Smoking Ban Hits Home. Truly.

A strict antismoking law in a city in Silicon Valley has effectively banned lighting up in all apartment buildings.

Comments: 125

  1. Are the residents of the nanny complex permitted to smoke medically-prescribed marijuana - legal in California - in their homes? Are they permitted to burn candles or incense? Are they permitted to cook foods with strong odors? Are they permitted to burn food? Barbecue? Are they permitted to wear perfumes to which others might be allergic? Are they permitted to have bad breath? Are they required to bathe at least once a day? Do they drive cars/breathe the air in which others drive cars? Has the city of Belmont removed all the trees and plants to which some of its residents are, no doubt, allergic? If you want to live in a sterile bubble, you should move into a sterile bubble.

  2. I have neighbors who have been outraged for years that they are not allowed to use heroin in their own homes. I have many neighbors who are outraged that they can't grow marijuana in their homes. I have a neighbor who is outraged that he can't shoot deer from his living room. I think all of you are absolutely correct and should continue to be outraged.

  3. This sure has got some freedom lovers up in arms. The world is a small place and getting smaller. America and here in Canada as well there has always been the tradition of wide open spaces where people are free to do whatever they want. Kill any animal and virtully as many as they wanted, have open fires anywhere, fish as much as you want, exploit the earth for oil and minerals without a concern for the enviroment. Well we are not going back to those days and get used to more curbs on your freedom and I say, if it is for the public good, bring it on. All people must consider the effect of their actions on the world, because if no one did, this world would be in worse shape than it already is. And that would be bad for every living thing on this world. Not what mother nature or God intended when he created the world and everything in it.

  4. As a non-smoker I might say that the local, state, and federal governments really care about our health then give us affordable health care, if they are so concerned about what effects of our safety.

    Tobacco companys should start putting in real tobacco back in the cigarettes. Would start smelling better.

    Watch for Big Brother around the corner. He is getting closer.

  5. It DOES hurt other people in an apartment complex! I live in an apartment building, and when the couple in the apartment below me smokes, it rises up into my bedroom.

    In fact, it almost caused a fight between me and my husband once! My mother-in-law, a smoker, was in town, staying in our apartment. She had been respecting our no-smoking rule. I woke up one morning to the light but distinct smell of smoke and was furious. When my husband privately confronted her, she insisted she hadn't smoked. Luckily, we let it pass. A few days later, when she had left, I woke up to the same cough-inducing smell, and realized the smell was coming from our new neighbors downstairs.
    I live in a "white-glove" doorman building in Manhattan, not a shack w/thin walls.

  6. Ever come across annoying people that do nothing but complain all day about petty nonsense? They rule the world.

  7. Do I want clean air? YES! Do I want the government to regulate what I do in the privacy of my home? NO!

    This is a dangerous first step. I refuse to believe there isn't a less fascist solution.

  8. Mr. Goodrich is like a lot of the garden-variety prohibitionists, and his activism, ultimately, will have the same results: More corruption, smuggling, and lawlessness re the banned behavior/substance, and a negative effect on the health of those re the substance. What the public ought to know is that much of the data about second-hand smoke represents "canned" science -- where a "policy" has been dispatched looking for "evidence" to back it up. So, add flagging confidence in science as a policy tool, to the list of ill returns.

  9. Well..the hypocrites speak again. To those of you worried about breathing smokers air...If you are truly worried about poisoned air why don't you ban the real polluters, the auto industry, factories and coal burning power plants. They are the danger..not some old lady in the privacy of her apartment.

  10. i disagree with the reader above. If you live in an apt building and your neighbor smokes - the public staircases stink and neighboring apartments as well. Of course, smoke travels!

    I am delighted to see a city reacting this way. Finally!

  11. I don't blame the non-smokers. Sometimes I don't think smokers realize just how bad the smoke that follows them around is, and how it can negatively affect those around them. And when you're in an apartment, and one of your habits is causing another person to have trouble breathing or other discomfort then something needs to be done.

    I'm personally rather sick of people who do smoke feeling like their right to hurt their lungs and bodies out weigh my right to keep my body second hand smoke free.

  12. "What's the next step in this Silicon Valley city now that it's banned smoking? Requiring all residents to eat only health foods?"

    Eating junk food doesn't hurt others. Amazing how clueless you people are. People who expose others to their smoke are poisoning them. You'll still be free to kill yourself! But sorry, the rest of us will defend ourselves and the quality of our lives from those who can't understand that their addiction is both harmful to others and not a right.

  13. We just had a fire in our building. You won't believe the mess it caused. It started in the bedroom of a smoker...

    So I wish we had this ban in NYC, too. I don't mind a single cigarette in someones home but unfortunately my neighbor is smoking like there is no tomorrow and the smoke comes into my place all the time. I hate the smell and I hate that I get headache from it :-(

    Especially early morning and late night it is really disturbing.

  14. Choke on it smokers! I'm outraged at having to pay for your medical bills with my high insurance premiums.

  15. While I agree it is alarming to see laws and regulations broaching the front door- I believe that a person should not be trapped in their home forced to smell or breathe second hand smoke. With the recent studies mentioned in this newspaper referring to the effects of "third hand smoke" the conclusion has to be that this stuff is just bad for humans, period. It is evident that the way these apartments are built in California (as they are here in Florida) are susceptible to smoke drifting into neighboring apartments. Shutting windows is not an option, filling your house with deodorizers is not an option. You cannot compare the lasting carcinogenic effects of smoke with that of cooking smells. These elderly people are often living with delicate health issues, we wouldn't ask them to risk their health and comfort in any other situation- why would we expect them to do this in their own homes? Or for that matter, a younger person with asthma living in another apartment building. And to suggest that they buy expensive air filters or move to new places with their fixed incomes is ridiculous. Smokers have rights, yes, but their rights don't super-cede the rights of others. What it comes down to is that smoking is a choice- yes it is an addiction- but it is a choice. Breathing in second hand smoke in your own home is not a choice that some can make. They deserve this law to protect them. There are plenty of laws that regulate our behavior in our homes and plenty of situations in which the law has to come into our homes to stop us from harming others. That is what this is about, harming others, not taking away the rights of smokers.

