NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always felt people should be able to do whatever they want to do in their own homes as long as it isn't illegal.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2008-02-08-smoking-lawsuit_N.htm?csp=34

However, she lives in an apartment building and the smoke from her apartment is invading the common area and a neighbors apartment. This infringes on their right to live smoke free and could pose a health hazard to them.

Huff however, has a right to do as she pleases in her own home and that includes smoking.

So, the big question is should Huff be made to stop smoking in her apartment?

I don't understand.
How does the smoke get into another persons flat?
What do you mean by a common area?
EDIT: hey where did that link come from? that wasn't there when i posted this first.

This is a tough one. I am for individual rights however it does cross the line when it infringes on others individual rights. I say she can smoke in her apartment as long as it does not go into the other apartments or common areas. If it does it should not be banned but be regulated through fines. If you own the apartment(condo) then you only own the space that the apartment occupies. If you are particularly noisy then they can fine you for being to loud. Barbeque's are a big problem for many apartments. Most places have a partial ban on BBQ's or a complete ban on them. Just because of the level of smoke they make so there shouldn't be much of a difference with smoking.

I don't understand.
How does the smoke get into another persons flat?
What do you mean by a common area?

Smoke can easily drift through cracks or even open windows. Common area would be hallways, stairs, foyer etc.

Apartment complexes have rules that are written in rental agreements/leases. If there is a rule forbidding it, then, of course, she has to abide by the rule. If there is no rule, then her neighbors are s.o.l. Out of courtesy to her neighbors, though, she should smoke elsewhere. And certainly her neighbors can try to pressure her to stop. In the meantime, the other tenants can petition the apartment management to add a rule about smoking (most of them probably could be persuaded since smoke damages carpets and drapes and stains the walls a nasty brownish-yellow which would add to their costs when refurbishing the apartment for new tenants).

Unless she can come up with some way of keeping the smoke out of that common area, yes.

I don't understand.
How does the smoke get into another persons flat?
What do you mean by a common area?

Did you read the article? The common area is the hallway one walks down to get from the entrance to the building into your apartment.

no because it adds a restriction to her living there that didnt exist when she moved in. if the other residents want a smoke free building they need to move to one, not get the benefit "for free" by changing a pre-existing agreement.

Okay this seems tricky.
I suppose a good idea would be to actually tell tell the smoker don't smoke so much it's damaging other people's health.
Smoker should not smoke in her room, or go on nicotine patches.'
It's not too much effort for the smoker to go out and smoke outside.

However the couple with the Kid did try renovations to stop the smoke, and i can understand them getting a bit annoyed at this.

They are suing the wrong person, if they feel the need to sue.
It is the responsibility of the owners of the apartment house to correct the obviously faulty ductwork that allows air from a neighbor's apartment to be pumped into theirs. If it's such a problem, then an exhaust fan should be installed into Huff's apartment at no cost to her to vent the smoke outdoors.

She has the right to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited either by law or by her tenancy agreement.

As smoking tobacco is not explicitly prohibited, then she has the right to do so.

As for the neighbours, if they don't like it, then they can move elsewhere. Nothing obliges them to live with the smoke, nothing forces them to expose their child, etc. It is their choice.

If we allow ones freedom of choice to be restricted within our own personal spaces by those that exist outside of those spaces we will soon be forced to obey the loudest, most persistent of busybodies in all aspects of our lives. The problem with this is that the loudest and most persistent busibodies that I know of are the Phelps.

Do you want to go down that route?

no because it adds a restriction to her living there that didnt exist when she moved in. if the other residents want a smoke free building they need to move to one, not get the benefit "for free" by changing a pre-existing agreement.

Oh, actually, this.

So if you can smoke freely in your apartment, even if the smoke bothers your neighbors, how come you can't play music at high volume in the middle of the night?

Presumably the agreement she signed when she moved in said something about not disturbing her neighbors, and I can't see a more clear example than this.

She should be able to smoke, and the anti-smokers should be able to whine. It's a win-win situation!

Without a copy of the tenancy agreement, any conclusion we attempt to come to is moot.

So if you can smoke freely in your apartment, even if the smoke bothers your neighbors, how come you can't play music at high volume in the middle of the night?

Presumably the agreement she signed when she moved in said something about not disturbing her neighbors, and I can't see a more clear example than this.

Presumably not. The agreement would normally be very specific about what constitutes causing a nuisance to the other residents, including noise after a specific time, ownership of pets etc.

Any agreement that just specified 'not disturbing' the other residents would be worthless. What constitutes disturbing? Bad fashion sense, for example, would that count? What about having odd friends? Isn't that disturbing?

Without a copy of the tenancy agreement, any conclusion we attempt to come to is moot.

You say that like it's a bad thing.;)

Presumably not. The agreement would normally be very specific about what constitutes causing a nuisance to the other residents, including noise after a specific time, ownership of pets etc.

Any agreement that just specified 'not disturbing' the other residents would be worthless. What constitutes disturbing? Bad fashion sense, for example, would that count? What about having odd friends? Isn't that disturbing?

My agreement is VERY unspecific, having only a short clause saying that I have to comply with local rules for the building. What they are I don't even know, but I got a note in the mail just the other week talking about the importance to not disturb your neighbors, which was prompted by someone's repeated drilling in the walls, and that was NOT done during the night.

Perhaps you have laws in the US that say that an agreement has to be very specific, because I don't see what the owner of an apartment building has to gain by it. Here it's pissing multiple people off just to please one tenant, and that's not good.

