Smoking fight moves to apartments

[Jakis]

Whats so hard about smoking outside or on the porch?

[phorbesie]

then the smoke can waft up and enter a baby's nursery window upstairs, even worse! ban smoking on porches!

[dancingbear]

So just how much of a risk is second hand smoke in an apartment building?

good question. intuitively (sp?) i would say it at the very least has SOME effects. cause if ya can smell it it is there...on your clothes, on your sofa etc. but i think that would make an excellent study...ie. the risks i mentioned previously of people living in a smoking building. vs. those living in a smoke free building.

point taken.

however, i feel it should be up to the smokers to prove its safe BEFORE having the RIGHT to do it. kinda like the backwards system we have for food packaging etc. soemone has to prove it is unsafe...should in not be the reverse? ie. teflon.

[Jakis]

then the smoke can waft up and enter a baby's nursery window upstairs, even worse! ban smoking on porches!

In this case at least the people with the baby can close their windows so smoke can't come in.

[AD]

[color:purple]or plug their nose, because that's just as reasonable an expectation. in my book anyways.

[phishtaper]

i think i know who i'd like as neighbours and who i wouldnt

but ya gotta love the smoking debate. it has a way of making enemies out of friends. a few years ago, my director was escorted out of her office by university security because she brought her dog into work one day. it caused a building mailing list discussion of allergies, etc. i said i'd rather have someone bring in their dog than have to walk thru the phalanx of smokers huddled outside the front door every morning. man, you'd think i'd assassinated mother theresa or something judging by the nasty responses i got. dont mess with smokers, i tell ya!

[ollie]

i think i know who i'd like as neighbours and who i wouldnt

I'm a non-smoker, FWIW.

[bokonon]

I think it's ridiculous that people would say a landlord doesn't have the right to refuse to rent to smokers and it's also ridiculous to tell people not to smoke in their own homes.

If you want to rent in a building that's smoke free, then don't smoke in your house. If you want to live in a cool building that happens to have tennants whom are smokers and the building doesn't have a no-smoking policy, then you can either live with it or move. Take your pick, what's more important to you?

If you want a larger base of renters, then choose your smoking policy based on the demographics of your city. In Brantford, I say go smokey, in Waterloo I'd go smoke free if I were a landlord.

Fuck the man legislating what we can or can not do. My mom is done raising me, I don't need another mother and neither do you. Let's be adults and respect each other.

All this talk about legislating smoking and booze and drugs reminds me of that little annoying kid in grade school that would always say they're going to tell the teacher. FUCK OFF! We can come to an agreement about our differences, especially if we are not forced to be together. Smokers and non-smokers do not have to live together.

FYI, I am a former smoker who allows smoking in her home for parties. Although at the moment I live in a smoke-free building because my landlord is an anal-retentive bitch. She also doesn't allow meat, loud music, heavy breathing or loud blinking. Who's got my heady place in Toronto?

[MasterShake]

Save a cow, eat a vegan!

[SaggyBalls]

I'm tired of all the anti-smoking argument that goes on. True, second hand smoke has been linked to an increase in cancer.

There are many reasons that people become ill and their bodies fail them. A wisp of smoke is different han a smokey room.

I'm with Ollie on this one. FWIW I'm a pro smoking non-smoker. There are many chemicals in tomacco juice that act as anti-psychotics. I know many non-smokers that could really use a smoke. Physical health isn't the be all and end all of well-being. I'd rather see a friend get a bit dragged down with a couple extra colds a year than seeing that same friend uptight and uneasy.

Non Smokers seem to whine a lot more. I said it. Look around - it's hard to deny.

[SaggyBalls]

I'm tired of all the anti-smoking argument that goes on. True, second hand smoke has been linked to an increase in cancer.

There are many reasons that people become ill and their bodies fail them. A wisp of smoke is different han a smokey room.

I'm with Ollie on this one. FWIW I'm a pro smoking non-smoker. There are many chemicals in tomacco juice that act as anti-psychotics. I know many non-smokers that could really use a smoke. Physical health isn't the be all and end all of well-being. I'd rather see a friend get a bit dragged down with a couple extra colds a year than seeing that same friend uptight and uneasy.

Non Smokers seem to whine a lot more. I said it. Look around - it's hard to deny.