  16. Smokers bring these sorts of laws down upon their own heads by their completely inconsiderate behavior.

    Every evening I leave the Daly City BART station and turn the corner into the bus waiting areas only to be met by a cloud of stinking cigarette smoke.

    I have seen one or two women move away from others before they light up but on the whole the smokers involved simply expect that those of us who are non-smokers will simply suck it up.

  17. When it comes to smoking, I'm pro choice. Funny how so many people who are pro choice in other things are not for this issue. Smoking is an issue of freedom.

  18. I think its time for the big quake that will separate California from the mainland. It can then create a new nation of non smokers. Otherwise, people like Mr. Goodrich should live in nursing homes, where the environment is very sterile. But until california bans cooking, factories and autos, its really doing little to clean the air.

  19. Big Brother is watching, 1984 is finally here but only 25 years late. Maybe there will be creations of towns were only smokers are allowed and non-smokers are kept out. I don't approve of smoking but use of GMF corn based food is going to become the real health issue in the next decade.

  20. My first grade principal smoked in the classrooms (I'm 57). Churches used to have ash trays.

    American tobacco is one of the last flourishing exports in this country.

    I smoke, (obviously). Hey, if we don't have a screened-in porch to smoke on, give us a room where we can open the window. . . it's more fair than legislating us outside. A little compromise and compassion, please, for dedicated, happy-to-have-them, tobacco users.

  21. I agree with the law. I have the right to quiet enjoyment of my apartment, and I treasure my health. I should not have to deal with the disgusting smell and poisonous gases that come from another person's habit.

  22. Hooray! It may have been said already: but when someone drinks, no one else gets high. Why do selfish smokers think this is a freedom issue?

    Now they need to ban it on the streets. Why should we have to hold our breath every time we walk into a restaurant because all the cancer-lovers are huddled in the doorway?

    The sick truth: smokers are addicts just like junkies and alcoholics, and they *want* to affect everyone around them. Give 'em help.

  23. I think it is a great idea.
    The fire hazards for one, and the fact that the neighbors smoke creeps up through the vents and infests other peoples house.

  24. Smoking in your own home should have nothing to do with how other people feel about it. Your home is your castle... Blah blah blah. But when that home is an apartment with common walls, and your smoke finds its way into the castle next door, problems follow. Many apartment buildings are built so poorly that fumes and smoke from one apartment end up in your apartment. Go figure. It will take more than a law to solve this problem. A new building! It's cheaper to make laws than new buildings.

  25. It's about time. More of this please.
    Smokers are the jihadists against the public health.

    no one has a right to inflict their bad judgment on me. You're smoking is an attack on my right to breath fresh air (such as it is in NYC).

    Eventually smoking will be totally banned, get used to the idea.

  26. People who smoke, or who overeat for that matter, should be allowed to do so, as long as it does not harm others. But they should also pay much higher health insurance premiums, since they are much more likely to end up with more medical bills, and I am sick of paying for these idiots' lack of self control.

  27. Smoke lingers for years, as is proven by going into an old bar. The chemicals in cigarettes are harmful to others for years in a confined environment such as an apartment, bar or condo. Smoking adversely affects everyone but the tobacco companies,so why make it easy to smoke or easy/cheap to obtain? It should be inconvenient and difficult and expensive to the smoker.If I have to pay a dime towards a smokers hospitalization and care it should cost him at least a dollar. It is stupid behavior and should not be rewarded or encouraged. AN EX SMOKER

  28. This situation has come up in my neighborhood with condo owners of the brownstone units which were originally built as single-family houses. There have been contentious issues over smoke traveling through the units, so that when a smoker sells their unit, the other condo owners are now changing the condo documents to prohibit smoking so that smokers won't buy those units.

    Smokers, non-smokers don't want to be affected by your habit. Try switching to nicotine gum, snuff or chewing tobacco for your fix. Those wouldn't affect the lives of your neighbors. You're still personally at risk for cancer, but that's a risk you're clearly willing to embrace. But at least you won't be taking your unwilling friends, neighbors and family members along for the ride. Your "rights" are being trampled? No — your polluting ways are finally being challenged by people who've had enough.

  29. It's not just the smell or second-hand smoke issues, but also safety issues. After living in apartment buildings for many years, the only fires that broke out during that time (ones big enough to require fire trucks) were caused by people falling asleep while smoking.

    If it's your own house, then by all means feel free to smoke wherever and whenever you like. But, when living in an apartment, where you share such close quarters with many other people, the safety of the many out-weighs the mild inconvenience of the few. Most apartment complexes outlaw BBQ grills on patios because they pose a fire hazard, so why should smoking cigarettes inside be any different?

    Oh, and by the way, I'm a smoker who never smokes in my house for all of the above reasons.