My agreement is VERY unspecific, having only a short clause saying that I have to comply with local rules for the building. What they are I don't even know, but I got a note in the mail just the other week talking about the importance to not disturb your neighbors, which was prompted by someone's repeated drilling in the walls, and that was NOT done during the night.

Perhaps you have laws in the US that say that an agreement has to be very specific, because I don't see what the owner of an apartment building has to gain by it. Here it's pissing multiple people off just to please one tenant, and that's not good.

An agreement doesn't have to be *very* specific. But, generic, broad, indefinite contracts are harder to enforce if challenged because it can always be argued that they were too nonspecific. The apartment owner thus by making a contract specific enough enables them to withstand legal opposition to it.

Your agreement may not be specific but it refers to following "local rules" which, I would bet, are very specific indeed.

Without a copy of the tenancy agreement, any conclusion we attempt to come to is moot.

We are cookie paying members of this forum and the rules of the forum do not forbid us from making moot conclusions. Conclude onward. :p

However built the house is responsible for doing such a poor job that smoke gets from one apartment to another and should be made to come fix their mistake at no extra cost.

But if that isn't an option then she has no right to pollute someone else's home with smoke.

If a neighbour would be allowed to smoke up my apartment then I expect to be allowed to crank up my favourite power metal to the max until 3am.

No.

However, if Huff has a deck or patio perhaps she should smoke out there.

But all in all it is her home, and she can smoke there. The other tenants should insulate their apartment better.

If she is producing the smoke, it's her responsibility to make sure it doesn't intefere with other people lives, same as if she was playing overly loud music etc etc.

no because it adds a restriction to her living there that didnt exist when she moved in. if the other residents want a smoke free building they need to move to one, not get the benefit "for free" by changing a pre-existing agreement.

This

They are suing the wrong person, if they feel the need to sue.
It is the responsibility of the owners of the apartment house to correct the obviously faulty ductwork that allows air from a neighbor's apartment to be pumped into theirs. If it's such a problem, then an exhaust fan should be installed into Huff's apartment at no cost to her to vent the smoke outdoors.

and this

So if you can smoke freely in your apartment, even if the smoke bothers your neighbors, how come you can't play music at high volume in the middle of the night?
Passive smoking is a more series issue than overhearing loud music, as it increases the risk of heart disease and lung cancer. Individuals have a right to smoke, but passive smoking does infringe upon others fundamental liberty. So if she is producing smoke that is entering a public place, she should stop. That does not mean she cannot smoke in private, so long as she does not pollute the air of non-smokers and put their health at risk. This is an issue of basic rights: the right not to be forced to breathe in noxious substances.

Legally, the case will be dependent on the tenancy agreement and the laws of the land. I image any tenancy agreement would have additional protection from nuisance, which would also apply to filling hallways with smoke.

no, but if i was judging the case i'd order her or the building owner to fix the place for draughts, seals around the doors and such, so that the smoke cannot permeate into common areas and other people's living spaces.

I've always felt people should be able to do whatever they want to do in their own homes as long as it isn't illegal.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2008-02-08-smoking-lawsuit_N.htm?csp=34

However, she lives in an apartment building and the smoke from her apartment is invading the common area and a neighbors apartment. This infringes on their right to live smoke free and could pose a health hazard to them.

Huff however, has a right to do as she pleases in her own home and that includes smoking.

So, the big question is should Huff be made to stop smoking in her apartment?

She should be made to take steps to keep the smoke from leaving her apartment. *nod*

She should be made to take steps to keep the smoke from leaving her apartment. *nod*

Like I said before: what about smoking on a deck or patio (if her apartment has one)? Putting in some air filters or something would probably be polite, too.

Like I said before: what about smoking on a deck or patio (if her apartment has one)? Putting in some air filters or something would probably be polite, too.

That's the part I never understood:

It takes a real fuckin' asshole to smoke around people who don't want to be near smoke. Why do we need laws to tell people not to be fuckin' assholes? Why? WHY?!? :(

Make her somhow conceal the smoke. Y'know, like smoking in a bathroom with the door shut.

It takes a real fuckin' asshole to smoke around people who don't want to be near smoke. Why do we need laws to tell people not to be fuckin' assholes? Why? WHY?!?
Because some people LIKE to be assholes. Unfortunatly.

She should be made to take steps to keep the smoke from leaving her apartment. *nod*

So she should never EXHALE, if I understand you aright. ;)

Make her somhow conceal the smoke. Y'know, like smoking in a bathroom with the door shut.

Or, if her neighbors want to live in a smoke-free building they should move to one (as has been said already).

Make her somhow conceal the smoke. Y'know, like smoking in a bathroom with the door shut.

Uh, no.

Smoke on the patio, or smoke with windows open, AND have some air filters. That's be fine. Cigarette smoke goes away after a second outside, but can linger inside....

That's the part I never understood:

It takes a real fuckin' asshole to smoke around people who don't want to be near smoke. Why do we need laws to tell people not to be fuckin' assholes? Why? WHY?!? :(

Because if deep down people weren't fucking assholes, laws would not be necessary at all.

Or, if her neighbors want to live in a smoke-free building they should move to one (as has been said already).
Why on Earth should they?

They’re not infringing on Huff’s rights (as long as they’d be fine with her smoking if the smoke was contained; any other position would be ridiculous), she’s infringing on there’s, albeit unintentionally.

