Palin: "Absurd" Not To Consider 2012 Run
Bloomberg: Crime Stat Manipulations are "Tiny"
Wall Street Throwing More Money at Republicans
School Already Canceled Tomorrow for Snowpocalypse!
More Bald Eagles Spotted In Harlem!
Some city landlords have begun prohibiting tenants from smoking inside their apartments, because of the dangers of second-hand smoke. A study recently found that secondhand smoke causes at least 35,000 deaths from heart disease and 3,000 deaths from lung cancer in nonsmokers nationwide each year—and New Yorkers are even more at risk because their dense urban environment. As one tobacco expert put it: "Smoke doesn’t know to stop at a doorway. It fills the full capacity of every indoor location in which the cigarette is smoked." So at least one major real estate company is now stepping in to stop the smoke before it starts.
This month the Related Companies will ban smoking at some of its downtown apartment buildings, though the ban will only affect new tenants, who must sign an agreement promising not to smoke inside their homes. And developer Kenbar Management will ban smoking from all 298 units in its East Harlem building when it opens next month. Its smoking ban will even extend to private and shared terraces, and tenants must also agree not to smoke on any of the sidewalks that wrap around the building!
With the city contemplating a smoking ban in public parks and beaches, some smokers are outraged about a perceived ghettoization of smoking. One tenant at a Related Companies building tells the Times, "I think it’s absolutely absurd. How about a little tolerance? Smokers have become the whipping boys for everything that’s unhealthy about living in New York City." And Audrey Silk, founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, wonders, "If we’re talking about annoying odors, where do you draw the line? What about cooking odors, from fish or curry?" It's unclear how many deaths have been caused by second-hand fish odor inhalation.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Wow, so a tenant can't smoke outside his/her building...but a stranger can?
They should also require all tenents to have appropriate bohemian dress or they aren't getting in past the doorman to their own apartments. You can't spoil the ambiance of urban living.
they should just stick them in bubbles and make them breathe in their own second-hand smoke... this would actually save them money on buying cigarettes because it will take them 4x longer to finish their cigarette AND inhale all of their disgusting second-hand smoke thus resulting in smoking fewer cigarettes.
Agree. I despise second hand smoke!
How exactly will this be enforced?
I think smokers should be able to smoke where it doesn't bother other people, and you'd think an apartment would be it... on the other hand, when living in Sydney, I did have a neighbor that smoked so much that our hallway & bathroom reeked all the time... but these neighbors were so filthy they were eventually evicted and the problem was solved.
Maybe there's some other way to fix this. Better insulation? Fish-bowl smoking helmets?
Build a building like in the old days. Cement and cinder blocks. No drywall that you can just punch through 2 layers into your neighbors space, and hear every time they make love. Put in proper exhaust fan or tell neighbor to open their window (can they even? its a glass box).
I agree - smoke's no problem in the old building I live in now. That one in Sydney was much newer.
As far as asking them to open a window - they never answered their door. They really lived like rats. A cleaning crew had to make three visits after they moved out. The residents left a layer of trash on the floor - including cigarette butts. So, again, the nuisance was not limited to the smoke!
I agree. Drywall is cheap in every sense of that word.
Seems out of bounds until you live near a chainsmoker. There's a woman on my floor that smoked so much her neighbors on either side eventually complained. They came in with special sealant for her doors to make it more bearable.
you do not have a right to smoke. it's a priviledge. smokers need to understand that. they also need to learn to stop littering. do you know how much $ the city could rake in if they ticketed smokers for littering?
what does that even mean? 'you do not have a right to smoke. it's a priviledge.'
fck you, you boring facist. Who are you to decide what people can and cannot do? gawd, you people annoy me.
I hate what filthy litterbugs smokers are. Makes me crazy.
Then why don't they?
I'm all for it. Fish and curry odors may be annoying, but they aren't lethal. And why should I have to pay for better insulation because somebody is smoking next door? Ultimately those costs are going to be shared by everyone. Fish bowl smoking helmets are the best solution thus far.
While we're at it going #2 in apartment buildings should be illegal too and farting in public and wearing cheap perfume in elevators or cooking/eating Indian food... Stinky...
Well, except that second-hand farting hasn't been proven to have negative health consequences, aside from the occasional gag.
