they always went outside to do it, because they thought it was disgusting to pollute their own home.

Big Brother already intrudes on every aspect of our lives, so kicking the smokers outside for some fresh air won't make a difference.

How lazy and selfish do you have to be if you can't step outside whatever building you're in for 5 minutes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that should be listed is that it's not just smoking some find offensive in apartments and condos....

1. what the hell is that unit cooking that has toxic fumes rolling in the hallways?

2. kids playing in hallways, take em to the park!

3. do something about that baby crying for hours at 3am

4. nasty cat litter gasses escaping into your unit that you can't get rid of

there are worse things then smoking in your own home... with an apartment, it can be written into your lease that your unit is non smoking, but with a condo, it's a lot harder to control because you OWN your unit

additionally, there have been studies that have shown that overall during the cold and flu season year after year, smokers who go outside to smoke have fewer illnesses because they are out in the fresh air for a while and not trapped in recycled hothouses constantly.... also there is a lower stress level observed because of a break in scenery and getting outside for a few

we are smokers who own a condo and no one else in our particular building smokes, so to be polite, we keep a can of fabreeze air near the door for occasional sprays and not one of our neighbors complain and YES WE HAVE ASKED THEM ALL SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE YEARS!!!!

just to anger the non-smoking crowd, I do not plan on quitting, enjoy smoking for over 40 years, have already made the decision (legally in writing) to refuse smoking related medical treatment, and am polite to my neighbors....

how much more do they want?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The solution is simple: Smokers, quit smoking. There's no downside to not smoking, except that you might become as easily disgusted by smokers as long-time non-smokers have always been. Smoking is a character flaw and every time I see someone light up, my respect for that person drops a few points on the meter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The government is taking this second hand smoke issue way to far, alot of our health issues come from the air that we breath and there is so meany pollutants in the air just from car, truck, train, bus, and airplane, and that has a huge affect on our health, but the people who are none smokers will blame it on second hand smoke, and the air polution caused by the aboved mentioned vehicles are not even spoken about when a none smoker complains about second hand smoke

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

During the 1940's smoking was not considered a health threat. Many people paid the price for this widespread misinformation with the loss of their lives. In the early 1960's I saw a movie in a science class which laid out very plainly the health hazards of smoking. So, this is not recent information. The tobacco companies lied for years about the hazards of smoking.

My brother smoked when he was young, and I tried to tell him to stop, but he wouldn't listen. After ten years of smoking he quit on his own. But, he died of brain cancer last year, and I believe it was from the years of smoking cigarettes.

I have never smoked, but I have been exposed to smokers all my life. Through the 1970's and 1980's I was forced to work around heavy smokers because there were no protections then for non-smokers. So, I now have severe asthma, allergies, and chronic bronchitis, and this is only because of my exposure to smokers. At this time I cannot tolerate breathing any second hand smoke. Even the faintest hint of smoke sends me into coughing convulsions. So, I strongly believe that no person ought to ever be allowed to smoke around people who chose not to smoke. It is an extremely harmful and serious health hazard.

Cigarette smoke contains a lethal cocktail of toxic poisons, and no one should have their health poisoned by forced exposure to someone else's smoke. To force anyone to breathe someone else's poison smoke takes years off that person's life, and this is tanatmount to a criminal act.

So, I apologize for the inconvenience of those who have found themselves to be addicted to cigarettes, but they must understand their smoking is a hazard to human health and life, and they must bear the price and the inconvenience for their choice. I urge all smokers to quit asap. And, I fully support all measures to protect non-smokers from the poison gasses and fumes of cigarette and cigar smoke. The inconvenience of any smoker is less compelling than the loss of life and health to non-smokers and smokers, and the years of potential life lost due to exposure to toxic, poisonous smoke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm very sympathetic to the basic principle of protecting the health of non-smokers from the effects of second-hand smoke. What I'm confused about is what this article suggests is new about people not being allowed to smoke in their own apartments or houses. It's a very common practice to rent a living unit the way you want to-- no pets; no loud music; no waterbed; no over-night guests more than three days. Not allowing smoking in the places people live is hardly a new trend. Even a law that demands a quota of non-smoking units isn't any more infringing on smokers' right to smoke than is anywhere elsewhere exercised.