[Birdy]

I don't know if we can collectively come to an agreement on no-smoking issues without legislation... if you remember bar owners were up in arms when most of Canada systematically went no smoking... for fear that it would cause a slump in business. Wouldn't landlords follow that pattern?

For what it's worth, I completely disagree with Canned Beats. I'm an ex smoker myself, and I cringe at what I subjected all of my non-smoker friends to over the years. The negative affects of tobacco are clinically proven and are more than just getting 'dragged down with a few extra colds a year'. Smoking in public buildings isn't just subjecting a person to a "wisp of smoke"... toxicants travel through ventilation systems. It's one thing for you to do it to yourself, it's ENTIRELY different for you to subject someone else to it.

[bradm]

I don't know if we can collectively come to an agreement on no-smoking issues without legislation.

In my observation, there are two ways to make somebody (including somebusiness) do something: legislate that they do it (and penalize them if they don't), or make it in their be$t intere$t to do it.

In the case of no-smoking laws and bars/restaurants, I thought that it would have been better to give bars a (property?) tax break (or a liquor license break, or whatever) based on the % of space (square footage, or in terms of seats) in them that was non-smoking, up to, say 10%. So that if you're 50% non-smoking you get a 5% rebate on this or that tax or fee; if you're 100% non-smoking, you get the full/max 10%. (Those numbers aren't based on any knowledge of what fees and taxes actually are for bars/restaurants, but you get the idea.)

The snag, of course, is that smoke isn't limited to the smoking section. It might be possible to institute a health/safety law that requires a certain level/capacity of ventilation system for any venue that's below a certain percentage of non-smoking (with a special tax deducation or rebate for businesses that put them in).

Aloha,

Brad

[Freak By Night]

Another reason why outlawing smoking in apartments would be a "slippery slope": It's next to impossible to enforce.

It would take an army of by-law officers to enforce such a law.

[phishtaper]

It would take an army of by-law officers to enforce such a law.

not an army, just one man ... Eliminator! the anti-smoking superhero!

[ollie]

Physical health isn't the be all and end all of well-being.

Well said.

[edger]

I agree. But I don't think it is enitrely accurate when we try to draw arbitrary boundaries between physical, mental, and spiritual health. They are all interconnected.

[MarcO]

I'm tired of all the anti-smoking argument that goes on. True, second hand smoke has been linked to an increase in cancer.

There are many reasons that people become ill and their bodies fail them. A wisp of smoke is different han a smokey room.

I'm with Ollie on this one. FWIW I'm a pro smoking non-smoker. There are many chemicals in tomacco juice that act as anti-psychotics. I know many non-smokers that could really use a smoke. Physical health isn't the be all and end all of well-being. I'd rather see a friend get a bit dragged down with a couple extra colds a year than seeing that same friend uptight and uneasy.

Non Smokers seem to whine a lot more. I said it. Look around - it's hard to deny.

This is just ridiculous. Fine, YOU decided physical health isn't as important as other things to YOU. However, second-hand smoke makes that decision for other people, which is wrong and very serious. You even admitted second-hand smoke causes cancer.

And if people need a smoke to keep them from going bananas it's because THEY HAVE AN ADDICTION!. Those couple of colds per year isn't the only exchange they'll make for a lifetime of tobacco addiction. And non-smokers don't need a fucking cigarette, there are a lot of other, healthier options available to people to calm down and ease their anxieties.

Also calling people whiners because they don't appreciate other people's disgusting habits is just ludicrous, but then you once wanted to uphold the notion of betting on women racing each other around a horse racing track so what can I say Beats??

[phorbesie]

yeah, it's also easy to say 'physical health isn't so important' when you are perfectly healthy. if you're dying or suffering from cancer (or myriad other health problems of course)...health matters.

[secondtube]

thanks MarcO.

you saved me a bunch of typing.

[ollie]

yeah, it's also easy to say 'physical health isn't so important' when you are perfectly healthy.

Who said I was perfectly healthy?

[Jakis]

Your healthy enough to work and be typing on this site.

[AD]

Ollie, you are perfectly healthy.

[ollie]

Your healthy enough to work and be typing on this site.

I'm glad you're not in med school Jake!

[Jakis]

I'm glad you're not in med school Jake!

haha me too.