Simple solution: there needs to be better air filtering or better containment of the smoke. No-one need move.

A question: How is the smoke getting into the neighbor's apartment? That would help us figure out an answer.

doesn't this apartment have windows?

also its bullshit to sue the woman in the same sense that people should be able to sue me for farting :p

edit:

Or, if her neighbors want to live in a smoke-free building they should move to one (as has been said already).

I would of thought with ventilation being that bad in the building a little second hand smoke would be the least of your worries *goes to top floor and leaves gas oven on*

also its bullshit to sue the woman in the same sense that people should be able to sue me for farting :p
True; it’s all blown out of proportion.

Don’t neighbours talk any more? If I’m playing music too loud, my neighbours come up and politely ask me to turn it down, and I will comply. We can then go on being friends.

Why can't she smoke with the window open and let the smoke blow out?

Why can't she smoke with the window open and let the smoke blow out?

Beats me. That's what I've been saying. Smoke on the deck or patio, or open the window...

True; it’s all blown out of proportion.

Don’t neighbours talk any more? If I’m playing music too loud, my neighbours come up and politely ask me to turn it down, and I will comply. We can then go on being friends.

I'm surprised this sort of thing ever gets so far, I mean their actually suing her for Gods sakes! how did this case ever get accepted?!

if I was the landlord I would be begging for an excuse to kick such folk out :)

Why can't she smoke with the window open and let the smoke blow out?

because this is New York, opening windows has the opposite affect :p

Why on Earth should they?

They’re not infringing on Huff’s rights (as long as they’d be fine with her smoking if the smoke was contained; any other position would be ridiculous), she’s infringing on there’s, albeit unintentionally.

Simple solution: there needs to be better air filtering or better containment of the smoke. No-one need move.

They're suing her for something which is not her fault or responsibility, so yes they are.

They’re suing her for something which is not her fault or responsibility, so yes they are.
No-one has a right not to be sued, even in circumstances where the act of suing is wrong (and where the case will be thrown out in all probability).

I agree their reaction is totally wrong, but I don’t see why folks should move because one of their neighbours activities annoy them. There is an obvious compromise to be made.

No-one has a right not to be sued, even in circumstances where the act of suing is wrong (and where the case will be thrown out in all probability).

I agree their reaction is totally wrong, but I don’t see why folks should move because one of their neighbours activities annoy them. There is an obvious compromise to be made.

Yes, they should try being reasonable human beings.

They're suing her for something which is not her fault or responsibility, so yes they are.

Help, I'm uncontrollably smoking in my apartment when I could go outside or open a window! Its not my fault!

Help, I'm uncontrollably smoking in my apartment when I could go outside or open a window! Its not my fault!

Why should she have to go outside, is there any rule against you doing legal activities inside your own home?

Its legal for me to throw a raging party at 4 o'clock on Monday morning. However, there are rules that say I can't do anything which 'disturbs the peace or comfort' of my neighbours.

HEY!
STOP HAVING SEX OVER THERE IN YOUR PLACE, I CAN HEAR YOUR BEDSPRINGS SQUEAKING!

Yeah, I can see that going over very well.

Why should she have to go outside, is there any rule against you doing legal activities inside your own home?

Its legal for me to throw a raging flat party at 4 o'clock on Monday morning. However, there are rules that say I can't do anything which 'disturbs the peace or comfort' of my neighbours.

So if you can smoke freely in your apartment, even if the smoke bothers your neighbors, how come you can't play music at high volume in the middle of the night?

Because there is an existing law that says you cant. There's no such law here.

Its legal for me to throw a raging flat party at 4 o'clock on Monday morning.

Actually, in most places...no, it's not. There are laws in many places that limit the volume after a certain time on weekday nights

Actually, in most places...no, it's not. There are laws in many places that limit the volume after a certain time on weekday nights

Its causing the disturbance thats illegal - not throwing a party itself. If I throw a party in a farmhouse and no neighbour hears it then its not illegal. But I do have a duty not to disturb or discomfort my neighbours, and that is exactly what this person is doing.

Its causing the disturbance thats illegal - not throwing a party itself. If I throw a party in a farmhouse and no neighbour hears it then its not illegal. But I do have a duty not to disturb or discomfort my neighbours, and that is exactly what this person is doing.

Not really, and if you fail to see the difference there's no hope for you.

She RENTS. It's not HER home. She needs to abide by the rules of the landlord and may be evicted for endangering her neighbors - cigarettes are a fire hazard, the fumes are noxious, the smoke damages the landlord's properties.

I do need to qualify this with a statement that if the lease agreement didn't ban smoking or specifically permitted it, then the other tenants don't have anything to complain about.

Its causing the disturbance thats illegal - not throwing a party itself. If I throw a party in a farmhouse and no neighbour hears it then its not illegal. But I do have a duty not to disturb or discomfort my neighbours, and that is exactly what this person is doing.

That is actually entirely untrue. Many towns cities and villages have specifically proscribed decibel limits. If the noise you make exceeds those limits, you're breaking the law, even if nobody is around to hear it.

The idea of "if I make a lot of noise but nobody hears it it's not illegal!" is as nonsensical as saying "If I run a red light at 3 in the morning with nobody else on the road it's not illegal!".

That's stupid, and wrong. The fact is that if there is some law on decibel limits and you break it but nobody's around you probably won't get in trouble because...well...who is going to report you?