If this is a violation of anyone's rights or privacy, it's the property owners themselves. They are the one's being told how to run their property. Because, after all, no one who rents an apartment unit owns it. In the end, it belongs to someone else. So, in a very simple sense, there are things the property owner can contractually demand of their tenets. One of them is that the unit remain smoke-free. At least half the buildings in Portland do not allow smoking in-doors, and it's hardly out of some anti-smoking principle. Smoking is a dirty habit, and is costs the property owner more in maintenance costs, because a deposit is not going to cover the systemic damage of a smoking environment. So, I don't think that there is any ground under the feet of smokers saying their rights are being violated, when they're not, and that there will be (as there hasn't been) much resistance from property owners, since it is basically a cost-saving measure for them anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All people need to be protected from tobacco smoke. Nicotine is a drug that's addictive and harder to quit than cocaine or heroin. This is a serious issue that affects so many people. It's a killer.

If we are truly activists for peace and justice, then we need to understand that tobacco smoke is violent and it causes much harm and death. The only winner in the tobacco war is the tobacco corporation. They profit from an addictive violent product.

You people are becoming so rabidly phobic about smokers, it's frightening. Soon you'll be burning us at the stake. Walk down any main street in the world and inhale all the toxic fumes that are being emitted from cars, trucks, factories and
airports. What do you propose to do about that? You single-issue advocates really get on my nerves.

Nicotine is addictive, so is alcohol.

How about depleted uranium, cluster bombs, agent orange, napalm, white phosphorous and other chemical and biological weapons. Most of them have been used against the Iraqi people in the last fifteen years. When are you going to start a campaign to have them banned?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They're old people... meaning they are going to die soon anyways.. so shut up and let me smoke my damn cigarettes!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This isn't particle physics people, but if you can't commit morally, how 'bout this: Here in Canada at least, it's illegal to poison others. Now, as tobacco smoke is proven to be packed full of toxic and poisonous substances, if you're knowingly putting that into the air that others breath you're breaking the law. As for how you treat your children and other family members, that's on your head.

I was brought up with two smoking parents, even in the car on a cold day with all the windows closed. I'm pretty sure it contributed to my current quite serious respiratory problems. My parents were ignorant of the science - that excuse doesn't wash today. If you can't stop, at least go outside to do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even if the government want to ban smoking at home how on earth to they plan on enforcing this law?!?

Although smoking may seem appaling to many people it should not interfere with what one can and cannot do UNDER THEIR OWN ROOF.

The whole argument is total bollocks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Persecuting smokers doesn't work. Many non-smokers see themselves as virtuous and superior. They're so annoying. It's time to persecute to tobacco companies who recently increased the nicotine content in cigaretts 6-10%. They aren't sure how it happened. I don't smoke, but I don't much care for all the government intrusion into my life. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From my book-Hart Smart Living--- hartsmartliving
Too bad George Burns in no longer with us to contribute the wisdom of his 100 years. Did the pleasure of primary and secondary smoke (his own) keep him going?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I want to start this out by saying I'm a lifetime non-smoker who finds the habit rather disgusting, to put it lightly.

This invasion into people's home lives is but one more goose-step down the road of the police state. It does not need to be taken to extremes as this article implies for this to be a totalitarian police state measure. This is the extreme already.

Based on my own experience, I do NOT believe the statistic that 80% of Americans don't smoke.. Smoking annoys me, so I can't help but miss who around me does or doesn't do it. Even if accurate, we live in a country that was founded on (or at least pay lip service to the idea of) personal rights and privacy in your own homes.

Has anybody even thought about what enforcing this would entail? The UK is saturated with cameras of every public place possible, and we're following the same path here. How far are we from the television that watches us?

We already have the largest prison population and rate of incarceration on the planet. We lock up more people than Russia OR China (according to Reuters). How many more classes of criminals do we need? We MUST start resisting the urge to dehumanize and criminalize whatever portion of society or set of behaviors the media has conditioned us to hate this week.

The ruling elite always use the most impressionable members of society (eg children, seniors) to fufill their plans to dismantle our notions of rights and privacy. Don't fool yourself into thinking they give a god damn about the elderly as a class of people, or have a whit of concern about the sanctity of life. Frankly, the same people pushing this are probably the same people pushing the euthanasia agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm really stunned! Although I don't live in the US of A I do follow the "in's and out's" as they always make some ... good ... discussion topics ;-).

A question which bothers me ever since this smoking discussion started years (decades?) ago is: if smoking is so dangerous to all of us - if tobacco makes addicts of the smokers - if it creates so much misery and health care costs -... why not simply go the straightforward and clean way and outlaw the tobacco industry?