  30. Can't they just have smoking buildings and non-smoking buildings instead of banning it citywide?

  31. She was outraged says the caption as she is reduced to engaging in her unhealthy drug habit, once widely accepted as part of the American landscape in a designated area where she lives. Our government used to provide free cigarettes to the troops on the front lines. What the heck, they were programmed to die one way or the other. And according to most tobacco ads, smoking was good, refreshing even healthy. One tobacco industry sponsored study even claimed cigarette smoking made people smarter.

    Well, as we have found out, smoking is not healthy, is a drug habit and advertisements for tobacco use, including actors smoking in movies can be quite effective in convincing American's youth to try their first legal joint.

    We also know that an adult is a role model, especially a parent, guardian, grandparent, older sibling, other relatives and respected friends of the family. As role models, what they do is more effective than what they do.

    Lastly, cancer and heart disease is so closely corrolated to tobacco use that even those whose anti-science beliefs about evolution cannot seriously deny that the more you smoke the greater is the chance that you will develop costly, serious and often deadly disease[s].

    And we now also know that being in a confined area with smokers generates breathing of the smoke and that breathing of second hand smoke is dangerous to others including the sleeping child, seniors and all others.

    So, she is offended. Taking this restriction and turning it around as a personal attack and reduction in civil rights. Well, it is and a reasonable one. It is akin to denying the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, driving a car while intoxicated, taking a live hand grenade into a playground, building a fire in the forest on cautionary dry days, building a home that does not meet building standards, etc.

    All these limitations were set knowing that they limited individual and sometimes collective freedoms to protect the participants and others.

    Some people are also offended when they have to pay more for medical insurance because the rates have been increased. About 40%-80% of those medical expense rate increases are related to medical care for 10%-20% of the populations. Most of these costs can be eliminated with healthier life styles, including the elimination or reduction in the use of of tobacco, reduction in the excess use of alcohol and reduction or elimination in the use of other drugs, reduction or elimination of certain foods and even the reduction or elimination of many prescription drugs that have not shown there effectiveness coupled with safety in use.

    Many posters express equal outrage as an imposition on rights and unneeded government interference in our personal lives. The outrage is understandable to some extent as it is a change and some changes are difficult for some people. But are those same posters also concerned about the health of Americans, young and old, expecially those little ones who do not have the ability or luxury of excusing themselves when forced to breath polluted air? Are they concerned about Americans' ability to afford medical care, the increases in the expense is mainly due to unhealthy life styles as smoking? And are those posters equally concerned about the rights of the vast majority of Americans who do not smoke? Do not want to pay for someone else's initially free choice to start smoking? To live with clean air? To not have children develop breathing conditions? Do alleviate the breathing conditions of others already afflicted with breathing limitations?

    And are they equally concerned that tobacco industry representatives have (A) targeted over the years: 1) younger people, 2) women, and 3) African-Americans and Hispanics and (B) made sworn statements before Congressional committees that tobacco use in the form of cigarette smoking is not addictive and (C) the tobacco industry has added addictive substances to its products and (D) covered its one sponsored studies that found that smoking is addictice and unhealthy?

    So overall, we have a consumer product that by effective lobbying is not regulated by law as an addictive substance/drug, a dangerous product and one that is expensive. Now what are the up sides to smoking?

  32. My first grade principal smoked in the classrooms (I'm 57). Churches used to have ash trays.

    American tobacco is one of the last flourishing exports in this country.

    I smoke, (obviously).

    Hey, if we don't have a screened-in porch to smoke on, give us a room where we can open the window. . . it's more fair than legislating us outside. A little compromise and compassion, please, for dedicated, happy-to-have-them, tobacco users.

  33. If you're going to put a health service fee on smokers, then a fee should also be put on drinkers and the obese - including their obese children. That will cover the rest of the population and then everyone will have even higher health care costs. While we're at it, guns should also be banned from private homes as children have been known to accidentally shoot another and suicides by guns have increased, not to mention they can be stolen and used in crimes.

  34. And why can people get fat in their apartments?

    I have to look at these poor sapsuckers everyday in my apartment building and it is seriously hurting me self esteem in mankind.

  35. The 72 year old lady that is outraged can smoke wherever she wants as far as I am concerned, provided that I and other taxpayers are not burdened by her health care needs related to smoking. If we could deny healthcare to people who smoke unless they could pay for it themselves, then I would be the first to say "light up lady and kill yourself if you want."

  36. People have the right to do as the please, even kill themselves with smoking. BUT does a person have the right to kill others. This law is long past due. You have a right to smoke in your space, but not in mine. If the apartment house cannot contain the smoke in your apartment, then you are out of luck. Move to an apartment house that is properly constructed. I do not want to breathe your smoke!!! Do I not have the right not to be killed by you? Hope they pass the law everywhere. Maybe this will force landlords to see that their buildings are properly constructed. A person should have the right to smoke in their own apartment, but not if this means that they are also passing smoke into others' apartments. Ultimately this is an issue of proper construction of buildings and the responsibilities of landlords. Perhaps there should be clauses in leases guaranteeing smoke-free apartments. This would satisfy everyone--except the landlords, but hey they are responsible, they make their money doing this. If you slacked on your job, you would get fired.

  37. Bottom line: money. It's hard to re-rent any apt, previously owned by a smoker, to a health-conscious Californian.

  38. Where is the ACLU in all this? This is clearly a violation of civil liberties. I'm not a smoker, but citizens of the U.S. have rights that shouldn't be violated. Smoking isn't illegal in the U.S. so it shouldn't be treated like a crime.

    It sounds like the biggest problem here is shoddy workmanship in apartment complexes. Maybe that's the issue that should be addressed first.

  39. it's almost here folks..... war is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery.... WAKE UP

    remember? The “Party” has taken over all aspects of life and is intent on eradicating individuality.

