More Junk from the antismoking Nazis. It obviously from this piece one of their next targets is going to be Apartment buildings and they are using this survey as a guide to begin their assult.

1) First they took the cheap and easy and dirty way of doing a study, They sent out questionaires and we all know how they like to word questionaires to get the results they want. Of course they didn't include what exact questions they asked in the study so god only knows what exactly they asked. 

2) This survey was sent out through the mail and of the original mailed out surveys they only got response from 59% of households, Obviously the more rabid a person is against smoking the more likely they are to send the survey back. The more a person doesn't care one way or they other the more they are likely to toss this survey along with their other junk mail in the garbage.

3) The thing to note is the survey was sent out one per Households not one per individual living in the household. Again the more rabid someone is about smoking the more likely someone would be inclined to send this survey back in. So in a household the most rabid antismoker would most likely send the sample in while 1 or more of the other people in the household who don't care one or the other wouldn't bother and not be counted.

4)  The survey was done in a small area with a small sample size, Only in group of apartment complexes in a small Minnesota town of Golden Valley (population of 20,300) a suburb of Minneapolis. Does this small town represent the rest of America? Do these complexs even represent other apartment complexes in Minnesota or even this town?.

5) It should also be noted Peggy Leppik (RINO) currently serves on the board of directors for the fraudulent and now defunded Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) is based in this town (Coincidence??).

6)  That 79% number is somewhat lower because it was broken down into strongly prefered and somewhat prefered nonsmoking and they count the somewhat prefered as support for a smoke free apartment building. Without knowing the exact questions that were asked it's impossible to tell what exactly "Prefered" or "Somewhat Prefered" means, Prefered doesn't necessary mean support, For instance if I was asked do you prefer that when driving there be no SUVs on the road, I would answer Yes. Does that mean I would support any ban on SUVs? The answer is no, What I personally prefer is entirely different from what I would support as a law or policy against other people.     

7) Again without knowing the exact questions, I am wondering if it was clear to all the people taking the survey that the survey that smoke free policy meant banning smoking in other people's apartments. I am wondering if many people who took the survey belived that smoke free just meant smoke free in the common areas. 

8) I also wonder if the people who want a smoke free apartment building really thought it through on what would happen if the building actually went smoke free. I wonder how much their support would wane if all of a sudden all the smokers that would otherwise smoke inside their apartment where they aren't bothering anyone are now forced outside in front of the building where just like in NYC with the ban on bars/restaurants they would congergate in groups and force tenants to walk through them.

9) From the discussion part of the study

The level of interest in smoke-free policies among non-smokers also suggests that it might be time to consider legal strategies for addressing ETS incursions in multi-unit residential dwellings. Kline has outlined both administrative avenues for regulation of ETS incursions and legal grounds for bringing these issues to court in the USA. The emerging evidence concerning the effect of ETS on health combined with the health protection language in state regulations gives many states the authority to regulate ETS in these dwellings. Individuals can also bring the issue of ETS incursions to court based on a variety of legal grounds, which are based on commonly understood rights of tenants to live in premises fit for human occupation and free from identifiable and preventable health threats.

So this is what it is all about, Another &@! legal shakedown.

Ping

Obviously the more rabid a person is against smoking the more likely they are to send the survey back. The more a person doesn't care one way or they other the more they are likely to toss this survey along with their other junk mail in the garbage.

Sentance 1 is a conjecture, attemptng to indicate that anti-smokers are more likely to respond than any ohters, which is disputed by sentance 2 when you say "one way or the other". There is no evidence presented that make this obvious, or any reason ot think that the returns aren't representative; or that those rabidly one way or the other don't cancel each other out and those who don't care one way or the other are more likely to "likely to toss this survey along with their other junk mail in the garbage." Pairing the survey with junk mail and garbage (known as associating concepts) is an old trick to avoid any real facts or investigation of the validity of the survey.

Division of Epidemiology

Epidemiology?? Smoking is now studied as an epidemic??