In medicine there is the basic principle: cure the illness by uprooting the source. Guess, this doesn't apply anymore where BigBiz and BigMoney is involved, eh?

Hillarious double standards one more time. It's soooo much easier to hack on the little guy rather than really solving a seemingly serious problem.

Rgds and peace to all of you and applogies, but English is not my mother tongue.

PS And no, I'm not a smoker :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, let me preface this by saying that I am not a smoker. On the contrary, I am an avid alpinist, rock climber and distance swimmer so smoking is anathema to my way of life. However, I do not approve of government intrusion and regulation which increasingly resembles fascism. I choose to frequent establishments that are smoke free and simply ask that guests do not smoke in my home. I do think the habit (addiction is more like it) is irresponsible but to each his own.

Having said that, I am a little surprised by some of the posts which would go so far as to omit or minimize the grave, environmental impacts associated with tobacco production. To say that you're an environmentalist and a smoker in the same breath is somewhat contradictory. It's akin to saying I'm a proponent of alternative fuels whilst I jump into my Hummer and speed off.

Tobacco production is dangerous! The plant itself is susceptible to myriad diseases and pests, and as such, must be treated with TONS of pesticides. It should come as no surprise that herbicides are commonly used to keep the fields free of weeds as well. Anyone care to ask one of the "fortunate" workers charged with spraying fields how they feel about the labor intensive and dangerous nature of tobacco production? For example, Methyl Bromide, a chemical used to treat the soil before planting, has been shown to cause ozone depletion. Much deforestation also results as tobacco companies burn extraordinary amounts of wood to dry or "cure" the tobacco. China, the largest smoking country in the world, uses coal.

Soil depletion is another huge problem. Tobacco must uptake extreme quantities of nutrients in order to ensure a higher nicotine content. Erosion is often the result of such nutrient depletion. Although tobacco cultivation isn't quite as water intensive as say, corn or soy cultivation, it still requires vast amounts of water to support your bad habit. Speaking of water, much of it is contaminated by run-off issuing from the tobacco greenhouses and plantations, and in many instances, wildlife has been decimated.

So, all you smokers quick to point out that there are bigger fish to fry, keep in mind that BIG TOBACCO is one of those big fish. I guess where one's addiction is concerned, all antipathy towards big business just melts away, or at least for RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris . Seems a bit hypocritical to point the finger at those "other" big businesses while ignoring the horrendous, SCUMMY biz you're supporting each time you light up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder how many Americans, smokers or not, will whine about government intrusion when it comes to smoking in their homes, but are suddenly ALL FOR GOVERNMENT INTRUSION when it comes to CONTROLLING SEX LIVES!!!!! Bet many of the same whiners are the same righteous hypocrite religious nuts who freak out when antisodomy laws are struck down, or condoms are given out in schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the mid 1990's I worked for a construction firm building "affordable housing" for cities in SoCal. I can tell you most apartment and condos in SoCal are the most poorly constructed and poorly designed excuses for human habitations. Corners and shortcuts and crappy materials that compromise building integrity are the best kept dark secret of 'Mer'kaan culture. Gerbils live better in a six year old's room than most humans forced to pay 60% of their income for living space (that's usually too small and too inefficient energy-wise to be truly adequate).

I've lived in four different condos and umpteen apartments since I became a grown-up twenty some years ago. Not once has there ever been a habitat designed and constructed to keep out second hand smoke, toxics and other crap that passes for American "construction industry standard practices."

People living in communal situations have to learn to tolerate all manner of pobnoxious and annoying behaviors from others. But they should not have to pay for this tolerance with their lives.

But making laws isn't going to cut it either. That's just back-ass band-aiding the festering wound that won't heal. Construction practices have to change. (AND folks need to just give up fucking smoking, period. Stop making excuses for 'Mer'kaan stoopid). Right now there are laws banning condo owners from drying their laundry in the sun (forcing us to burn natural gas and guzzle electrons to dry our clothes, which costs money and unecessary carbon output into the atmosphere). We have laws banning us from turning off the lights outside out front doors to save electricity or the area light outside the bedroom window (making us terminally sleep-deprived from the lack of darkness required to facilitate sufficient sleep). We have laws banning our children from playing anywhere including our own front porches and the nearest park is 20 minutes' drive away. We have laws that allow single, childless overprivileged condo owners to charge fines and control the lives of those of us who have partners and offspring without our say in any of it. Can you say taxation without representation?