But the fact is, most of these things are limited by specific decebel amounts, not some vague and amorphous concept of "disturbance"

But the fact is, most of these things are limited by specific decebel amounts, not some vague and amorphous concept of “disturbance”
Yes, but I can’t think of anywhere that has a noise limit that isn’t near other inhabitants.

OTOH, there is an unofficial policy, at least in Britain, of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Plenty of illegal free parties go on, but if no-one’s disturbed by the noise and the party-goers don’t fuck up their surroundings, the police will turn a blind eye.

Same goes for a lot of things; smoking cannabis for example. As long as you aren’t blatantly smoking it in front of those who get offended, or children and the like, and you aren’t making a huge amount of money off of it, the police will leave you alone.

Not that they’d admit that, mind.

Yes, but I can’t think of anywhere that has a noise limit that isn’t near other inhabitants.

OTOH, there is an unofficial policy, at least in Britain, of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Plenty of illegal free parties go on, but if no-one’s disturbed by the noise and the party-goers don’t fuck up their surroundings, the police will turn a blind eye.

Same goes for a lot of things; smoking cannabis for example. As long as you aren’t blatantly smoking it in front of those who get offended, or children and the like, and you aren’t making a huge amount of money off of it, the police will leave you alone.

Not that they’d admit that, mind.

And until you run into the one who actually DOES enforce the law.///

I'm glad they're suing her. I hope they squeeze every penny they can out of her ash-filled cancerous body.

Anyone who smokes in public is wilfully and deliberately posing a health risk to OTHER PEOPLE. It's fine if they want to try and get cancer or emphysema as quickly as they can because, I don't know, I guess they just hate living, but to purposefully inflict it on other people I think is just sick.

People say they have 'a right to smoke'. That's just disgusting. We don't give people a right to run around in the street spraying PCP in people's faces or rubbing asbestos into the skin of passers-by, so it's absolutely stupid that we give people a right to smoke.

That Huff should be ashamed of herself that she is deliberately jeopardising the health of her neighbours - including a THREE YEAR OLD CHILD just so that she can get her pathetic suck on a piece of tobacco.

Smoking should be illegal.

And until you run into the one who actually DOES enforce the law.
I’ve yet to.

The only convictions for pot I’ve ever heard of were because either the person in question was causing trouble anyways, and happened to have weed on them, or that they were smoking in a completely inappropriate place, i.e. near a school or kiddies' playpark.

People say they have 'a right to smoke'. That's just disgusting. We don't give people a right to run around in the street spraying PCP in people's faces or rubbing asbestos into the skin of passers-by, so it's absolutely stupid that we give people a right to smoke.
Your analogy fails.

<snip>

Anyone who smokes in public is wilfully and deliberately posing a health risk to OTHER PEOPLE. <snip>

That's where you fail, she's not smoking in public, she's smoking in her apartment.

I'm glad they're suing her. I hope they squeeze every penny they can out of her ash-filled cancerous body.

Anyone who smokes in public is wilfully and deliberately posing a health risk to OTHER PEOPLE. It's fine if they want to try and get cancer or emphysema as quickly as they can because, I don't know, I guess they just hate living, but to purposefully inflict it on other people I think is just sick.

People say they have 'a right to smoke'. That's just disgusting. We don't give people a right to run around in the street spraying PCP in people's faces or rubbing asbestos into the skin of passers-by, so it's absolutely stupid that we give people a right to smoke.

That Huff should be ashamed of herself that she is deliberately jeopardising the health of her neighbours - including a THREE YEAR OLD CHILD just so that she can get her pathetic suck on a piece of tobacco.

Smoking should be illegal.

Oh shut up, will ya?

*puffs smoke into thread*

I'm glad they're suing her. I hope they squeeze every penny they can out of her ash-filled cancerous body.

I already detect your bias. Ok, Ill read this and take it with a grain of salt.


Anyone who smokes in public is wilfully and deliberately posing a health risk to OTHER PEOPLE. It's fine if they want to try and get cancer or emphysema as quickly as they can because, I don't know, I guess they just hate living, but to purposefully inflict it on other people I think is just sick.

Youre right. I hate living. I really fucking hate it. I hate it so much that Im going to kill myself in a manner that wont take effect until Im roughly 60.

People say they have 'a right to smoke'. That's just disgusting. We don't give people a right to run around in the street spraying PCP in people's faces or rubbing asbestos into the skin of passers-by, so it's absolutely stupid that we give people a right to smoke.

Your analogy sucks. Besides, you have a right to your stupid opinion, and I have to hear it. So I get a right to kil my lungs if I choose to.

That Huff should be ashamed of herself that she is deliberately jeopardising the health of her neighbours - including a THREE YEAR OLD CHILD just so that she can get her pathetic suck on a piece of tobacco.

Hey, if shes allowed to do it in her room, they cant do anything. Besides, second hand smoke's danger is overrated. Smelling smoke from yards away wont harm you.

Smoking should be illegal.

I disagree. Your entilted to your self rightous moralist beliefs, but I disagree. Its bad enough that laws saying I cant smoke in a fucking bar (youre there to drink a toxin anyway!) are being enacted all over the country.

*joins Trollgaard in blowing smoke into thread*

Yes, but I can’t think of anywhere that has a noise limit that isn’t near other inhabitants.

OTOH, there is an unofficial policy, at least in Britain, of ‘out of sight, out of mind’. Plenty of illegal free parties go on, but if no-one’s disturbed by the noise and the party-goers don’t fuck up their surroundings, the police will turn a blind eye.

