I am wondering about the barf alert here.
Wasn't your position on this that property owners had the right to set smoking rules the last time there was a controversy? You wanted individual bar & restaurant owners to say "smoking" or "no smoking" so as to provide a choice. Knowing full well that all would say "smoking".
Well, here we have it in housing. The landlord has the right to say yes or no to smoking. What is wrong with that concept?
Or is it that you feel smokers have rights, but those offended by smoke have no rights?
Often it isn't just a matter of being 'bothered' by secondhand smoke.
I used to be a smoker. Evey fall, I would get seriously ill with chronic sinusitis to the point they were going to operate. (This was after several years of fevers, penicillin, etc.)
They finally did an allergy test to see what I was allergic too - bingo! cigarette smoke.
So I stopped smoking. But I had to give up more than one job because of exposure to smoke and I had to curtail many of the social events and political events - conferences, etc, because, even tho' by then smoking wasn't allowed in the convention halls, it filtered thru' the air vents...and I would end up with a two week bout of sinusitis for attending one meeting.
It's much easier nowadays to avoid secondhand smoke.
those who demonize objectors, thank your lucky stars you aren't allergic to it or aren't constantly exposed to something you are...
No no, you are trying to start something here. If you read my post #2 before you even came into this thread, you will see my position as I stated it.
If landlords can allow smoking or non without government interception, then why can't the private business owners of restaurants, taverns and bars have the same control over "their" business??
Also, see my post #14.
It isn't clear if they plan to do this by attrition or by eviction.
"The landlord has the right to say yes or no to smoking. What is wrong with that concept?"
Absolutely nothing is wrong with the landlord making the call. Of course, that is probably the status quo today. Which makes me wonder why this article was even written or why the involvement of this "coalition."
Of course, it can't be part of any sort of propaganda to change from the status quo.....