Home, Smoky Home

[Trusty]

From the Seattle Times:

Smoking foes bring the fight to apartment buildings

A year after a statewide smoking ban took effect at workplaces, restaurants, bars and other public places, a new battlefield over secondhand smoke is emerging: apartment buildings.

Spurred on by nonsmoking tenants and public-health leaders, more private landlords are considering restricting smoking inside their rental units. And local public-housing agencies are also looking at banning smoking in the units of some buildings.

Since the ban took effect, people have gotten used to going out in the community and not being exposed to secondhand smoke, and that's prompted some to ask, "Why do I have to take it in my home?" says Roger Valdez, manager of the tobacco-prevention program for Public Health — Seattle & King County, which enforces the smoking ban here.

"We've been surprised by the increased level of interest to make their apartments smoke-free," he said.

MORE HERE

This issue could get you where you live. What do you think?

[SeattleDan]

Alas, as smokers, we own our home. We smoke in it. All visitors are so warned. Are we proud smokers? No. But even in the days we had quit, smokers were allowed in the house. At least after the time when we were quitting.

I suppose it is a landlords right to require whatever he or she wants as to their property.

I'm reminded, though, of IM's with ol' sourdough, who proudly smoked where he could, and ate whatever he felt liked eating. Probably to the day he died. Of course, it killed him. But he did what he wanted to do. And I'm reminded as well of Sammy Davis Jr., who died of lung cancer and did so without regret, at least as to the smoking. He loved cigarettes, and though finally dun' 'em in, he was a happy smoker.

[mike]

Some of Emi's friends are cigarette smokers, and they are welcome in our house. I enjoy smoking cigars and I am not welcome in the house, I am relegated to the patio... such is life.

[joew]

I agree with dand that in general the landlord should have the right to decide; the government should stay out of it.

And when the landlord is the government, I think they should make apartments available to smokers who are eligible for public housing.

[doctork]

One of my favorite adages is "I don't live in the nanny state."

Except that I do! Washington State, especially western Washington, is not at all shy in telling people how to behave. In my county, the recent ban on public smoking resulted in the closing of a local charitable bingo hall (where smoking had previously been permitted), whose profits had supported a shelter for victims of domestic violence.

Unintended adverse consequences - Life of Riley strikes again. What a revoltin' development this is.

In a Healthcare Economics class, we reviewed an excellent study which demonstrated the cost/benefits of smoking and alcohol taxes. The conclusion was that cigarette taxes more than covered the "costs" of smoking. That seems fair to me - so I am OK with that. People who want to smoke pay taxes to cover the cost.

Alcohol taxes do not cover the high cost of drinking - primarily because of the large number of deaths of young people as a result of drunk driving.

[gailkate]

Oh gee. I skipped an entire thread about smoking awhile ago, and now here I am getting sucked in. The second-hand smoke campaign is funded by Exxon. Betcha. Tobacco smoke isn't the cause of global warming.

Of course smoking is bad for people, but so much of the research is epidemiological with no way to account for all the variables that it's tough to analyze the numbers. I grew up in a house full of smokers, lead paint, asbestos (octopus furnace with its insulation flaking off) and probably radon. I get physically ill when I go into a Home Depot, Lowe's, Menard's, etc. The reason is something called VOCs (volatile organic chemicals). This is real, but no one's doing squat about VOCs.
A big argument against 2nd-hand smokle is its effect on people with asthma. Fair enough. But why is it that, as the number of smokers has steadily decreased, the number of asthmatics has steadily increased?
BTW, I'm quitting again. Or at least cutting down;-) Without cigarettes I will die of stress, you can count on it.

[booklady]

Seems to me there was a big to-do a while back because somebody was telling religious conservatives that they couldn't refuse to rent apartments to unmarried couples or to gay couples. Now somebody is saying that apartment owners can refuse to rent to smokers?

People should (IMO)
1. be able to rent their own private property to whom they please
and (at the same time)
2. not be so concerned with what others are doing

[juliastar]

booklady said:

Seems to me there was a big to-do a while back because somebody was telling religious conservatives that they couldn't refuse to rent apartments to unmarried couples or to gay couples. Now somebody is saying that apartment owners can refuse to rent to smokers?

People should (IMO)
1. be able to rent their own private property to whom they please
and (at the same time)
2. not be so concerned with what others are doing

The Fair Housing Act, a federal law, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability).