Same goes for a lot of things; smoking cannabis for example. As long as you aren’t blatantly smoking it in front of those who get offended, or children and the like, and you aren’t making a huge amount of money off of it, the police will leave you alone.

Not that they’d admit that, mind.
I've seen that principle applied to suspected shoplifting. Although that may have more been down to laziness.

Ugh, that building is so old money it's an antique shop.

She has the right to smoke in the privacy of her own home. They have the right to live without smelling a bingo hall everyday.

The landlord has the responsibility to keep the building up to standards, and I don't think that's happening.

I already detect your bias. Ok, Ill read this and take it with a grain of salt.




Youre right. I hate living. I really fucking hate it. I hate it so much that Im going to kill myself in a manner that wont take effect until Im roughly 60.



Your analogy sucks. Besides, you have a right to your stupid opinion, and I have to hear it. So I get a right to kil my lungs if I choose to.



Hey, if shes allowed to do it in her room, they cant do anything. Besides, second hand smoke's danger is overrated. Smelling smoke from yards away wont harm you.



I disagree. Your entilted to your self rightous moralist beliefs, but I disagree. Its bad enough that laws saying I cant smoke in a fucking bar (youre there to drink a toxin anyway!) are being enacted all over the country.

*joins Trollgaard in blowing smoke into thread*

Nicely done! Nicely done!

*opens window, but continues smoking*

:p

We're all entitled to our opinions.

I just think it's sad that yours manifests itself in a way that harms others.

I just don't see that as ethical.

We're all entitled to our opinions.

I just think it's sad that yours manifests itself in a way that harms others.

I just don't see that as ethical.

How exactly does KoL's smoking harm others?

We're all entitled to our opinions.

I just think it's sad that yours manifests itself in a way that harms others.

I just don't see that as ethical.
Yeah, but this girl isn't breaking any laws or any contracts. Ethical? No. Asshatery? Yes. Legal? Yes.

How exactly does KoL's smoking harm others?

as in, in real life, when they breathe it in.


not as in the smoke KoL's blowing into the thread.

Nicely done! Nicely done!

*opens window, but continues smoking*

:p


Thank you.;)


Seriously, Im in the process of student teaching right now. I go teach a bunch of high school kids, whom most of them are great, but some of them are bratty little punks, than I go to class to help me learn how to deal with said bratty little punks so they may stop being brattly little punks. At the end of the day, Im fucking exhasuted mentally, and I just want to go to a bar, pound some shots, and smoke a few. But now I cant do them in the same building because of IL's moralist legislation:headbang:


Grrrrr....

as in, in real life, when they breathe it in.


not as in the smoke KoL's blowing into the thread.

Unless they're blind, that's their own fault, they could see that (s)he's smoking and if it bothered them they could just avoid it.
Plus I've yet to see proof of second-hand smoke causing harm - So-and-so smoke around me and now I've got cancer isn't proof

Unless they're blind, that's their own fault, they could see that (s)he's smoking and if it bothered them they could just avoid it.
Plus I've yet to see proof of second-hand smoke causing harm - So-and-so smoke around me and now I've got cancer isn't proof



But walking slightly around me is soooo difficult;)


As a side note, if I know that smoking bothers who Im with, be it asthma or just plain irritation, Ill step outside to smoke. But thats because I usually like who I hang out with;)

But walking slightly around me is soooo difficult;)

Obviously :rolleyes:

I'm glad they're suing her. I hope they squeeze every penny they can out of her ash-filled cancerous body.

Anyone who smokes in public is wilfully and deliberately posing a health risk to OTHER PEOPLE.

Did you miss the part where is smoking in her own apartment? Or was that inconvenient to your rant?

Thank you.;)


Seriously, Im in the process of student teaching right now. I go teach a bunch of high school kids, whom most of them are great, but some of them are bratty little punks, than I go to class to help me learn how to deal with said bratty little punks so they may stop being brattly little punks. At the end of the day, Im fucking exhasuted mentally, and I just want to go to a bar, pound some shots, and smoke a few. But now I cant do them in the same building because of IL's moralist legislation:headbang:


Grrrrr....

Holy shit, you mean that they're not all Straight-A students who are eager to learn where you are either? WHAT ARE THE ODDS!

Damn, it must be every teacher in the world's fault...

Why should she have to go outside, is there any rule against you doing legal activities inside your own home?
She should go outside because in the long term second-hand smoke can give others life threatening diseases and in the short term is unpleasant and can make people sick? I think that if it is posing a health hazard than she should not be allowed, and she should be required to go where it isn't affecting others. This could mean going outside, fixing the ventilation attached to her house or moving. Legally, however, I am not familiar with any laws or agreements that come into play but the fact that this hasn't been thrown out shows that there must be some point they have.

Although really, it should be an issue. It's common courtesy to avoid smoking around others.

Or, if her neighbors want to live in a smoke-free building they should move to one (as has been said already).

If she is making their homes unsafe (and therefore substandard) then I think she should leave.

She should go outside because in the long term second-hand smoke can give others life threatening diseases and in the short term is unpleasant and can make people sick? I think that if it is posing a health hazard than she should not be allowed, and she should be required to go where it isn't affecting others. This could mean going outside, fixing the ventilation attached to her house or moving. Legally, however, I am not familiar with any laws or agreements that come into play but the fact that this hasn't been thrown out shows that there must be some point they have.