Sentance 1 is a conjecture, attemptng to indicate that anti-smokers are more likely to respond than any ohters, which is disputed by sentance 2 when you say "one way or the other". There is no evidence presented that make this obvious, or any reason ot think that the returns aren't representative;

Nope, It even says so in the study

Quote

"This study had limitations that should be considered when assessing the results. First, the sample was restricted to large apartment complexes in a single suburb in a large metropolitan area. It is unclear whether the results could be generalised to other communities. Second, the return rate of 65% was respectable, but it is low enough to raise a question about whether the sample was representative. Finally, there was no systematic method for selecting the adult in the household who would complete the survey."

Also the study included a building that was already smoke free, Obviously antismokers are more likely to be drawn to a smoke free building.

And by "One way or the other" I mean they probably don't smoke so they don't care if they the building went smoke free or not because it wouldn't effect them and they don't care enough to spend any amount of time filling out a silly survey .

or that those rabidly one way or the other don't cancel each other out and those who don't care one way or the other are more likely to "likely to toss this survey along with their other junk mail in the garbage."

There are more smokers than non-smokers, To many smokers are sheep and aren't rabid about anything, One building was already smoke free. So there was no cancelling each other out.

Pairing the survey with junk mail and garbage (known as associating concepts) is an old trick to avoid any real facts or investigation of the validity of the survey.

Junk by any other name is still junk. Plus I didn't just call it junk I presented 9 things that were wrong with this study

There are more smokers than non-smokers,

That should be the other way around

Also note the full article isn't posted I should have checked the "This is an excerpt" button

This is as bad as home owner's associations. Nazi groups that they are. If you are an elderly person, never live in one. Like that poor woman in Houston who had her property taken outright from her. I think she finally got it back only after going to court.

8) I also wonder if the people who want a smoke free apartment building really thought it through on what would happen if the building actually went smoke free. I wonder how much their support would wane if all of a sudden all the smokers that would otherwise smoke inside their apartment where they aren't bothering anyone are now forced outside in front of the building where just like in NYC with the ban on bars/restaurants they would congergate in groups and force tenants to walk through them.

I wonder how they would feel about paying higher rent because vacancies stay open longer if you automatically elimate a large precentage of the population for no other reason than they are smokers.

Unfortunately, when you are living cheek by jowl with countless other "neighbors" and sharing walls, heat/air conditioning ducts, plumbing pipes, stairwells, hallways, etc., it is necessary to have homeowner associations.

If SOME rules are not enforced (and usually that is very difficult, anyway, but the more civilized people usually agree this is necessary) these places end up looking like tenements. I know whereof I speak -- lived in a condo in a community of nothing but apartments and condos/townhouses I call "helltown" (it's covenient but I am now moving to a house, also a locale convenience issue) for over 20 years.

FYI, just in case you did not not know, smoke and other odors, whether from cigars, cigarettes, cooking, marijuana, free-basing cocaine, etc., all filter through into neighbor's units.

This smoke issue, in particular, causes BIG problems for many people. One pregnant neighbor comes immediately to mind. Flame away, but the right to breathe smoke free air by the pregnant woman SHOULD supersede some person's "right" to light up non-stop in his/her unit.

As a former smoker, and child of the sixties, I tend to go easy on the smokers but if I had an allergy to smoke/odors, or was pregnant, I can tell you I'd be complaining, too. We're in the midst of several such battles at my complex right now.

It sure WOULD be easier to say "no smoking" (we DO NOT PERMIT IT in enclosed stairwells, thank God) but then we have all those perceived "rights" to deal with. People used to use something called common sense coupled with CONSIDERATION -- now it's all about "this is the USA and I can do what I want."

Well, NO you can't always do exactly as you please and a little cooperation would go a long way. One man in the complex DOES show consideration and only lights a cigar when he knows his downstairs neighbor, who gets very sick from it, is not home. They have a very friendly agreement about this.