  40. This is the most ridiculous thing yet. People cannot smoke in their own home!?! We are going to be legislated to death.

    BTW -- I am NOT a smoker.

  41. I have never smoked and feel strongly against smoking, but this regulation trespasses boundaries which shouldn't be crossed. We all have to get along somehow. Making SOME residence complexes smoke free -- okay, I can get that, but imposing smoke free environments on everyone is simply outrageous. In Europe, people still smoke in many public areas because smoking bans are not always enforced, and as a non-smoker, I often felt annoyed by the smoke on a train station platform. There definitely has to be some balance, such as creating specially designated spots for smokers in PUBLIC places (which the US already has). It's a completely different story what can be imposed on people in the privacy of their own homes. What else will I not be allowed to do in my own apartment?

  42. As someone who lives in NYC and literally holds my breath walking down the sidewalk to avoid inhaling sickening smoke, I applaud this effort. I believe smoking should ONLY be allowed in designated (i.e., minimally trafficked) areas - even outdoors.

    As for smoking in multi-unit homes....perhaps smokers should be required to buy some sort of special filter to prevent it from seeping through the building (do those exist?).

    As for those arguing liberty: I personally enjoy breathing and wish I could do so freely. I know smoking is an addiction and I sympathize with those who have difficulty quitting (and it's your prerogative not to quit). However, those who do not choose to inhale it should have that freedom as well.

  43. I can't believe the comments I'm reading - bad food odors compared to cigarette smoke???? Let me spell out the difference: food odors and air fresheners don't cause health problems. Secondhand smoke does. Loud music and kids can be addressed by speaking with the neighbors or earplugs - but cigarette smoke comes into a person's lungs whether they want to breathe it or not.

    I'm not seeing any kind of consideration from smokers here - how telling that some comments challenge people who are bothered by secondhand smoke to move. What I'm seeing, at least in these responses, is that they couldn't care less whether their actions harm or bother others, and are willing to ignore medically-proven statistics in order to stay in denial.

    I believe multi-complex residence owners have the right to restrict anything they feel is going to damage their building (smoking does damage the carpets and walls - I've had to help clean it up before) or harm their tenants. This isn't about democracy or policing individual health - it's about protecting people from substances that are proven harmful. I wish smoking indoors at any public building anywhere were illegal.

  44. this is just a prelude to what will happen to so many of our rights and liberties. we are all about to experience change we can believe in but don't really like.

  45. Smoking laws in this state are completely fascist.

  46. Last year my 90 year old mother-in-law passed away. She lived in a very expensive condo in CA - hers was a 4 unit building. She was a 2-3 pack a day addict for over 60 years. I can't begin to tell you the nightmare preparing her unit for sale was , which required: complete removal of all furnishings, carpet, window coverings, drywall, ceilings, light fixtures and eventually even the vinyl flooring.

    Everything was coated with a brownish/yellow scum from her smoking. After cleaning the windows and whatever was left and then replacing almost EVERYTHING inside - using air filters and even having the cement slab cleaned with a heavy duty cleaner, we still had smoke smell. No realtor would list the place until it was gone. After realizing that the odor was coming from the attached garage (where she held her trash - including cigarettes) we had to replace the dry wall and all there too.

    Over her lifetime she spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on very expensive designer furnishings. Every piece was taken to the dump - the stench was overwhelming. No furniture restorer would touch trying to even reupholster her pieces. Yes, that bad.

    Her car, an otherwise impeccable 1972 Mercedes, was sold for much less than it should have been due to the interior needing complete replacement from smoke damage.

    She was not a popular resident of this complex. After her death all told us how they had suffered from her smoke and had approached her on the subject.

    Interestingly, as soon as she was moved to managed care, after one week of wearing the patch, she became a non-smoker. Her comment, "I should have tried stopping years ago, it's not that bad and I can smell things again."

  47. I don't think most people would want intentionally cause harm to others. The problem with residual tobacco smoke is that it causes difficulty in breathing that forces medical attention for the some people and eventually death in others. I am an x-smoker and I am very sensitive to the needs of the smoker. But their need to smoke should not out weigh the cost to others who will suffer and perhaps die. Some people cannot enter the home of a smoker even if they are not smoking at the time of the visit. I think it is time to direct the anger about smoking to the cause of this problem - harm to the health of others against their will. The addiction to tobacco is the next problem. Without the addiction it would be easy to be sensitive to those who could harm and even kill against their will by the smokers residual smoke.

  48. Unacceptable aggravations are like pornography -- the sensible among us struggle to define, exactly, what it is we find so unacceptable, but we all know it when we encounter it.

    Your neighbors may cook smelly food, have obnoxious children and a stupid dog, but the Moderate Majority won't support banning cooking, kids or mutts. We will, however, make it illegal to Have It Your Way when doing so imposes unjustly on the rest of us (think speed limits and banning cell phone use while driving).

    There is nothing about this law to suggest encroachment on people's rights to consume junk food, watch trashy television, lounge around all day in their pajamas, own dumb dogs or raise rambunctious kids. The exercise police won't be arriving to supervise your daily 30-minutes of cardio, as some posters seem to suggest. Unless you pour your Jumbo Soda on me, your 1100-calorie bucket of dyed sugar water does me no harm. I might find the smell of your deep-fried extra-hydrogenated lard chips nauseating but I'm not forced to eat them, either. If I'm not thrilled by the clamor of your sticky children and rascally mutt upending furniture at 6:30 a.m. on Saturday morning I'd better start looking for a new apartment.