Although really, it should be an issue. It's common courtesy to avoid smoking around others.

She's smoking in her own house.

If she is making their homes unsafe (and therefore substandard) then I think she should leave.

Or they should since they're the ones who have a problem with the livingspace. They want a building that is smoke-free, there are smoke-free apartments available, therefore they should go to one.

Or they should since they're the ones who have a problem with the livingspace. They want a building that is smoke-free, there are smoke-free apartments available, therefore they should go to one.

This isn't a "it's annoying" thing, though. This is actually dangerous towards other people and if she is causing them to be sick she should absolutely take steps to avoid it.

She's smoking in her own house.

Yes, but it's close enough to others that it affects them and they now have to breath it in. Maybe "around others" isn't the right term. How about it is common courtesy to not poison other people's houses with your self-destructive habit? I don't really like it either, it's too long winded. Hence why I used "around others" in the first post.

This isn't a "it's annoying" thing, though. This is actually dangerous towards other people and if she is causing them to be sick she should absolutely take steps to avoid it.

I will state again, if they want to live in a smoke-free building they should move to one.

I will state again, if they want to live in a smoke-free building they should move to one.

She is putting other people's health at risk. This is her issue.

She is putting other people's health at risk. This is her issue.

No, she is doing something which is not against the rules in her own home, it is their issue.

I didn't read TFA or TFT, but the tenant signed the lease with the understanding that she could smoke. It's the landlord's responsibility to keep the commons smoke-free. The landlord is responsible for providing both, so they should fix air flow in their building or ask the tenant if they want to renegotiate the lease.

No, she is doing something which is not against the rules in her own home, it is their issue.

Legally, we don't know their agreement, it might well ahve involved that, we don't know.
Morally, she could be causing long term harm to the four year old. She is infringing upon their rights as second hand smoke kills. It is her problem once it affects their right.

Legally, we don't know their agreement, it might well ahve involved that, we don't know.
Morally, she could be causing long term harm to the four year old. She is infringing upon their rights as second hand smoke kills. It is her problem once it affects their right.

Proof?

Everything that I have seen on it amounts to, You were exposed to second-hand? Yes. Well that's the cause then.

So I read the article, and I really have no idea why they aren't suing the landlord instead. It seems the legally obvious thing to do.

So I read the article, and I really have no idea why they aren't suing the landlord instead. It seems the legally obvious thing to do.

That's the main thing that's got me riled up about this, if they were truly concerned about the health risks they'd be doing something to see that the faults of the building were fixed (or moving to a smoke-free building) instead the idiocy that they are pursuing.

Proof?

Everything that I have seen on it amounts to, You were exposed to second-hand? Yes. Well that's the cause then.

http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm#E46E292
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/ETSKIDSHEALTH.PDF
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/whoreportchart.PDF
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/whoetsreport.PDF
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/whoetsreport.PDF
http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/health/smoke_free/fact_sheets/041505-tobacco_2hand.pdf

http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm#E46E292
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/ETSKIDSHEALTH.PDF
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/whoreportchart.PDF
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/whoetsreport.PDF
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/whoetsreport.PDF
http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/health/smoke_free/fact_sheets/041505-tobacco_2hand.pdf

The only thing of any promise there is the WHO report, which doesn't give any details.



By the way, yes I do smoke and also I don't smoke in my own house, just in case second-hand smoke is actually the cause of all the things it supposedly causes.

The only thing of any promise there is the WHO report, which doesn't give any details.


How about http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/pdf/app22005.pdf
http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/index.html then.

How about http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/pdf/app22005.pdf
http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/index.html then.

Once again, all those have are conclusions, and them being from California which has tried (not sure if it was successful) to ban smoking in all public places, rather suspect. I have checked actual study data (OK only two instances) and the conclusions didn't seem to really follow the data.

They should just dump her out the window and sell the body to science. There's no such thing as a right to smoke

They should just dump her out the window and sell the body to science. There's no such thing as a right to smoke



Your right to an opinion was just revocted.

Once again, all those have are conclusions, and them being from California which has tried (not sure if it was successful) to ban smoking in all public places, rather suspect. I have checked actual study data (OK only two instances) and the conclusions didn't seem to really follow the data.

Here is a review panel that goes into much more detail, although finding anything with actual data, true or false is nigh impossible. http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/PDFS/scothnov2004.pdf

So she should never EXHALE, if I understand you aright. ;)

That'd work. :)

That'd work. :)

But then she would be blue. Such an eye sore if they ever decided to sell.

They should just dump her out the window and sell the body to science. There's no such thing as a right to smoke

Whether you like it or not, yes there is.

*adds Sel Appa to ignorant bigot list... wait already did that :(*

There's no such thing as a right to smoke

Well said!

Or they should since they're the ones who have a problem with the livingspace. They want a building that is smoke-free, there are smoke-free apartments available, therefore they should go to one.

The rights of the non-smoker should always take superiority over the rights of the smoker.

She's the one hurting them so she's the one who should have to move.

The rights of the non-smoker should always take superiority over the rights of the smoker.

She's the one hurting them so she's the one who should have to move.


Unless the landlord said she has a right to smoke in her appartment. Than the people knew that it was a smoking apartment, and if it bothered them they should have looked elsewhere.


Im sorry, this arguement fails.