So, as an unsympathetic intolerant ex-smoker myself, a law that prohibits some buttlick from lighting up in his own place, seems par for the course. But it's still stoopid because poor construction and bad architectural design with the poorest quality and cheapest (which ALWAYS translates to the most toxic and inefficient) materials is the real problem that can actually be resolved as a matter of LAW. My neighbors smoke and I ride their asses on it, good naturedly because they really are great people with a bad habit (they've tried hard to quit). But seriously, we've gone and done illegal retrofitting between our chimney flues, laundry vents and duct systems, and reinsulated our floor/ceilings sharing the cost and the risk of getting caught (because all that is illegal under California law--imagine, it's illegal to genuinely improve your property, only in the Chimp's 'Mer'kuh). I still can smell their cigs. It's simply the design flaws of the structure itself that permit the cross-bleed of smoke. Bans on smoking won't fix it, but maybe enforceable laws against half-ass construction and contracter/inspector incompetence might help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you choose to smoke you ingest a poisonous substance that will kill you. I respect that choice. But you do not have the right to make that choice for me, a non-smoker. You have no legal right to smoke, but I do have a legal right to be protected from an environmental poison.

1. There is no legally protected right to smoke.
2. In rental contracts, there are legal obligations for landlords to provide safe, habitable living spaces where one is protected from foreseeable harm.
2. There is no way to prevent second-hand smoke from making its way to adjoining apartments or condominiums.
3. Seniors, children and the disabled are especially susceptible to health problems from second-hand smoke.
4. The risks from second-hand smoke are real and quite extensive. It exacerbates breathing issues like asthma and allergies, causes pulmonary problems, exacerbates glaucoma and other eye diseases, raises blood pressure and interacts dangerously with many medications like birth control pills.
4. In communal living, one makes sacrifices to ensure the safety and habitable enjoyment of all. Smoking precludes this. So if you want to smoke, buy a house and smoke it up as much as you like INSIDE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's too many of us on this planet as it is. Smoking might help fix that without war, pestilence, famine, or drought. Tobacco might be part of the cure for the virus that is humanity. We are destroying our host. Would we not be kinder to the earth if we killed ourselves instead?

I'd rather die from second hand smoke than be a smoke free nazi.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You know, the article states that a certain percentage of complexes will have to be smoke free. It doesn't say, all smoking will be banned or you can not smoke in your condo. What it states is that certain complexes and apartments will be smoke free. So if you're a smoker, don't worry. Just don't buy a smoke free condo. Your precious rights are still there (which is more than can be said for a lot of other people.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hell, we have laws banning certain sex acts in the home. We have numerous laws and amendments to state constitutions telling people who can marry. Where are all you people for smokers' rights when gays and lesbians and so many others get their rights trampled EVERY day? People can ban gays and lesbians from renting and fire them simply for being gay. You can be fired for simply having a bumper sticker your boss doesn't like. Those states are Right to Work states.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you drive a car?

If you do, shut up about people smoking. You're creating way more pollution than a four-packs-a-day habit. Stop grandstanding and take a look at your own dirty behind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If they outlaw smoking in apartments because the smoke gets into other apartments, shouldn't they ban cooking fish, cabbage or other smelly foods as well? Some people might die from an allergic reaction!!! And what about perfume? Can't have that. Dogs? Cats? Say good bye to them too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough from these over sensitive and intrusive hypocondriacs who just seem to be alergic to everything. Screw government intrusion in our personal lives in any form including, but not limited to, smoking.

How about some strong laws against corporate interference in our govenment. How about a more efficient way to remove an unbalanced, deranged and immature president who is a far bigger danger to this country than someone smoking a cigarrette.

If we want to limit things I can think of alot of other things that need it much more than smoking.

This article was a waste of space.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'd say between 50-75% of the rentals in my area already are specified "smoke free," not by government designation though - at the demand of the landlord.

It's usually right there at the bottom of the ad, right along with "no pets, no smoking."

Alot of smokers I know who even live in rentals where they can smoke, don't. Many go outside anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's no question about it: Second-hand smoke kills. (Don't believe me? See here). People have a right to clean air, whether it’s in their home, at work, or in a restaurant. For those addicted to cigarettes, the need to smoke can outweigh the best of intentions—that’s why we need clean air legislation and policies that protect the lives of others. Thanks for covering this story, Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]