Not everyone can afford his/her own house, unfortunately, but subjecting everyone around you to the habits of a few is not reasonable.

As for the contention that there are more smokers than non-smokers; well, not in this country there aren't -- perhaps in some communities but definitely not in my state.

As for the contention that there are more smokers than non-smokers; well, not in this country there aren't -- perhaps in some communities but definitely not in my state.

It wasn't a contention it was a typo, See post #6

As an owner of rentals, I no longer allow smokers. Why? Complaints from others about smells, and the extensive cleaning needed of EVERYTHING: walls, light fixtures, heating ducts, etc., after move out. I used to smoke. After cleaning a unit of a smoker after move-out, and looking at the water in the bucket...slimy, gold/brown...ick! I thought about my lungs and quit cold turkey. The next time we had a smoker move out, I took my kids along to "help" even though they were really too little. They emptied the water, and we had a nice talk about it. They are all grown up now and smoke free. I am not a nazi, I know it is a legal drug, but it is addictive, and the tobacco companies did lie about that. Now, if someone makes the choice, they know what they are getting into.
And all you smokers who want to jump on me about how it really doesn't hurt anybody, save your breath. (that is a small attempt at humor) My second-stage-of-life career, after raising kids, is now respiratory therapy. I watch the families suffer as they deal with the slow deaths of their loved ones from COPD and cancer as a direct consequence of years of smoking. It hurts more that the one who lights up.
Try to quit...you won't miss it as much as they will miss you.

I do have problems with what you said.

For one if the ventilation of an apartment complex is that bad that smoke from a cigarette from somebody else's apartment seeps into your apartment than 2nd hand smoke is the least of your worries because that would mean all other nasty stuff like car and oven exhaust, chemicals from the paint and carpets and fumes from the boiler which are more concentrated (albiet less detectable)than cigarette smoke are also seeping in. Plus just throwing people out into the street to smoke would also cause 2nd smoke to seep in through open windows.

Secondly, I am sure most smokers are OK with reasonable considerations. However the antismoking hysteria has in many cases thrown all reason out the window. Case in point the story you posted about the guy who was downstairs who didn't like the guy smoking upstairs. Now unless your complex is constantly subject to hurricane force downdrafts or the laws of physics there are somehow different than the rest of the Universe there is obviously something really wrong with that story and that is the problem. There is for whatever reason a lot of people who exsist in this world who are generally lonely and misable and the only joy in life they get is complaining about or tattling on other people. In many cases other people smoking even if it has no effect on them is just another avenue for them to get their jollys complaining, If it's not smoking it's something else. By forcing burdensome regulations on some people you are only encouraging them and yeah just what the courts need more friviolus lawsuits.

Can private houses be far behind. ???

#3....... Read the article again, by their own admission, the study is flawed.

... by their own admission, the study is flawed.

I'm not catching the admission of flaw. Could you explain what I'm overlooking?

Can private houses be far behind. ???

No, They already tried it in Montgomery county Maryland when somebody complained they could smell the smoke from people who lived a block away smoking inside their house.

and the tobacco companies did lie about that.

As did the EPA in regard to SHS, yet that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

I'm not catching the admission of flaw. Could you explain what I'm overlooking?

Repeat

Quote from the study,

"This study had limitations that should be considered when assessing the results. First, the sample was restricted to large apartment complexes in a single suburb in a large metropolitan area. It is unclear whether the results could be generalised to other communities. Second, the return rate of 65% was respectable, but it is low enough to raise a question about whether the sample was representative. Finally, there was no systematic method for selecting the adult in the household who would complete the survey."

Again I made a mistake I should have clicked the excerpt button so the full study isn't posted but click on the link and you will have it.

Any scientist who has any credibility will tell you a study that is based on questionaires sent through the mail is seriously flawed.

#18........ Thank you, I wonder if I need to explain again, as 2 explanations from you, doesn't seem to do the trick. :-}

OH GOOD GRIEF.................................