Voted yes because it should be left up to the landlord.
If I owned a building I would absolutely ban smoking indoors. The smoke and tar ruins a building. Not to mention the stench.
You're one of those people who gets confused by ballot questions when voting, aren't you? (reread the question and then see if you really meant to vote yes)
Smoking is not a right. It's a health hazard, especially to people who choose NOT to smoke but are still subject to breathing other people's smoke. I spend most of my days with headaches because of all the smoke I have to breath on my walk to work, by people who feel it's their right to stand in their doorway and blow smoke on the passers-by.
Then go live in the mountains if you don't like city air. 1 day of breathing car, truck, and furnace pollution is the same as smoking half a pack of cigs.
Exactly. Which is why I wish I didn't have to breath the other half from second-hand smoke.
Driving a car (smoking) is not a right. It's a health hazard, especially to people who choose NOT to drive (smoke) but are still subject to breathing other people's exhaust (smoke). I spend most of my days with headaches because of all the exhaust fumes (smoke) I have to breath on my walk to work, by people who feel it's their right to sit (stand) in their cars (doorway) and blow exhaust fumes (smoke) on the passers-by.
First hand exhaust makes breathing NYC air is like smoking a pack a day.
Remember guyz....smoking is dangerous to your health. So if you want to live longer...take care of your health ^_^
jyotish nadi
I really wish I lived in a no smoking building.
Also, are people being purposefully obtuse regarding cigarette smoke? Second hand smoke is not equivalent to curry, or farts. Unless it is a nice Asbestos Saag.
But if they ban smokers, how will they ever find the gas leaks?
i think it's fair for the building owner to determine whether they'd like to ban smoking in their properties. as a non-smoker i can't stand when a neighbor's smoke comes into my apartment under the door. if you're renting, you have a lot of restrictions in your lease, such as no nails in the walls, no pets, etc. this is just an extension. but a city-wide mandate might be stepping on toes...
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Because I am asthmatic, and the bastards coming for all the different people smoked like chimneys, and I couldn't breathe enough to speak.
A little too long between ciggie breaks, eh?
& the award for silly Godwin's law goes to...it is a surprise split, jutpskdiax & silver!
Yes, by comparing renter bans on smoking to the HOLOCAUST they truly stand out as ridiculous jerks with no sense of dignity or historical perspective. Congrats!
Where were you, silver, when they let renters ban pets! Why didn't you speak out? THE NAZIS HAVE ALREADY WON!?!
godwin law exclusion: sometimes a nazi is a nazi.
Let me get this straight-- comparing the willful marketing & sale of poisons that unarguably contribute to disease & death to the 9-11 body count = OFF LIMITS. Comparing landlords not renting their apartments = the Holocaust, World War II = A-OKAY?
All this squabbling about rights is making me wonder about landlord rights. Tenant rights in NYC hold sway in the mainstay, & I'm down with preventing discrimination, but smoking isn't a race or sex or family status issue.
Landlords can ban pets-- that is okay, right? Or is that more evidence of "Nazis" among us?
Enforcement is easy. Just make everyone remove their shades and blinds to make it easy for the smoking peeps.
This consider to be a good news, hope it will be implemented anytime soon. But I hope that, not only the new tenant would be under this smoking ban. I think it should be apply to all.
___________________________
Quick Weight Loss, Weight Loss Beads
this is 2009. Can you sum up this entire rant into a simple 2 line comment? We can't keep up these days ;)
fucking nazis. try and stop me.
It seems ridiculous to entirely ban smoking in private apartments. Why not make a provision that if the smell of smoke becomes a problem, a tenant can complain to the landlord?
I currently live under a construction site, and if I leave the window open the apartment smells like exhaust from the equipment they're using. There are extremely loud noises from the site that prevent me from sleeping after 6am most days. Health problems associated with exhaust inhalation and sleep deprivation are both documented issues, yet the city is doing nothing about it. I don't mind. Part of living here is compromise; if you want absolute control over your neighbors, move to the suburbs and join the homeowners association.
just like those citizens who correctly suggest that 9/11 was not a reasonable excuse for the invasion of privacy and civil rights (i.e. Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, etc.) a reasonable, thinking individual can understand that the "threat" of secondhand smoke does not warrant yet another invasion of our homes by the prying eye of the government.