    Expecting me to breathe your cast-off carcinogens, however, is asking too much from someone who just wants to be an unobtrusive neighbor.

  49. Smoking really isn't the issue, it is the beginning, establishing the principle that if you are doing something legal you can be punished anyway if the Nanny's decide they want to. The law is trumped or amended by the Nanny.
    You can apply this to a lot of stuff.
    You put ketchup on hot dogs?
    In Chicago that's almost a hanging offense.
    With this new Nanny thinking it could become an actual offense.
    ETC,etc,etc.

    Sooner or later this petty whittling away at everyone's private moments will hit a nerve.
    The explosion following will hopefully take the Nanny State and it's government beauracrats with it.
    It is about time I think for the Second American Revolution.

  50. Hey, Mike from NYC, it's not your air. And there are more foul smells in the air in NYC than smoke.

  51. smokers are losers

  52. Simply ridiculous. What about contamination in which America excels. If somebody would be conscious for his health, he'd be against smog -and not 5th hand smoking.
    Free? What was the last time you were able to decide?

  53. Women's perfume makes me sick and I am forced to breathe it when riding on elevators. What about that?

  54. THANK GOD!!!

    You creep down stairs can't barbeque on your patio because it will kill me, and now you can't smoke tobacco either for the same reason.

    Go inside close your windows and doors and light the grill and a cigarette - puff puff till you pass out!!

    Now, if I could just get you creeps from in front of my favorite restaurant! Why do I have to walk through a cloud of your crap smoke to get to dinner?

  55. Buy a house. I hear they're pretty affordable these days.

  56. It's absolutely time for this to happen. Public smoking bans are the only way to change this behavior. As a tax payer and health professional, smoking related diseases are too prevalent and have real economic costs for our country. From 1997-2001, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for approximately $170 billion in annual costs on the US (UpToDate). Today the annual cost of smoking is higher than this since the price of health care has increased. As an individual, I should not have to be exposed to second and third-hand smoke. Each day when I go to work, I walk by the smoking designated area outside my hospital and I frequently find sitting behind a smoke-drenched cab driver. Smokers in apartment buildings expose their neighbors to second and third-hand smoke. When smoking bans were initiated in Scotland, there was a 67% decrease in heart attacks in non-smokers that was attributed to this policy change (NEJM). Considering the health costs of smoking, each pack of cigarettes should cost $35 per pack (Economist). Given the consequences that smoking has on our health and economy, I believe we need to raise the cigarette tax and enforce more public bans. Most smokers would not pay $35/pack in these economic hard times, so why should I have to pay for them to smoke? I have the right to breath clean air and advocate how I want my taxes spent.

  57. A shame that mutual respect has lost out in the case of perceived rights.

    Guess what, people -- everything a person does impacts someone else. Is this worse than the fumes I get in my apartment wehn someone uses the common area charcol grill? Probably not. I don't like it but I accept it as a fact of choosing to live in a common area.

    The anti-smokers have a choice as well. To have the heavy hand of government establishing one preferred citizen over another is anathema to what America used to be, but years of homeowner associations and self-indulgent people have made us willing sheep to "the common good," even when it is in fact uncommon.

    I don't smoke, but to be honest, I don't believe the levels of second hand smoke in these cases is actually harmful, anymore than the outside smoke -- the government's solution -- is.

  58. Many people posting comments on this article feel that this law is a violation of one's personal liberty at best, and fascist encroachment by "big" government at worst. They ask "What's next?" and claim a slippery slope, and say that fatty foods and sugary drinks will be the next to go.

    What these people don't realize is that non-smokers have liberties too - mainly the right to health. When people eat unhealthy food, the only person directly affected is the individual. But claiming smoking (in a shared environment) as a personal freedom is erroneous - for you are encroaching on your neighbors' personal liberties!!!

  59. If the argument here is the publics health and safety then is silicon valley also taking measures to properly dispose of mercury laden computers that seep poison into the land-fills that can contaminate the water supply? I understand that smoking is a dangerous habit but like many of the comments I have read- is THIS truly the bane of health existance or just the industry that is the easiest target to go after?

    How many of the non-smokers out there are doing things that are far worse than smoking that pollutes the air?

    It seems that the self righteous are always the biggest offenders.

  60. Smokers, sorry, but -- you stink. Aside from the health issues, your smoking habit is just plain unpleasant to be around. And, you can't contain it to your own space; by its nature it permeates everything, and everybody around you.

    You wouldn't accept a persistent breath or body odor problem from someone around you on a daily basis, or at the very least, would gripe about it to someone; why do you expect the rest of us to simply accept you stinky, unpleasant habit? You stink when you smoke; and you stink when you have smoked recently. Accept that, and deal with it.

  61. This is intrusive government and nanny statism run amuck.

    Smokers and gun owners and other groups considered decalsse are the constant target of elitist planner and legislators. They are harassed taxed and criminalized and these actions are clear infringements on personal freedom.

    How long will it be before sanctions are sought on those folks with genetic diseases for reproducing?
    This statist nonsense must stop.

    By the way I am a life long non smoker and intensely dislike tobacco smoke. However I respect others rights to smoke.

  62. This is insane, people have a right to do what they please in their own homes, this is America remember?

    Shame on you anal retentive, OCD germ Nazi hypochondriacs that wrote this into law! They should be more concerned about emission standards from cars, buildings and factories.

