Posted on 06/01/2003 9:19:25 AM PDT by qam1
Preferences and practices among renters regarding smoking restrictions in apartment buildings
D Hennrikus1, P R Pentel2 and S D Sandell3
1 Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
2 Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
3 Association for Nonsmokers - Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota, USA
Correspondence to
Deborah Hennrikus, Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 South Second Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN, USA 55454;
ABSTRACT
Objective: This study assessed renters’ preferences for official smoking policies in their buildings and their practices concerning restricting tobacco smoking in their apartments.
Design: Renters (n = 301) living in large apartment complexes in a suburb of Minneapolis, Minnesota, completed a mail survey.
Main outcome measures: The survey asked about the official smoking policies in place in their apartment buildings, their preferences for policies, whether they had smelled tobacco smoke coming into their apartments from without, and, if so, what they had done about it.
Results: The majority of non-smokers (79%) preferred that their building be smoke-free. When asked to identify the current smoking policy in their buildings, residents disagreed substantially. Most renters (60%) reported smoke-free policies in their own apartments and another significant proportion (23%) restricted smoking to certain areas or occasions or persons. 75% thought that enforcing a smoke-free policy for guests would not be difficult. 53% of those in non-smoking households had smelled tobacco smoke in their apartments; most of these reported being bothered by it. However, very few complained to the building owner or manager (15.5%) or to the smoker (6.9%).
Conclusions: The majority of non-smokers preferred that their buildings be smoke-free. A failure to report problems to apartment managers might be an impediment to instituting smoke-free policies in apartment buildings. The considerable disagreement among residents within apartment complexes about the current official smoking policy in their buildings suggests that policies are lacking or are not well communicated.
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.
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.
Epidemiology?? Smoking is now studied as an epidemic??
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
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
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.
It wasn't a contention it was a typo, See post #6
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.
I'm not catching the admission of flaw. Could you explain what I'm overlooking?
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.
As did the EPA in regard to SHS, yet that doesn't seem to bother anyone.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.