Landlords do not equal Government. And as long as you're comparing to 9/11, smoking kills many times more people than 9/11 every year.
if a landlord is able to tell tenants what they can and can't do (even a LEGAL substance) under their own roof, the gov't is complicit. introducing the concept of "rights".
BTW your body count analogy is just hideous.
hotstepper!
I hate 2nd hand smoke but this is overstepping personal freedoms in one's own home. Hope someone challenges it.
That's the point. It's NOT their own home. It's an apartment. The right of his neighbors to breathe trumps the smoker's perceived right to pollute the building's air.
So, renters are homeless?
Damn fascists
Don't tread on me you closet republican bloomberg supporters.
The boyfriend of the chick who lives in the apartment next to me smokes up a storm, and the smoke seeps right into my bedroom. There's nothing worse than having to breathe secondhand smoke---while you're trying to sleep!! I'm glad he hasn't been there in a while.
I just want the government to get its nose out of my business when it comes to me being able to attack smokers at will on the street. STUPID BIG BROTHER. Your nanny state infringing on my right to shoot smokers with a fire extinguisher. Also to put spray paint on their faces. FASCIST.
westboro-ish.
...uh, I know you are but what am I? Seriously, NAME CALLING? Ohhhh you crypto-called me a homophobe! You are right hotstepper. You are fighting the noble quest to be a smoker. Really you are like Martain Luthor King Jr...or heck, the original Martin Luthor. Or Buddha! Or Frodo, carrying the Ring to the Pit of Doom. You are a true hero. Thanks for having the bravery to compare your gross habit with the struggle for gay civil rights.
for a nonsmoker, you're very excitable.
Who said I'm a nonsmoker!
Did someone just finish a paper for grad school?
But smoking a little weed in my apartment is still cool, right?
So 35k people die every year from second hand smoke and, according to the NVSR, about 63k people die from influenza and pneumonia?
To those that advocate a smoking ban, I have a question: Would it be OK for a landlord to require all tenants to receive a flu shot?
Yes. Landlords don't want tenants to die on them with no assets to collect the rest of the lease with.
You aren't serious, are you?
ya. I'm curious to what extent people are willing to have restrictions placed on themselves for the sake of public health (whatever that means).
It doesn't change the fact that cigarette smoke smells like shit and sticks around for a long time. I'm not even as worried about the health hazards as I am worried about smelling like someone's terrible habit - I shouldn't have to stink because they want to puff away. I actually sometimes feel bad for smokers because they have no clue how much they, their clothes and their belongings stink.
That being said, I don't know if smoking should be banned in individual apartments. If you seal doors properly and build quality walls, you shouldn't have tenants smelling the smoke of other tenants.
The problem here is citing false science and using insignificant stats to achieve an agenda. If you own a building and you don't like smoking regulate it for exactly what it is, don't hide behind made up "health" issues. Have a pair and ban it just like you would ban blasting your stereo at 3AM. Don't act like you are saving the world one cigarette at a time.
Secondhand smoke poses no significant health risk at a casual level.
What is a 'casual level'? And what addiction maintains a 'casual level'?
Every smoker I know smokes a pack a day or more.
And your comment is weird, especially since Surgeon General says NO exposure to secondhand smoke is safe.
You are obviously uneducated on the subject or you wouldn't say something so foolish.
I hear you. They will have to pry the cigarette from your cold, dead hands, right?
Just make smokers but some kind of guard over their doors that prevents smoke from seeping out into the hall and into other peoples apartments. Smokers should be able to smoke in their own apartments, if the landlord is cool with it, but they should then have to deal with all the smoke staying in their apartment.
Unfortunately that's virtually impossible. You can't make one apartment totally airtight. If nothing else, at some point the tenant is going to open the door into the hallway...
how bout working on dog owners and their dog's poop first? (along with fleas and urine in the elevator)
Godwin again! Far from being the Nuremburg Laws, this activity is tantamount to a ban on herding pigs over the Strassenbahn tracks in Kaiserslautern...in 1931.