  63. Tell you what I'm gonna do... I'll sell you a little bottle that has 20 pills in it. They're white, easy to swallow, taste a little bad but they have some great features; make your breath bad and your clothes stink, may be poisoning you as soon as the first bottle, they're addictive, as soon as you start you'll probably not be able to stop without withdrawal and a lot of discomfort and they'll cost you about $3.75 or so a bottle. If you go through 2 or 3 bottles a day, even one... you do the math. You'd buy 'em, right? You could just stick a screwdriver in your eye, repeatedly. Makes about as much sense.

  64. I moved into a new apartment last month. My neighbours upstairs are smoking pot all the time. This apartment has a ventilation issue, and bathroom doesn't have a window. So all the smoke goes into the hallway and the kitchen. I don't know what to do. Maybe I should buy an air purifier. Will it help?

  65. California - ahead of curve in the fight against individual liberty and freedom. Belmont, CA - leading the way long march towards the Nanny State. (NYC's mayor Bloomberg has some catching up to do.)

  66. If you've ever been held hostage to a neighbor's air-fouling, choking addiction, you'll sympathize with this law.

  67. It may be her own home, but it's part of a community and the walls and air system are shared.

    As someone who lived with my neighbor's polluting cigar smoke for years, I applaud the efforts for a cleaner environment.

    This is a real, unpleasant issue for the neighbors breathing the second-hand smoke, and I'm glad it's finally recognized for what it is.

  68. Stop with the "nanny state" comments. This isn't about telling you what you can't do because it'll hurt YOU, it's about telling you what you can't do because it'll hurt OTHERS. Just like thousands of other laws on the books.

    Smokers have only themselves to blame for this. Decades of "it's my right to smoke" coupled with clinical proof that secondhand smoke is harmful have forced us nonsmokers to take legal action.

    How many of you want to go back to the good old days of "freedom" when there were smoking sections on airliners? Show of hands? Anyone? Anyone? Thought so. Oh, and the rest of you, in the back, yeah, you with the yellow, nicotine-stained fingers. Put your hands down. You're outvoted.

  69. I can't help wondering if the same nanny state adherents who complain about the extra health care cost for smokers would do the same for extra health care costs for homosexual men, who stand a far greater chance of developing aids than hetrosexual men.

  70. Ban all SUV's, no CARS and TRUCKS, because findings show, they deplete the ozone and threaten to kill everybody, and before they do that are hazardous to your health, causing thousands of deaths and injries a year. Then there's McDonalds and Burger Kings. Let's start by taxing THEM for draining the health care system. Everybody will live FOREVER. Imagine. No more health hazards.

  71. Ms Fredrickson smokes two packs a day. I'm guessing that costs her about $8/day. She lives in a government subsidized complex. She should thank the taxpayers that she can continue her habit and live in subsidized housing. Taxpayers who are donating to her housing have every right to tell her to smoke outside. Who is going to foot the bill when she gets ill due to smoking???? Californians. She should keep her lips sealed. It would do a body good.

  72. "Be careful California. You used to be the crazy ones!" Eddie Izzard

    Let's ban cows...they are much more destructive to the environment. Better yet, let's ban meat eating altogether.

    I am a non-smoker and an asthma sufferer. As Dennis Leary so eleoquently commented on the smoking ban on airlines "If that plane is going down, everyone will be begging for a cigarette!"

  73. I was in church recently sitting next to another congregant who I know well and with whom I have served on committees. Another member came in and sat on the other side of my pew partner, stiffened and practically bolted away. I was concerned that she was ill so I followed her out into the lobby. When I asked her what was wrong, she said she could smell tobacco on the man. I told her that I didn't smell anything and that I was pretty sure the man was not a smoker. She insisted that he was and went and deposited herself in a remote corner of the church. I returned to my seat and asked the man if he smoked- that the woman who had just departed was affected by the smell of tobacco on him. He looked at me like I had sprung another head. Not only wasn't he a smoker- he had never smoked in his life. He did have a kind of woodsy aftershave on- I can only assume that was what clogged up the woman's nose. The point is the supersensitivity that I am seeing more. The intresting thing is that I know the woman is quite a drinker- and that alcohol has been linked to oral and other cancers. And you can smell alcohol on others. A driver under the influence is much more likely to kill you than a smoker. I don't advocate smoking. But I think that people in this Land of Liberty, need to repect the rights of others- especially in their own homes. If the apartment building had established itself, pre-tennants, as smoke-free- then a smoker would have to abide. But if they wrote a lease that had no such provisions and the smoker-tenant paid their rent and maintained all other parts of the lease agreement, then I have an issue with what was done. Re-writing leases based on this has to have a fundamental legal flaw. I have great compassion for anyone with asthma or other breathing dsorder. But this is not right.

  74. As is typical, poorer folks are subjected to laws that wealthier folks can buy their way out of.

  75. It's about time!! If you want to smoke and stink up the place in addition to forcing other apartment dwellers to breath in YOUR secondhand smoke, get your own home! Why should other tenants be forced to suffer? I know what's it's like. I used to live in an apartment building two doors down from a heavy smoker and the stench was horrible and it would seep into my apartment. I am an ex-smoker and have been smoke free for 10 years now. Please quit while you're ahead!

  76. If you think is the final "reasonable" restriction on smoking, or other unhealthful activity, you are kidding yourself. After the anti-smoking fascista have made smoking impermissible in your home, your car, and broad swaths of the so-called "outside", they will start in on your poor eating habits. "Sorry, sir, your credit card records show that you ordered a bacon cheeseburger once this week already. You aren't allowed to have another one until next Tuesday."