Smokers are not in a protected class under the act. Sexual orientation may or may not be protected depending on the jurisdiction. It isn't protected under the federal law but there are some states and municipalities that have other classes. There is an owner occupied and four units or less exception so the religious conservatives you mention must be people in the business of rental housing and not the Mom and Pop who are being told who they have to live next to. It is along the same lines as the commerce clause cases that state if you are in the business of offering something to the public that means all of the public and not offered in a discriminatory fashion. That's the cost of doing business. This cuts both ways. New Yorkers have to serve people with out of state plates and New Yorkers in kind can be expected to be treated fairly when they go to Massachusetts.

Under the law, landlords have to accommodate people with disabilites and some of those disabilities are people allergic to cigarette smoke. Sometimes it means moving them only to have a smoker move in next door again or the issue being a ventilation system that circulates smoke everywhere. When a smoker moves out, the only way to get the smell out which is often a turn off to the smoker and nonsmoker alike is new carpet, new paint, etc. and its expensive. The decision is market driven and landlords are caught in the same balancing act between smokers and nonsmokers that other sectors are caught in. I don't see this in practice as landlord nannies who care what people do in the privacy of their own home as much as landlord business men who are tired of paying the hidden or extra costs associated with cigarette smoking and I don't say that to judge anyone who smokes. I'm convinced that Bill's grandmother died of second hand smoke. Wanting to avoid it is a legitimate health concern for nonsmokers. I try to be accommodating around smokers, but I don't allow it in the house or in my car because once it's in, it stays in and I tend to avoid restaurants where the smoking section might as well be the entire place. One might gain tenants with such a practice, others might lose tenants but I think the decisions are being driven by a cold cost vs. benefit analysis not government intrusion and so I think your poll is flawed, Trusty. Government is staying out of this one and letting landowners decide.

[Trusty]

juliastar said:

One might gain tenants with such a practice, others might lose tenants but I think the decisions are being driven by a cold cost vs. benefit analysis not government intrusion and so I think your poll is flawed, Trusty. Government is staying out of this one and letting landowners decide.

The article continued with statements and phrases such as these (There were many others):
---
A year ago last month, the voter-approved Initiative 901 took effect. It prohibits smoking in work settings and public places

Compliance has gone well, according to the health department.

While the state ban prohibits smoking in the common areas of private apartment buildings,

he has received more calls from landlords asking what legal steps they must take to convert their buildings to being smoke-free. Valdez said the health department supports such voluntary efforts,

Perhaps nowhere is the issue more controversial than in public housing, where many residents — smokers and nonsmokers alike — have few housing options.

"You have some people who say, 'My apartment is my castle. I should be able to smoke whenever I want,' and other people say, 'Yeah, but your smoke is helping to kill me,' " said Terry McLlarky, a resident of Casa Juanita apartments in Kirkland, which is operated by the King County Housing Authority.

McLlarky, who smoked for 40 years before quitting in 2002, is serving on a residents committee that advises the authority on their concerns. Even before the smoking ban went into effect, smoking was not allowed in the common areas of public housing.

This week, the housing authority plans to distribute a second survey targeted at elderly and disabled apartment residents.

After engaging residents in discussions over the next year, the authority probably will establish limits on smoking in some apartments, Rosenberg said.

In July 2003, the Seattle Housing Authority opened its first and only smoke-free property,
---
So, NONE of the words in bold have anything to do with government? If that's the case, just who were the landlords going to call to enforce their private bans, the Evergreen State militia?

[gailkate]

All of the furor and contempt directed at smokers has not been justified by studies proving a drop in lung cancers when smoking is banned. I would expect that by now there would be good data in California, where the ban is a few years old. Maybe there is such data, but what I've seen is opinion data, people who say they like going to clubs where there's no smoking. Purely a matter of preference which doesn't allow for separate establishments where people could choose to go smokefree or not.

What grinds me in MN, land where everything is against the law, is that the taxes were raised drastically and then allocated to the General Fund. All the tobacco settlement money was stolen to balance the budget. In the meantime there's all the scapegoating while good programs have been discontinued for lack of funds. We had what everyone agreed was a very effective campaign to keep teens from smoking, but it died when the budget went south in 2001. I'm convinced all the hypocrisy leads kids to smoke - the more huffing and tut-tutting while government rakes in the bucks, the more likely kids are to light up.

