Jury finds heavy smoking to be grounds for eviction

The Boston Globe ^ | By Ralph Ranalli and Jonathan Saltzman | June 16, 2005

[Boston Blackie]

In a case that tobacco law specialists say is one of the first of its kind in the nation, a Boston Housing Court jury ruled that a South Boston couple could be evicted from their rented water-view loft for heavy smoking, even though smoking was allowed in their lease.

The landlord who rented the Sleeper Street unit to Erin Carey and Ted Baar ordered them out within a week last November, after neighbors complained of the smoke odors filtering into their apartments.

[BlackbirdSST]

Secondly, the lease does not "say they can" smoke, if that were the case the tenants would have won.

WRONG! From the first line of the article...... even though smoking was allowed in their lease.

geez, I thought we were relatively done with the Nazi's in the 1940's, guess I was wrong. Blackbird.

[BlackbirdSST]

How about a compromise? Have the smoker get some type of ventilation so the smoke goes outside?

I'm a smoker of many things, not just cigs. I have a compromise. I say we ban tobacco across the board, and let the Nazi's pick up the Tax Tab that all these gubermint agency's are absolutely dependent on to function. Also by doing this, we can shut dowm the thousands of jobs that the tobacco industry supplies this economy with, and more of us can either go on the welfare rolls or turn to a life of crime to survive. It's called choas and anarchy. They'll sing a different tune then, eh!? What a bunch of flakes. Guess what? You're all gonna DIE anyway. Blackbird

[BlackbirdSST]

If you thought anti-smoking laws were a thing of the modern era, think again. In 1637, Plymouth Colony enacted the first anti-smoking law:

Really want to go there? I accuse you of witchcraft. Penalty, death by drowning! Blackbird.

[ellery]

Cigarette smoke can be difficult for people with respiratory problems to deal with. Even when it's outdoors.

So can perfume, and the smell of peanuts to those with peanut allergies. So the question becomes: whose responsibility is it to deal with situation? The person who has the problem? Or is it the responsibility of everyone else in the whole world to make sure they're not producing smoke, wearing perfume, eating peanuts, etc., etc., etc., etc. in public (or even in their own apartments)?

[ken21]

smoking cigarettes is BAD,

but smoking marijuana is GOOD.

[ellery]

Your post is ironic. I think it's pretty nasty to say that everyone on these threads who oppose smoking bans on private property is a. meanspirited; and b. lying about their motives.

I don't smoke, and I have never smoked -- am I still worshipping at the god of Nicotine and merely faking a concern for freedom and the Constitution?

[ellery]

I find the smell of sauerkraut offensive and sickening. By your reasoning, a downstairs neighbor who constantly cooked sauerkraut is a slime ball and a scum and should be evicted -- right?

After all, she's violating the ''any nuisance; any offensive noise, odor or fumes; or any hazard to health" clause of her agreement.

Right?

[Riverman94610]

Thank you for your wise reply,Freedom.
How"smoker's rights"ever got to be part of the conservative agenda is beyond me.
Keep truth telling!

[1stFreedom]

>>I find the smell of sauerkraut offensive and sickening. By your reasoning, a downstairs neighbor who constantly cooked sauerkraut is a slime ball and a scum and should be evicted -- right?

Sure. Absolutely. Keep smells within your walls, or deal with the consequences.

[longtermmemmory]

actually I would have considered a countersuit for damages for misrepresenting the quality of the apartment. It was defective because it id not have sufficient integrity to prevent the smoke for wafting through the walls.

[Riverman94610]

"just watch smoker's behavior when their junkie status is threatened"
How true,Nove3.I used to smoke pot and understand the kick with that.I also used to drink and loved the buzz from that.I used to eat junk food and saw the pleasure in that harmful act.
But I SO wish someone would explain to me the attraction of TOBACCO.Tried it three times in my life and HATED it.No high,no nice taste,nothing positive whatsoever.
Is there a smoker in the house who can explain to me what it is about this plant that is so DESIRABLE?
Thanks,Riverman

[ellery]

Hm, strange since the witches they burned in the 1600s smoked a lot.

17th century America was hardly a model time that should be lauded.

[Thumper1960]

Your problem is that you're living in a poorly constructed building. If you do have such problem(s), there's more getting into your space than tobacco fumes.

[ellery]

I have never lived in an apartment building in which it was possible to keep all smells, especially cooking odors, within my apartment walls. There is always a fellow tenant with a sensitive nose who can smell things. By the same token, I've never lived in an apartment building where it was possible to keep all sounds within my own apartment walls.

Living in close quarters has consequences that you have to accept before moving in. Certainly there are abuses that are cause for eviction, but what you suggest -- keeping ALL smells and sounds from reaching other tenants -- is simply impossible.

[Raycpa]

You folks raise the issue of the good old days when our ancestors didn't have nasty regulations on smoking. You folks are living in a fantasy world.

[Raycpa]

After all, she's violating the ''any nuisance; any offensive noise, odor or fumes; or any hazard to health" clause of her agreement.

If according to the jury agreed to maybe yes.

[1stFreedom]

>>I have never lived in an apartment building in which it was possible to keep all smells, especially cooking odors, within my apartment walls.

Try opening a window. Use a fan to direct the air out of the window. Too cold? Cook something else.

Also, understand smoke odor stays around years after the smoke is gone. Kimshe, chitlins, menudo, fish -- these odors dissipate.

>>There is always a fellow tenant with a sensitive nose who can smell things.

I would say a consensus could be reached over food. Smoke is another category..

>>but what you suggest -- keeping ALL smells and sounds from reaching other tenants -- is simply impossible.

No it's not. Be considerate and don't cook smelly foods, or open windows, etc.. It's impossible if you simply insist on forcing your smells on others..

[cincinnati65]

You know, I've read a couple of studies that discuss a link between cell phone usage and tumor growth. I've decided that it is very inconsiderate of cell phone users to bring their irradiating phones into restaurants and expose me to potential cancer causing agents.

No, all cell phone users should be REQUIRED to 1) only use their cell phones outside the building, and/or 2) leave their cell phones in their cars prior to entering the restaurant.

Furthermore, I think we should sue Big Cellular and impose restrictive taxes on cell phones and their usage, and for God's sake ban all children under the age of 18 from operating them!!!

[metesky]

I'm not "you folks" and I don't recall raising the issue of "the good old days", minnie. I do remember saying that historically most bans didn't last and even your links refer to bans being rescinded. The pendulum swings both ways, AH.

[Raycpa]

Tenements in Colonial Boston? I don't think so! And even if they banned public smoking they probably didn't ban smoking private homes.

In 1638, the proscription was expanded to prohibit anyone from smoking in any inn or public house except in his own room "so as neither the master of the house nor any of the guests there shall take offense thereat which if they do, then such person is forthwith to forebear upon paying of two shillings sixpence fine for every offense" (Werner, 1922: 100).

Seems as though the laws then were similar to the result for this lease. Lets bring back the good old days.