  77. I find those people who think that smoking in an apartment or home only hurts the smoker to be incredibly niave. I currently live in an apartment building where every day I have to smell and breathe my neighbor's smoke that drifts through the walls and under my door. It's disgusting. After all the research that proves second hand smoke is just as toxic as actually smoking the cigarrette, I applaud any building and municipality that has the courage to put an end to the careless, selfish habits of smokers (and I grew up in a house of smokers, so I'm aware first hand of how it affects other people in homes)

  78. Bravo Mr Richardson. And a swift kick in the rump to that entitled whiny brat, Ms. Fredrickson.

  79. I have an opinion about this, but first I better check that it's legal to criticize this...

  80. It seems like the anti-smoking people have won their important battles but don't know when to quit. There is a difference between a smoke-filled bar and the faint whiff of cagarette smoke in a hallway or a park. The first is obviously a health risk, but just smelling smoke is not enough exposure to make a difference, at least not with everything else we breate and eat.

  81. It looks as though if you're stupid enough not to quit smoking, the government will be forced to be your surrogate mom, for your own (& others') good.

    Stop feeling sorry for yourselves.

  82. Smokers happily and blithely drive up insurance rates and hospital costs and now say that it's a violation of their rights not to smoke in their apartments? What about my right not to have to pay a premium to subsidize the burden they put on my healthcare costs? Why doesn't that imposition bother them?

  83. I was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, and the landlord moved a smoker beneath me in a home divided into three apartments(a triplex). My oncologist told me to move right away because of the toxic brew that rose up and filled my apartment, making it smell like a bar. I told the landlord when I first moved in that I could not share his divided home with a smoker. He promised me he'd never rent to a smoker, but the tenant lied to the landlord and moved in anyway. The landlord refused to make the smoker move, so I had to move out of my home of two years while I was sick and weakened from cancer treatments. This is the second time I've had to move due to sharing apartment walls with a smoker. At least the first time I was healthy and well, though the smoke was extremely irritating nonetheless. The moral of the story is that you have to be wealthy enough to own a home if you're averse to cigarette smoke OR be lucky enough to live in Belmont. Otherwise, the fate of your lungs and health depend on your landlord.

  84. I am asthmatic have terrible allergies and nothing causes me more problems than cigarette smoke. Even sitting near a person who smells of cigarette smoke can trigger wheezing for me. I'm sorry that people are so upset that limits are being put on the pointless and dirty habit of smoking... but when you are affecting other people's health, it isn't just about your right to smoke anymore. You are affecting other people. Sure, I say go ahead and smoke in your HOUSE, but in an apartment building... it is a shared area. It does bother neighbors. And just because smokers can't smell it or aren't bothered by it... doesn't mean that it is harmless.

    I feel a person's right to live a healthy, pain-free, wheeze-free, health complication-free life trumps a person's right to smoke wherever they want any day.

  85. This story reveals how the line between the right to privacy and the ability to inflict harm on others is tricky to negotiate. But if we're going to err, I believe it's good to err on the side of people's health. Perhaps one secondary consequence of such a ruling is that some people will stop smoking and gift themselves and their families a few more years of life as well. (I'd give anything to have my dad back; he died of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking.) Bravo Mr. Goodrich.

  86. i think it's pretty simple. people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in an apartment if the smoke travels into other apartments. you're free to do what you want so long as it isn't adversely affecting others. obviously, mr goodrich, and many others who have posted here, have been adversely affected. if you smoke, go outside. suck it up.

  87. Smokers can use all the excuses they want but they will not wash. Smoking is no good and causes a great of harm to the smoker as well as the community. Smoking increases health care costs for the entire country. One step in making our country a better place and reducing costs is to end smoking. I agree with the ban and say it is about time.

  88. How about nicotine patches for smokers? They can get their fix without blowing smoke. One more question: Why not legalize all drugs?

  89. did the communist take control of Silicon Valley ? Oh my God , The cold war has began ! My American friends be ready to defend us from the communist advance.Are not the communists the kind of people who tell other what to wear , what to eat , what to do ? Long life the Freedom , stop dictators , no more banning for the sake of God.

  90. You people have no problems having the dirty old cigarette taxes used for your free healthcare you're being promised. Smokers pay huge taxes that cover their costs plus the costs for many nonsmokers. They need to just ban smoking altogether and all of society can pay the taxes the overweight, drunks, daredevils who hurt themselves, etc. use when this "health reform" passes instead of depending on the 61 cent a pack tax increase on taxes.

    Amazing how people don't mind benefiting from the same cigarettes they villify. I call that hypocritcal to the max.

  91. ya know i can see being ticked beacuse pc and the nanny gov't combine to limit your behavior in what you thought was "your" apt. or home, but is their any emotion left besides "outrage"?...................our ignoring darfur is outrageous not you telling me not to light up next door to you............

  92. Hard to believe that this all started with, 'do you mind if I smoke?'.

    No matter what smokers do to comply, these bullies are always coming up with some other way to harass smokers -maybe they should put those efforts into another cause, there are enough really important things they could tackle in this country today. And remember that there are a lot of smokers, stop in a convenience store & see how many people in line are buying cigarettes. As long as it is legal to buy it, then it will always be our right to smoke.

    So if these folks really feel that it should be illegal than all they should go for it, but the fight should be with the tobacco companies, and good luck making up for all the taxes paid by smokers and the effect on the economy if the tobacco industry is ever banned and cigarette smoking is illegal in the USA).

  93. The solution is easy.

    Just like buildings for pets. It's up to the building to be pets-friendly, or not. You don't like smoke, and this building allows smoking, you walk. If this building doesn't allow smoking, you smoke, then you walk.

    Simple like that!

