Preferences and practices among renters regarding smoking restrictions in apartment buildings

Tobacco control online ^ | 6/1/03 | D Hennrikus, R Pentel and S D Sandell

[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;

hennrikus@epi.umn.edu

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.

[muggs]

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.

Bekki, I watched my father die from COPD and it did hurt but I can't imagine watching a loved one die from anything and it not hurting.

[qam1]

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

You (we) will probably have to repeat it over and over again. You know these antismoking Nazis, No matter how many times they are told/shown about their lies/falsehoods they will still just go on repeating them over and over again.

[Gabz]

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 is all totally overblown. For generations people lived with in the confines of apartment buildings and lived with it all, without complaint. In this day and age of improved venitlations sytems, sound proofing, etc. in apartment/condo complexes all I can see is a generation of whining babies.

[templar]

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

No. I did serious market research for a nmumber of years and questionaire studies are not considered flawed. They are considered limited (by their nature). As long as it is stated that there are limitations to a study, that would not be considered a flaw. A flaw would be something like mailing to a specific demographic and not stating that the mailing had been targeted to that demographic. This study states the limitations and says exactly what group was targeted. Generalizing a conclusion beyond the parameters of the study would be a flaw (using an inductive speculation in place of deductive conclusion about those in the study only), but I don't see that happening here. Speculating about the generality of the study beyond the group is not a flaw as long as it is clearly stated as speculation.

[qam1]

There is another problem with this study I just caught

10) Quote from the study

"There was substantial disagreement in the reports of smoking policy among renters in the same apartment complex in six of the seven complexes

Now you would think if something was really bothering people you would think they would dam well know what the policy regarding it would be. Their ignorance suggest it really isn't a problem at all.

Methinks like with other smoking bans the antis are trying to create a problem where there isn't any.

[Gabz]

As a I private business owner - I have no problem with you not permitting smokers. It is a private business decision - you own the property you have (or should have) the right.

I have a problem with the government mandating such restrictions which is exactly what this "study" is seeking to do.

I despise washing windows and do it as infrequently as possible - but when one is selling a house, as I recently did, it is a necessity. The first time I washed the windows in what was my home office prior to putting the house on the market (they hadn't been done in about 6 months) I did not get all the gold/brown/yellow gunk every anti-smoker claims would be there. More than 2 years later, when we finally sold the house, when I removed the prints and artwork from the walls, all I had to do was wipe off cob webbs and fill in the nail holes. There was no indication that the walls had not been painted in all the years those pieces had been on the walls. Some had been there 7 years.

I am not saying any of this to deny your experience, just to show that it is not always the case. In fact your experience shows that by not smoking manufacturered cigarettes and making our own there is a major avoidance of all the additives the manufacturers put into their products.

[qam1]

No. I did serious market research for a nmumber of years and questionnaire studies are not considered flawed. They are considered limited (by their nature). As long as it is stated that there are limitations to a study, that would not be considered a flaw.

Flaw/limited. Give me a break you are just playing with words. They are the same thing.

And I wouldn't put to much faith in marketing research, If marketing research was so good we would have never had The Edsel, New Coke, The Mclean, Any movie staring Madonna or countless other marketing blunders.

Science and market research are different things, To do science like you would do marketing research is a flaw in itself. Would you take a drug or food product if the studies on it's safety were limited? 

A flaw would be something like mailing to a specific demographic and not stating that the mailing had been targeted to that demographic. This study states the limitations and says exactly what group was targeted.

For starters, One flaw is they do not state what exactly questions they asked the people in their questionnaires so nobody can judge how biased/leading they were.

And yes while they do admit there flaws (umm limitations) in their demographics in their conclusions they do not

quotes

Occupants of multi-unit residential dwellings can be at risk of involuntary and unwanted exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) coming from outside their apartments.

The results of this survey of occupants of multi-unit residential dwellings found that ETS incursions from outside the apartment do occur

In summary, the results of this study indicate that a majority of apartment dwellers are interested in limiting exposure to ETS in apartment buildings

Notice it just says apartment dwellers implying apartment dwellers everywhere, not apartment dwellers in this complex who filled out the survey

And again

Generalizing a conclusion beyond the parameters of the study would be a flaw (using an inductive speculation in place of deductive conclusion about those in the study only), but I don't see that happening here. Speculating about the generality of the study beyond the group is not a flaw as long as it is clearly stated as speculation.

