[RogerD]

Is it taking freedom away from smokers, or giving freedom back to property-owners?

I'm a nonsmoker, but I'm on your side. An apartment building is private property, and if the landlord wants to rent with a no smoking clause in the contract, it's within the landlord's rights as the property owner to do so.

[Tax-chick]

if the landlord wants to rent with a no smoking clause in the contract, it's within the landlord's rights as the property owner to do so.

It certainly seems like that should be a no-brainer, but landlords' rights isn't a popular concept in any state.

It's funny that smoking should be the one thing that gets California to consider property rights.

[Gabz]

I’m a smoker, but I agree with you both. The landlord should have the right to prohibit smoking if he so desires, just like he can prohibit pets.

However, I do draw the line with towns/cities creating ordinances that require the landlords to prohibit smoking in apartments, as at least one California town has already done.

[Tuscaloosa Goldfinch]

I agree. We own a condo and lease it to non-smokers only. It's private property.

That's not to say that the government of California is on the side of private property owners.