[juliastar]

admin said:

juliastar said:

One might gain tenants with such a practice, others might lose tenants but I think the decisions are being driven by a cold cost vs. benefit analysis not government intrusion and so I think your poll is flawed, Trusty. Government is staying out of this one and letting landowners decide.

The article continued with statements and phrases such as these (There were many others):
---
A year ago last month, the voter-approved Initiative 901 took effect. It prohibits smoking in work settings and public places

Compliance has gone well, according to the health department.

While the state ban prohibits smoking in the common areas of private apartment buildings, Understandable. Whether there is a city or state ban or not, most all landlords have such a policy in their rules and as a condition to their leases.

he has received more calls from landlords asking what legal steps they must take to convert their buildings to being smoke-free. Valdez said the health department supports such voluntary efforts,

Perhaps nowhere is the issue more controversial than in public housing, where many residents — smokers and nonsmokers alike — have few housing options.

Granted, in the subset of public housing, the government is the direct landowner and the issue is more controversial because it is the discriminatory allocation of benefits, it remains a landowner issue (government owned housing in the case of this particular example) and the question wrestled with by the administrator of a project is the same issue being wrestled with in states without any ban. I don't personally care one way or the other, except to point out that you say you are urging that government stay out when you are arguing for government to intervene and protect a minority (smokers) and maybe they should, that is what constitutions are for and they do it for race, gender, etc., but it requires action (bigger government) not inaction (out of your shorts government). That's all.

[hartlikeawheel]

I've been struggling with a life-long smoking habit for about a decade now. I've made it for several months, for more months and for a year. It is just nearly impossible.

I've finally subjugated myself to the patch since October and I can still only manage for a couple of months.

It is a heck of an addiction to deal with.

But back when, before doctors even asked about smoking, I smoked through two pregnancies and bore two husky and healthy little kids. I smoked through their feedings as babies. (Think of how tacky that would be today to nurse a baby while you were smoking!) UffDah. Unthinkable. They grew into strong and healthy humans. One still smokes and the other doesn't anymore. I suppose they were born addicted to nicotine. There are much worse things I could worry about for them.

Nearly all of my katz have lived to close to twenty while lying in my lap and breathing second-hand smoke.

I recently had a lung examination and was told, almost reluctantly by the doctor, that they were healthy.

I don't know what to make of that all. I sure wouldn't advocate this addiction for anyone.

It makes your clothes and hair and breath smell bad. It's supposed to kill you eventually.

In Mankato we have recently stopped allowing smoking in most public places. I had no argument with that. Thought that along with the outrageous price of cigarettes it may help some of us quit. All I've managed to do is to cut back quite a bit.

My gynecologist says one a day is too many. And I secretly think he should pay attention to my nether parts and not bother with my smoking! A--hole! No, that's a different doctor.

Well he hasn't been very supportive of my efforts. Thank goodness I only have to let him examine me once a year.

My thought is that if it is truly such a deadly habit, as I know it is for many, maybe all, and if alcohol is truly such a deadly habit for many why are they legal and other less deadly addictive things illegal? Interesting and all to do with commerce, I suspect.

[hartlikeawheel]

Oh. And I don't want the danged government in my living room.

[Trusty]

juliastar said:

I don't personally care one way or the other, except to point out that you say you are urging that government stay out when you are arguing for government to intervene and protect a minority (smokers) and maybe they should, that is what constitutions are for and they do it for race, gender, etc., but it requires action (bigger government) not inaction (out of your shorts government). That's all.

Thanks for letting me know I was advocating something. I thought I just put up a poll about something I found interesting.


Are you saying that constitutions are supposed to protect minorities? Please 'splain.

[joew]

Constitutions are supposed to organize government. In America, they also limit it, which can often have the effect of protecting minorities from the majorities which , in a democratic republic, control the government.

Unfortunately, in America today, there is too little sense of the value of limited government. So, if smoking is thought bad, many people don't mind how far government intrudes into people's lives to make it difficult for them.

[Trusty]

joew said:

Unfortunately, in America today, there is too little sense of the value of limited government. So, if smoking is thought bad, many people don't mind how far government intrudes into people's lives to make it difficult for them.

This country was founded on the principle of one being able to govern oneself with respect for others; no need for "assistance".