She should go outside because in the long term second-hand smoke can give others life threatening diseases and in the short term is unpleasant and can make people sick? I think that if it is posing a health hazard than she should not be allowed, and she should be required to go where it isn't affecting others. This could mean going outside, fixing the ventilation attached to her house or moving. Legally, however, I am not familiar with any laws or agreements that come into play but the fact that this hasn't been thrown out shows that there must be some point they have.

Although really, it should be an issue. It's common courtesy to avoid smoking around others.

She's smoking in her own house.

Whether she's smoking in her own house or not has no impact.

The point is that it's affecting them in their house.


By your logic you could shoot someone in the house next door to you through the windows but because you fired the gun in your own house then you shouldn't be liable.

Whether she's smoking in her own house or not has no impact.

The point is that it's affecting them in their house.


By your logic you could shoot someone in the house next door to you through the windows but because you fired the gun in your own house then you shouldn't be liable.




Except there is a law banning firing a gun through your wall trying to hit the guy in the next room.


There is no law in this state saying you cant smoke in your place of residence unless the landlord forbids it.


Smoking =/= Guns.

Even if it's legal due to a technicality the family has the right to have something done about it because what she's doing is so unethical.

Unless the landlord said she has a right to smoke in her appartment. Than the people knew that it was a smoking apartment, and if it bothered them they should have looked elsewhere.

This is a valid point.

But I must admit I have much more sympathy for the family than I do for Huff.

The family aren't selfishly harming anyone. She is.

Even if it's legal due to a technicality the family has the right to have something done about it because what she's doing is so unethical.


Ethics are relative.

Ethics are relative.

Yes they are. And personally I can't see how any of the ethics of smoking ring true.

If you're deliberately doing something that you know will damage other people just for your own pleasure and gratification, I don't think that's justified.

Yes they are. And personally I can't see how any of the ethics of smoking ring true.

If you're deliberately doing something that you know will damage other people just for your own pleasure and gratification, I don't think that's justified.

I dont believe that smelling someone smoking from a few yards away is damaging them. Second hand smoke is only bad if your right next to the person smoking or if they blow it in your face. Shes not doing that. Shes smoking peacfully in her room, and the smell bothers the group of moralist nannies, so they are playing the second hand smoke card which is a load of it.

I dont believe that smelling someone smoking from a few yards away is damaging them. Second hand smoke is only bad if your right next to the person smoking or if they blow it in your face. Shes not doing that. Shes smoking peacfully in her room, and the smell bothers the group of moralist nannies, so they are playing the second hand smoke card which is a load of it.

Well if you turned your speakers up to full volume with your windows open at three in the morning, or hung hardcore pornographic posters outside your house in a neighbourhood of children then legally you would have to stop doing that, even though it isn't technically harming anyone. Surely anyone who complains about that is just being a 'moralistic nanny'.

Well if you turned your speakers up to full volume with your windows open at three in the morning, or hung hardcore pornographic posters outside your house in a neighbourhood of children then legally you would have to stop doing that, even though it isn't technically harming anyone. Surely anyone who complains about that is just being a 'moralistic nanny'.



Well, the first one is disturbing the peace. Illegal. Smoking in your apartment is not.

The second one is about doing something outside. The poster is outside. If it was inside your house they have no complaint, nor should they. She is not outside smoking. She is smoking inside, making the comparison irrelevent.

Well, the first one is disturbing the peace. Illegal. Smoking in your apartment is not.

Yes but one could easily argue it should be classified as disturbing the peace.

The second one is about doing something outside. The poster is outside. If it was inside your house they have no complaint, nor should they. She is not outside smoking. She is smoking inside, making the comparison irrelevent.

Well what if the posters were inside your house but pressed up against every window, so from outside children could see them as easily as if they were on the outside of the house.


If the effects of an action manifest themselves outside the house in question then it makes no difference whether the act itself took place within or without the house.

Yes but one could easily argue it should be classified as disturbing the peace.

One could easily make that arguement, but it would be a crappy, failed arguement. I can easily make the arguement that black people are not people, but that arguement would be full of holes and a crappy, crappy arguement.



Well what if the posters were inside your house but pressed up against every window, so from outside children could see them as easily as if they were on the outside of the house.

Pressed up against every window, one could make the arguement that they were still "outside". However, if you have them on your kitchen wall, and from certain angels you could see them outside, I think that the arguement would not work and youd be told to get over yourself.


If the effects of an action manifest themselves outside the house in question then it makes no difference whether the act itself took place within or without the house.

Yes, but smelling smoke is not an illegal act and it doesnt "manifest itself" outside the house because shes not smoking outside her god damned house. If the smell of smoke bothers you, its your fault for moving into an appartment that allowed smoking. Shes not blowing it in your face, your not even in the same room, so the second hand smoke isnt hurting your health in any way, and you just dont like the smell, so theyre bitching, and should be told to stfu and if it bothers them find another appartment.

Regardless of how you feel, the facts of the case are if she had an agreement with her landlord that shes allowed to smoke in her appartment, or if the landlord decided he would allow smoking in his appartmet complex, than the people who are bothered by it have no case, and cant do anything but move.


This is like sitting in the smoking section of a resteraunt and than bitching about the smoke. It makes you an idiot.


Now I need a cigarette...*goes outside*

The rights of the non-smoker should always take superiority over the rights of the smoker.

She's the one hurting them so she's the one who should have to move.

Fail

Even if it's legal due to a technicality the family has the right to have something done about it because what she's doing is so unethical.

How so?

