Sorry, you can't smoke in your own apartment

y100.com ^ | Aug. 30, 2010

[Free ThinkerNY]

TACOMA, Wash., Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Officials in Washington state say they'll consider moving the health battle over secondhand smoke into a new and contentious arena -- people's homes.

The Tacoma-Pierce County Health Board will consider a proposal next month to classify secondhand smoke as a "nuisance" in multi-unit housing, The Tacoma (Wash.) News Tribune reported Monday.

Backers of the measure say they want it incorporated in the state's landlord-tenant law.

"This is the last piece of the puzzle that needs to be placed," Nan Hogan, who helped write the proposed legislation, said. "We've got smoke-free motel rooms, smoke-free restaurants, smoke-free bars, smoke-free office buildings and even prisons. Why should we go home and have to breathe it there?"

Hogan is a member of the group People United for Smoke-free Housing.

In most multi-family structures, the group says, there is no practical way to seal one apartment from another.

[CSM]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2487

It is not about a non-smoker’s rights or a smoker’s rights. It is about the owner’s right. The apartment complex owner should have the right to chose which segment of the market to entice.

[Bender2]

Re: Sorry, you can't smoke in your own apartment

Well, well! Then they have never seen my version... of the The Venus Butterfly sex move I learned when I guest starred on "LA Law" back in the day!

[Hank Kerchief]

“True. But there are words to describe people who make you smell their stink.”

One man’s stink is another man’s perfume. This is entirely a personal problem. I happen to like the smell of tobacco smoke in all its forms. Nobody is responsible to make the world just way you’d like it. Talk about Goldylocks. The bed’s too hard. I don’t like the smell. So sad.

Good grief!

Hank

[libertarian27]

(May Rome decrease and Christ increase.)

You migh want to change your tagline

(May Rome increase and Christ increase.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[VermiciousKnid]

You said it, Daffy!

Regards,

[r9etb]

One man’s stink is another man’s perfume. This is entirely a personal problem. I happen to like the smell of tobacco smoke in all its forms. Nobody is responsible to make the world just way you’d like it.

So, basically, you are claiming that smokers are not bound by the same concept of "rights" that applies to the rest of us -- according to you, their rights apparently do not end "where the other man's nose begins."

The fact is that smoking is one of those things that is nearly impossible to keep private. Smoke does not respect boundaries: it has a tendency to spread where it will, and it invades other people's space whether they want it to or not.

A smoker's expectation of being able to smoke around other people is not based on a "right," it is merely an assumption that the people around him will tolerate his actions. The various laws concerning smoking, including this one, have their roots in the fact that people in general have become much less willing to tolerate the unpleasantness that smokers inflict on them.

Is a law like this a violation of property rights? Yes. But at the same time, it's important to note that it's really a clash of two different and legitimate interests. Laws like this come in response to the fact that smokers' personal choices tend to inflict unwanted consequences on those around them.

[HenpeckedCon]

There’s one particular a-hole from Kalifornia who posts nothing but anti-smoking threads. He’s an anti-prop 8 crusader to from what I understand.

[kevao]

Better nine people be denied jobs than one person be denied his medical marijuana.

[libertarian27]

Is a law like this a violation of property rights? Yes. But at the same time, it's important to note that it's really a clash of two different and legitimate interests. Laws like this come in response to the fact that smokers' personal choices tend to inflict unwanted consequences on those around them.

You should have stopped at the first sentence.

There are other things that inflict unwanted consequences on those around them. Fireplaces, BBQ, auto exhaust, micro-wave use, man-made global warming(:)), airports(noise), farming(dust-smell), certain plants or animals(allergies), consuming meat(PETA)- if they don't like your activity, your activity becomes an unwanted consequence for them, whether physically or psychologically . How far are you willing to take this?

You really should have stopped at that first sentence.

[r9etb]

You should have stopped at the first sentence.

No, I should not have.

It is supposedly a basic tenet of libertarianism that you do not have the right to impose consequences on me without my consent. Perhaps you simply have not had your morning coffee yet.

[libertarian27]

It is supposedly a basic tenet of libertarianism that you do not have the right to impose consequences on me without my consent...

Yes it does, to go back to the original article of this thread, as a landlord myself I adhere to a saying.