I find that listening to my neighbor's incessant bachata music is far more harmful to my health. Despite complaints to my landlord, he refused to do anything but raise my rent,not make repairs, and allow the Section 8 bachata loving tenants paying 1971 market rate rent to continue assaulting my ear drums. If they were cigarette smokers there is a greater chance they will contract a brutal form of cancer and suffer greatly before they expire.
And if their secondhand smoke were blowing into your apartment, you could expire right along with them. Or ... live a long life hooked up to an oxygen machine. My mom did, and she never smoked the first cigarette, but sure was exposed to a lot of smokers.
Its more awesome when the smokers with the supplemental oxygen tanks smoke and breath from the oxygen tank at the same soon. There will be a big boom soon.
Not a chance, I moved away-let them fucking suffer and die. Both my parents smoked 2-3 packs a day. Both dead before their 55th birthday... I know firsthand how shitty smoking can be. I saw the crap that was drained from their lungs. Unreal.
As a reporter himself, I'm sure the author of this piece, John Del Signore, is familiar with the shenanigans that go on between taking comments from a source for an article and what ends up in the finished product.
So while he ends this piece with a snarky rebuttal ("It's unclear how many deaths have been caused by second-hand fish odor inhalation.") to my quote that appears in the NY Times article, I'll point out in my defense that that was hardly all I had to say to the reporter but which was reduced to that least important point among at least 4 or 5 intellectual responses. Seems the Times actively seek to keep our side from adding anything of real relevance to the debate while keeping up appearances of presenting both sides by simply providing SOME quote from our side.
To be even more clear, the point about odor was offered in order to give attention to the number who proclaim "I'm not even as worried about the health hazards as I am worried about smelling like someone's terrible habit." (see ohgoodgolly above in comment #24 for that perfectly prime example). As a smokers' rights advocate I'm fully aware of that protest and had offered just ONE comment, after a number of other more substantial points, as a preemption to that, as evidenced by the intro of my sentence, "[i]If[/i] we’re talking about annoying odors..."
That my full opinion was not printed by the Times is a dismal display but one where I will not allow it to reflect badly on me.
I addressed the issue of so-called secondhand smoke and its alleged effects separately. Not only is the evidence weak and still unproven that LIVING with a smoker for over 40 years increases the risk of death for anyone but if one were to accept that conclusion (of the landmark "study" by the EPA in 1992) what it means is that instead of 6 lung cancers per year (for any reason)normally expected in a population of 100,000, we might find 7. And that's living in the same household for 4 decades. Taking that into account, along with the golden rule of toxicology that the dose makes the poison, along with the fact that no study even exists investigating effects, if any, from living in a SEPARATE apartment, we're no longer talking health concerns in regard to banning smoking in apartments. We're talking hate concerns. The bottom line is that smoke from another's apartment is NOT killing anyone. Anyone who clings to that belief does so because it satisfies their own hatred of smoking/the smell instead of their intellect.
If you don't stand for scientific integrity en masse then everyone is at risk of some do-gooders' whims.
Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)
I think it's hilarious that people actually believe this is all being done in the name of personal health and safety! This is strictly another way for the city to make money. They get everyone riled up over the issue by making false/exaggerated claims of health risks in order to ensure they have the eyes of the law everywhere. I can just imagine everyone on their cell reporting illegal cigarette activity at the park, beach and in apartment buildings. The city is almost guaranteed to make a killing!
Listen, I don't want to get into this tired old discussion because the stupid fucking people that hate personal freedom are going to continue to hate it while not understanding some of the most basic underlying principles of western thought.
But I'll say it once so I don't go mad: You have RIGHT to do ANYTHING you want, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Smoking in your own apartment does not endanger the welfare of your neighbors anymore than running a microwave, or using a cellular device, or any of the 100,000 things in the modern world that give you cancer does.
This is beyond intrusive. It is an outrage. The fact that 41% of you have been sucked into this bullshit makes me insane.
How many of you wrote about how bad second hand smokes is for you but don't know if you have a cell tower on the roof of your building?
How many of you think second hand smoke is harmful but watch your food cook in the microwave with your eyes 2 inches away from the glass?
How many of you are afraid of getting lung cancer from the guy you passed in the park that was smoking a cigarette and go home to handle cleaning chemicals with your bare hands?
THE MODERN WORLD GIVE YOU CANCER, NOT YOUR NEIGHBORS PERSONAL LIFE CHOICES.
and with this comment, the topic should be officially closed.