Fail

Oh well done, you've won the argument with one meaningless word.

If you're not going to explain what you mean then just do us all a favour and go jump into a volcano.

Don't just shoot down people's points when you can't even be bothered or don't have sufficient cranial capacity to elaborate your own.

Oh well done, you've won the argument with one meaningless word.

If you're not going to explain what you mean then just do us all a favour and go jump into a volcano.

Don't just shoot down people's points when you can't even be bothered or don't have sufficient cranial capacity to elaborate your own.

Non-smoker's do not have more rights than smokers.


Also, if you are going to attempt to attack my mental capacity, do try to at least vary it, rather than copy and pasting the exact same post in 2 threads.

Non-smoker's do not have more rights than smokers.

I K-N-O-W.


If you had actually read my post you would have seen that I said 'should'.

Also, if you are going to attempt to attack my mental capacity, do try to at least vary it, rather than copy and pasting the exact same post in 2 threads.

Well don't post the exact same meaningless post in more than one thread, simply adding one word onto someone else's post and trying to pass it off as a valid point.

I K-N-O-W.


If you had actually read my post you would have seen that I said 'should'.

OK, non-smokers do not and should not have more rights than smokers, and vice versa.



Вы неосведомленный трахаетесь


Well don't post the exact same meaningless post in more than one thread, simply adding one word onto someone else's post and trying to pass it off as a valid point.

If there had been anything worth responding to, I would have.

This hits close to home for me, literally, because my neighbors smoked epic amounts of weed.

It comes through the vents. One day I was sitting at my desk and I realized I had cotton mouth and was buzzed.

It's not fun to come home and have your throat start burning because your neighbors feel like turning their living room into a hothouse.

If I want to smoke, I'll smoke. I don't want to, though, and it's fucking annoying when my neighbors decide that I get to smoke because THEY want to smoke.

Yes, I called the cops on them at every opportunity.

Yes, I called the cops on them at every opportunity.
Did you try talking to them before-hand?

Did you try talking to them before-hand?
I'd dealt with them in the past (regarding noise problems) and decided I didn't want to bother. They're kids who have absolutely no clue how to live respectfully around others, so I just call the cops on them whenever they annoy me. They've already been ticketed for about a grand, and the next time I smell pot they go to jail. :D

What's sad is that if they weren't white college boys they'd have been taken to jail already. My country is fucked up.

Utter Crap.

Let's pretend that "Huff", instead of being a smoker, liked to cook all the time with a particular ingredient that "Mr Bob" was allergic to. Would it be "Huff"'s responsibilty to stop using that particular ingredient, or the Landlord's responsibility to perform the needed maintenence on the building?

The truth of the matter is that both sides need to quit being douchebags.

"Huff" needs to maybe crack a damn window, or buy one of those air filter machines made for just such a purpose. Even though she has every fucking right to smoke in her own home, that doesnt give her permission to be inconsiderate.

Her complaining, douchebag neighbors, need to stop whining and find something more important to devote themselves to.
I highly doubt that the situation is quite as bad as they would make it seem.
No one is more annoying than a militant Non-Smoker.

I myself smoke like a freakin' chimney.
If the smell or smoke offend you, I, out of courtesy, will move away while I smoke.
I would never light up in someone elses home, who didnt smoke, unless explicitly told it was allowed. Thats not good enough for you?
Too fuggin bad.

Is it just me who wants the Huff and the Hoff to get together?

I highly doubt that the situation is quite as bad as they would make it seem.

I can believe it. I can believe that it's possible, at least. I can't think of a single smell more disgusting, and one of my worst memories in life is being trapped in a car with a smoker for ten minutes. Seriously, I'd rather have spent that time in a tiny bathroom, with him in there having violent diarrhea.

I'm not a militant anti-smoker though. Smokers in Sweden are pretty considerate to non-smokers, and I never complain to them, but I wish they would be even more so, because hardly a day goes by without me having to practice holding my breath. Luckily I'm pretty good at it. :)

I also wish that smokers would realize that they stink like hell for several minutes after they finish smoking, and that if they felt they had to spare us from the smoke, they would also spare us of the stench, but I don't think that'll ever happen.

I can believe it. I can believe that it's possible, at least. I can't think of a single smell more disgusting, and one of my worst memories in life is being trapped in a car with a smoker for ten minutes. Seriously, I'd rather have spent that time in a tiny bathroom, with him in there having violent diarrhea.

I'm not a militant anti-smoker though. Smokers in Sweden are pretty considerate to non-smokers, and I never complain to them, but I wish they would be even more so, because hardly a day goes by without me having to practice holding my breath. Luckily I'm pretty good at it. :)

I also wish that smokers would realize that they stink like hell for several minutes after they finish smoking, and that if they felt they had to spare us from the smoke, they would also spare us of the stench, but I don't think that'll ever happen.

Really? You'd rather smell shit than smoke?

Really? You'd rather smell shit than smoke?

I can deal with people farting better than I can deal with cigarette smoke. I've also (believe it or not) smelled my own shit so I think I know pretty well what it would be like to be in the situation I described. Not fun, but at least not smoke.

Is it so hard to believe?

I can deal with people farting better than I can deal with cigarette smoke. I've also (believe it or not) smelled my own shit so I think I know pretty well what it would be like to be in the situation I described. Not fun, but at least not smoke.

Is it so hard to believe?

Actualy yes, that is very hard to belive. As an ex-non smoker I sorta understand, but still, it's shit man!