Anytime a tenant purports to tell the landlord what the landlord can and can't do - it's time for the tenant to leave.

Private Property Rights

[r9etb]

Why not just say you’re going to ignore what I said because you’re not willing to think about it?

[libertarian27]

Why not just say you’re going to ignore what I said because you’re not willing to think about it?

I didn't ignore your question, did you not see that 'yes' at the beginning of my first sentence?

You wrote:

It is supposedly a basic tenet of libertarianism that you do not have the right to impose consequences on me without my consent...

I answered. You are putting consequences on property owners for personal enjoyment. You have a right to pursue enjoyment, you don't have a right to enjoyment, especially on someone elses property.

We can bicker left and right on how people annoy us, but it will turn into an episode of Oprah.

This is a Private Property issue, cling to it as long as we can because it is dwindling fast and furious.

When all is said and done: This is not about smoking - never was.

[r9etb]

You are putting consequences on property owners for personal enjoyment. You have a right to pursue enjoyment, you don't have a right to enjoyment, especially on someone elses property.

Which sidesteps the rather obvious fact that a smoker's "pursuit of enjoyment" has a way of stinking up the neighbor's apartment, whether that neighbor wants it to or not. At the very least, it stinks his own place up and leaves it stinking even after that smoker moves out -- he imposes consequences either on you (who have to render it less offensive), or on the person who moves in after him.

Any way you slice it, the smoker's actions impose consequences on others. Including you.

Now, it's your right as a landlord to allow that to happen -- but you cannot deny that those consequences actually are imposed.

Your non-smoking tenants have to choose between the smell, and the expense of moving to a different place.

Or ... folks may not rent from you at all, because your place stinks.

[r9etb]

When all is said and done: This is not about smoking - never was.

Well, no, the anti-smoking crusade actually is and always has been about smoking. We can agree that the anti-smoking crusaders go too far.

Though, as a non-smoker, I have to admit that I quite enjoy the benefits of their success, and a lot of places get my money now, that never would have when they were full of smoke.

And you've got to acknowledge the "why" of their crusade: under most circumstances smoking is not a "private" activity -- it affects everybody in the room, whether they want it to or not. The anti-smoking crusaders chose not to tolerate the very real consequences that smokers were imposing upon them.

[Doe Eyes]

This is a Private Property issue, cling to it as long as we can because it is dwindling fast and furious.

When all is said and done: This is not about smoking - never was.

So when the Government finally outlaws smoking tobacco leaves (like they have marijuana leaves), this will no longer be an issue with you?

[libertarian27]

Which sidesteps the rather obvious fact that a smoker's "pursuit of enjoyment" has a way of stinking up the neighbor's apartment, whether that neighbor wants it to or not.

That's the case for everything when you rent the use of the property of someone else. Cooking odors, loud kids, barking dogs, spraying cats, hard of hearing tv watchers,etc.

At the very least, it stinks his own place up and leaves it stinking even after that smoker moves out --

It places an odor on my property - I allowed it, if he pays his rent and doesn't destroy the place he'll get a good reference and his security deposit back for his stay at my property.If he doesn't he won't, plus a judgment for that non-paying rent thing...

he imposes consequences either on you (who have to render it less offensive)

That's my choice, or at least it used to be my choice until laws like this get passed

, or on the person who moves in after him.

That is THEIR decision, I am not Queen and they are not my surfs, I am a landlord and they are tenants who are free to rent the use of my property or not.

[libertarian27]

This is a Private Property issue, cling to it as long as we can because it is dwindling fast and furious.

When all is said and done: This is not about smoking - never was.

So when the Government finally outlaws smoking tobacco leaves (like they have marijuana leaves), this will no longer be an issue with you?

What? Huh? No, this isn't about smoking, it's about property right and they are dwindling swiftly....the yucky smoke smell being banned by gov't edict instead of a property owner deciding to ban it or not is so welcoming to people that can't see past their offended nose - of the restrictions on property owners.

This is not about smoking because stripping property rights did not begin with smoking bans and it will not end with just smoking bans. It will go on and keep going on.

[Theo]

I agree. I didn’t demand that this woman stop smoking. We simply found another place to live.

That said, I do support this legislation. Smokers can be such self-centered jerks, filling their lungs with smoke to their hearts’ content, and caring not at all about how their habit negatively affects others.