-a smoker
Were you able to type that absurd gibberish with a straight face? No one could possibly be so slow-witted as to actually believe such nonsense My neighbors' cell phones and microwaves don't induce asthma attacks or necessitate trips to the ER.
You don't live in an apartment building, do you.
There is a simple solution to all of this!
If smokers embrace electronic cigarettes, then the issue of smoking bans will be mute. There is no second-hand smoke, no odor, no carcinogens, no CO2, and no mess like ashes, butts, etc. from electronic cigarettes. If smokers of tobacco cigarettes would switch their habit to a non-tobacco electronic cigarette, we would have no further need to further infringe on the personal freedoms of any one group.
If you are smoker, consider it as an option.You won't be inhaling all the chemicals and carcinogens that you currently do from your tobacco cigarette. If you are a non-smoker, learn about the technology, and pass the information on to your friends who are smokers. The electronic cigarette is a win-win in so many ways.
You can learn all about this technology including the contents of electronic cigarette vapor and other information such as scientific studies fully documented at my informational website, http://www.NoTobacco.net/Blog
Thank you
Further information presented in full at www.NoTobacco.net
As a smoker, instead of thinking "it won't happen here", look at what has happened across the United States. In other states (like New York State for instance) you are not allowed to smoke inside ANY public building. There are even restrictions being placed on a person's residence, if that residence happens to be in an apartment building! What can you do about it? Learn more about what you as a smoker can do to protect your freedoms, and at the same time, improve your health by using the latest technological advancements in nicotine delivery. Find out more about your options at http://www.NoTobacco.net today!
It seems that everywhere we go, there are more and more "No Smoking" zones. However, new technology allows smokers to enjoy their nicotine in a familiar form, without being subjected to No Smoking laws. NO second hand smoke! If you are a smoker, you should at least be AWARE of this technology! It could change your habit completely!
Find out more at www.NoTobacco.net !
no smokers should be able to smoke in their apartment. I'm a lib but there is a line people should not cross. Smokers have rights to. Infact, I'm going to start smoking for the heck of it and let my landlord try to stop me. I'll invite some more smoker friends and I will throw a smokers bowl party at my place, NIGHTLY :)
you should be allowed to smoke in your apartment if it doesnt stink up a neighbor's place and if you dont have kids
What is our world coming to? There are now outdoor no smoking areas, police fines for smoking in your car if you have an underaged person with you and of course not being able to smoke in an apartment that you pay rent for is ridculous - Would it not be easier for the government to just outlaw cigarettes altogether - As a smoker, this would force me to bite the bullet and quit.
Hey Mark,
Great comment. I absolutely agree with you. Smoking is a legal activity and why should smokers be discriminated and ghettosized? They might as well illegalized smoking. Why go through all the trouble of banning smoking here and there. It's just ridiculous.
Cheers~
Mark
It's not even necessary to cite science or social politics or legal schmegal, because that only serves to take the discussion outside the realm of human decency and compassion, and just plain old-fashioned doing the right thing. Just because one can smoke, doesn't mean one should when it affects people around them.
Go ahead, and argue about the right to smoke until blue in the face, meanwhile, the victims of second-hand smoke are suffering. I'll put money on it that when the right-to-smoker has his/her first child, if that child is subject to smoke, they will wake up and smell the smoke, and suddenly care. Or if they happen to quit and are subject to unwanted smoke themselves, they'll wake up and change their tune. Right now they are selfish and asleep at the wheel. Until they somehow find themselves relating to the non smoker and see the oncoming vehicle coming towards them, their self-centeredness is just pure and simple reckless immaturity.
Might be a good idea for them to wake up sooner than later, it'll save them grief in the end when they might realize they've done damage to possibly people they love, to say nothing about the damage they're doing to themselves. Have compassion for others and do the right thing. For certainly there'll be a time when you wish others will respect your sensitivities, whatever it might be.
There are now outdoor no smoking areas, police fines for smoking in your car if you have an underaged person with you and of course not being able to smoke in YOUR apartment, are you kidding!?!?! This is socialism at its finest. Luckily there is an answer to ALL these problems I have stated above. Its CROWN7!!!
http://www.Crown7.com