ILLEGAL To Smoke In Your Own Apartment ?

That's the problem with smoking....when you smoke you also invade other people's air quality not just your own.

And the other thing I could see a landlord being concerned about having a tenant that smokes - once this smoking tenant leaves, the cost of cleaning/painting/perhaps needing replace carpet, etc. due to the damage and smell of the smoke.

Right. It's my job to get sick of your smoke seeping into my apartment, then take my .22 to your door and confront you in a way that gets you to take a swing at me so I can shoot you in the face.

Joe(whose job is it?)Nation

... as does driving a car, but the driver and fellow passengers usually can breath a better air than those outside.

and what about curry, when i lived in Toronto, i had friends who lived in buildings that smelled very heavily of curry (something that didn't bother them, but others made comment), you can hardly expect a government to ban a cultures dish

the difference is smelling curry does not impact your health....

neither does smoke from another apartment, i get second hand smoke if i'm in direct vicinity (ie the same room), but i dispute any danger from the next door neighbours

Does smelling curry cause health problems that I do not know about?

You are free to dispute the danger all you care to but I will go with the evidences and the scientists opinions not your

Why not? They've banned the use of marijuana. Suppose I were a (so-called) Native American for whom the use of canabis is part of a religious ritual?

the governments wrong there too, inmho

Ever been in a close relationship with someone who has asthma?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/


SMOKING AND SECONDHAND SMOKE: Study Finds No Level of SHS Exposure Free of Effects
Carol Potera
Carol Potera, based in Montana, has written for EHP since 1996. She also writes for Microbe, Genetic Engineering News, and the American Journal of Nursing Other Sections▼
REFERENCES How much exposure to tobacco smoke can the lungs endure before damage ensues? The answer appears to be none, based on gene activity measured by researchers at Cornell University.1 “No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways,” says coauthor Ronald Crystal, head of pulmonary and critical care medicine at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.Crystal and coworkers at Cornell analyzed gene activity in small airway epithelial cells collected from 121 healthy volunteers. The type of cells tested are where early damage first occurs that leads to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchogenic cancer, according to Crystal.The volunteers, all of whom had normal lung function, were categorized by tobacco smoke exposure status as determined by their urine levels of nicotine and cotinine. Nonsmokers had nondetectable urine nicotine or cotinine levels, low-exposure individuals had urine nicotine and/or cotinine levels up to 1,000 ng/mL, and active smokers had urine nicotine and/or cotinine levels greater than 1,000 ng/mL. The low-exposure group included occasional smokers and people exposed to SHS.The researchers first compared the smokers and nonsmokers. Microarrays detected significant changes between these two groups in the activity of 372 genes. Among the low-exposure group, about a third of these 372 genes were up- or downregulated compared with nonsmokers, and 11% of the genes differed compared with active smokers.1Even subjects with the lowest levels of nicotine and cotinine had enhanced activity of biological pathways involved in the metabolism of xenobiotics by cytochrome P450 and arachidonic acid. The same two pathways also were highly activated in smokers, suggesting exposure to low levels of SHS caused changes in the airways similar to those from active smoking, representing the earliest biologic abnormalities that can lead to disease.1 The authors believe this may be the first study to document biological changes in the lung cells of people exposed to low levels of tobacco smoke.The results support epidemiologic studies that link early respiratory damage to low levels of SHS exposure or occasional smoking.2,3 However, the tobacco smoke–induced gene changes “do not tell us which ones [genes] are dangerous and which are protective,” Crystal notes.Moreover, the cross-sectional nature of the study precluded determining whether the genetic changes predicted disease. Followup studies lasting 20 years or more are needed to sort out the genes that play a role in the development of lung diseases, and Crystal plans to follow some of the people in this study.People often wonder what level of exposure to SHS is harmful—is it a problem, for instance, to hang out with smoking friends once or twice a week? Crystal’s study “employs sophisticated molecular genetic techniques to address this very important public health question of whether a threshold exists,” says Norman Edelman, a professor of preventive medicine at Stony Brook University Medical Center and chief medical officer at the American Lung Association. The finding that no level of tobacco smoke exposure appeared safe “is important for informing both individual behavior and public health policy,” Edelman says.

I think that 's a very important point.

That air pollution problem is also found out in the streets.





David

I believe that! Yes!
Well said, Joe! It sure does.

I remember a few years ago, I was in the office of a travel agent.
While I was dealing with the agent for my forthcoming travel,
a pretty girl came in and sat about 4O feet away, by the door.

Her cigarette annoyed me, as I continued discussions.
I make it my practice to be polite, as a general rule, especially to pretty girls.
In this case, as I left, passing her in her seat,
I said: "u know that thing really STINKS" pointing to her cigarette.
I think she looked embarrassed.
I hope that it had a good effect.





David

I deny that such is the conduct of real conservatives.
I will change my mind when it is shown to me
that such conduct has its foundations in the writings of the Founders.
In my opinion, the Founders woud be aghast at that.

So far as I am aware, thay said nothing that supports such intrusion.
What thay DID believe in was curtailing the jurisdiction of government,
ergo: the Bill of Rights. Note that the Founders were NOT theocrats.
Thay did NOT create a theocracy, regardless of what Pat Robertson thinks.





David

All of you are raising some good points, but where do you draw the line?
Should it be made illegal to smoke in your own home if a nonsmoker comes into your house?
My nearest neighbor is about 300 feet away, should it be illegal for me to smoke in my yard if the wind blows the smoke towards them?

While I sympathize with those that dont like the smell of cigarettes, that does not give you the right to regulate what people do in their own home.
There comes a time when you must grow up and allow other people to live their own life, free of govt intereference.

Its like the people that buy a house next to a freeway, then demand that the state build a sound barrier wall.

If you move into an apt building that has smokers already living there, by what right do you demand that they either stop smoking or move?
They were there first.

While I would have no problem with an apt manager disclosing to prospective tenants that there are smokers living there, and then letting that prospective tenant decide if they want to live there, it seems stupid and just plain wrong for that nonsmoker to demand that others not smoke in theirt own apt.

BTW, I am a nonsmoker.

Let see a guest can come into your home or not come into knowing you are a smoker so that seems to be a non issue.

If someone is so far away that the smoke can not be detected that is not an issue.

Sorry a highway or an airport is of public benefits and trade offs of the annoying and or harmful aspects is justify your smoking however is not of that nature so your analogy does not seems to apply.

Now I do not care if you had move into an apartment thirty years ago that does not give you any license to full up my living quarters with your smoke!!!

Sorry I did not see your statement that you are not a smoker however that does not change my position that a smoker does not have a right to harm my health in my home/apartment.

I am not saying that it should necessarily be illegal to smoke in your own apartment - just that is is definately different than the fact of smelly bad - there is a health impact.

What is everyone's thoughts on hotels that are smoke free?

What if you move into an apt building and there are no current smokers, but after one month - a smoker moves in next to you?

I don't have a problem with some one who owns an apartment building to set the rules - ie smoke free apartment building. They have apartment buildings not allowing pets.

I don't agree that the government should determine that a house/apartment building has to be smoke-free - it should be determined by the owner. Then whoever rents must abide by rules.