Again using the 3 above quotes, It isn't "clearly stated as speculation" it's stating them as fact.

Also in the study they are stating over and over again that ETS is confirmed to be hazardous. It most certainly isn't. It should also be noted that this publication is a affiliate of the British Medical Journal, The same journal that produced a study that ETS has no negative heath effects on nonsmokers living with a smoker so I would really be interested in how the hell ETS doesn't harm someone living with you in the same dwelling but can harm somebody far away from you be it down the hall or on a different floor.

[Gabz]

You know these antismoking Nazis, No matter how many times they are told/shown about their lies/falsehoods they will still just go on repeating them over and over again.

You said a mouthful there!!!!!

And the sad thing is that they have the money to get the media to listen to them. The facts of this study will never see the light of day - only the hype and spin they put on it and within a few weeks you will start seeing this "study" being extrapolated to say the the VAST MAJORITY of AMERICA....blah, blah, blah.........

I know - I'm preaching to the choir here - but these fanatics are taking their toll on me.

I don't need a cigarette - I need a DRINK.

[Gabz]

Speculating about the generality of the study beyond the group is not a flaw as long as it is clearly stated as speculation.

I agree with that and it makes sense. However I also agree that this "study" has flaws because by the time the supporters of it get through with it and send their media press releases all those speculations will be reported as FACT.

It's not a "study" it is a "survey" being pushed as a "study." As a market researcher I am sure you understand the nuance difference here.

[Gabz]

Methinks like with other smoking bans the antis are trying to create a problem where there isn't any.

EXACTLY

[Old Professer]

How much does a two-bedroom apartment go for in Carmel Valley?

I used to live in Monterey 1966-70.

[templar]

As a market researcher I am sure you understand the nuance difference here.

It's called spin nowdays. It's just the old thing about "Statistics don't lie but liars use statistics". It's the fault of the liars and the people duped into believing the lies, not the statistcs used to promote the lie. I wish that more people would be critical of what they are being told by persons in positions of authority.

[templar]

Flaw/limited. ... They are the same thing.

No, they are diferent words with different meanings. They're in the dictionary, look 'em up.

[qam1]

Flaw/limited. ... They are the same thing.

No, they are diferent words with different meanings. They're in the dictionary, look 'em up.

In this case they are the same, Limited is just a euphemism for flawed. Coming out with a conclusion with limited data is a flawed study.

But you are right this is not a flawed study.

The antismoking Nazi authors of this study designed it with the goal to get the results they wanted and to push forth their adgenda and that's exactly what they got.

[templar]

Coming out with a conclusion with limited data is a flawed study.

I don't know if your aware of it, but that statement is flawed by your own standards. It is a conclusion based on limited data.

All studies, every single one of them, are limited. There is no such thing as a universal study or a universal conlcusion (except, perhaps, in the afterlife?). The validity of any study is limited to the group studied and the methodology used. As long as the limitations (the parameters of the study) are stated and the conclusion is relevant to data and does not go beyond those limitations and data, then neither the study or the conclusion are flawed. A conclusion can be erroneous without being flawed since there are often multiple explanations for the same situation. This is why there are usually multiple studies done to confirm or not confirm each other in the scientific world. The study itself could be flawed if it did not rigidly conform to its stated structure, or if it's structure was not relevant to it's purpose and would then result in a flawed conclusion. Or the study could be valid and the conclusion flawed if the conclusion drew upon opinion or facts not covered in the study (a common occurance). What is flawed here, if anything, is the reporting done on the study. And then only if taken in the context with publication in a professional sense, not publication for common consumption (which would allow for the reporters abreviation of the study and a lack of technical details). A criticism of the reporting as being biased might well be in order here, but then it is the reporting being criticised then and not the study itself (which is basically just collected data).

[Gabz]

It's the fault of the liars and the people duped into believing the lies, not the statistcs used to promote the lie. I wish that more people would be critical of what they are being told by persons in positions of authority.

And speaking of spin, when people, such as myself bring that up in regard to the anti-smoker spin, we are called stooges of the tobacco industry or tobacco front groups.