  94. A great majority of places which lease apartments, generally prohibit smoking, because they know the majority of the population doesn't smoke and would find a property permeated with the stench of tobacco to be off putting. It seems that this law is simply codifying what economics has made de facto.

    Also to the point, if you rent the home you live in, you don't have absolute control over how you live in it. Denying apartment dwellers the right to smoke, is not a denial of the inhabitants, but the apartment building owner who had their right to dictate how they can run their apartments. But this is not anything new, as every state enforces safety codes on apartment owners which require them to take steps to insure the safety of their tenants. This new law is an extension of this policy, not a dramatic step from the status quo.

  95. Continue to vote the lefty loons into your district and this is what you get. Do not complain about these type of laws and then go out and keep them in office.

  96. There will always be complaints from creative individuals who try to manipulate what is considered Progress to justify their own means, especially addicts. People will always use the argument of what "Right" is next in order to scare people. Your right to smoke ends where might "RIGHT" to breath Air, without YOUR SMOKE, begins. Breathing is an essential function of life. Smoking cigarettes IS NOT. Sorry but, BREATHING clean air trumps this so-called "right" to smoke. An archaic and antiquated habit of a by-gone era when people did not know any better.

    To the person who said AMI actually went up a year after after a smoking ban. That does not surprise me.. Some diseases which respond cumulatively. which would mean there would be some spikes in particular diseases after someone ceases to be exposed. But, other diseases respond quickly for example E.R's have a significant drop in heart attacks withing 1 week of a ban of smoking in public places.

    For anyone wanting our medical system in the US to change for the 50 million who have no insurance or to the others who cannot afford the insurance they have or are under-insured. Once the Gov't starts to help us on this issue our health will be of fiscal interest and they would rather us be healthy to better save money. So, that would also be something on the horizon.

    Let's embrace this change for the betterment of all people and all of the changes that come with better knowledge on how to improve the quality and quantity of our lives.

  97. Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins. And the arguments concerning banning ice cream, etc. don't make any sense. What you eat has no impact on me, but what you smoke does. If you don't respect your neighbors, respect yourself, and quit killing yourself with cigarettes.

  98. My neighbor smokes, especially outside, and I smell it when my kids are playing in the backyard. It wafts over the wall.

    In Arizona where we run our car air conditioners frequently. I often am stopped in a light, when my air conditioner sucks in air from the outside. And Joe Camel has his window down in 120 degree heat smoking. My vents suck his nasty air into my car!

    I am a new homeowner, and spent 10+ years living in apartments. I hated moving into an apartment where the previous tenants were smokers. The smell doesn't come out. For months my closet (despite being cleaned and painted) made my clothes smell like stale smoke (and paint).

    I cheer new laws that keep my immediate environment healthier, and more clean.

  99. I live in a 100+ unit building and when the people below my apartment smoke, I am essentially smoking, as well. As people are not born with cigarettes in their mouths, it is NOT a divine right to smoke and inflict smoke on others. I hate the stink of their cigarettes and the possible health issues the smoke may cause down the line. It permeates the air, makes my eyes burn, causes allergic symptoms, etc. Plus, it is a fire risk. I disagree with those posters who say that the Belmont rule is tyranny. It is actually common sense, and I would welcome such a rule to be put in place in New Jersey. In fact, I will call my assemblyman and state senator to suggest just that today!

  100. There is an awful lot of hyperbole on this message board. The passage of this law has nothing to do with civil liberties, Big Brother, the advancement of a Communist agenda or - my goodness - the Third Reich(!). It's just a case of logic and fairness. If two people share an air supply, which is the case is an apartment complex, why should Person A's right to smoke in their own home trump Person B's right to clean air? If it's a case of personal freedom that's stuck in your craw, you have to at least examine it from both sides.

    And will the government be telling you what foods you should and should not eat, how much exercise you must do, etc.? No, of course not, because the issues aren't related. Pigging out on junk food, or sitting around and not exercising don't affect your neighbor. That's the issue here. Smoking demonstrably impacts non-smokers. It's much more akin to noise ordinances in buildings than to government mandates about you can and cannot consume.

    That said, it is time for more surgeon general's warnings on highly fatty foods. They're on cigarettes, which are an unhealthy indulgence, so why shouldn't they be on similar items like candy bars? It's not about freedom, it's about awareness. The 50s are over, folks - onward we go.

  101. If you want to smoke in "your" home, start by owning one. Until that time, your landlord is entitled to ban smoking on property it owns, period.

  102. First of all, this is a subsidized housing project for seniors. My mother is moving into one here in New York and the rules right from the get go state there is no smoking anywhere, even on the grounds. You have to leave the complex and cross the street to smoke a cigarette. Thank goodness. The person involved in this article cannot tell a landlord what to do with their property. She may only live there for a few years and then move out. The landlord will then have to thoroughly clean the apartment--rugs, walls, etc.--to remove the smell of smoke from the premises. As an ex-smoker, I can tell you that the smell of smoke can be felt from clear across a golf course! I can tell instantly if a person is a smoker or not, just by the smell of their clothes and person! I regret exposing so many people, including patients that I treated in Radiation Therapy (!) for many years and my own children to the smell of smoke. This apartment is not her "own home", it belongs to a landlord. End of discussion.

  103. I agree.
    I think I will take my downstairs neighbor to court
    to recover my incense stick costs which help mask
    the smell from his stinking cigarettes.

    How with what we know can anyone in this day and age
    wish to smoke?.It's self punishment.

  104. I am an ex-smoker myself and it's pretty frustrating smelling cigarette smoke, first thing in the morning, coming from my neighbor's aprartment through the vents into my apartment. I'm not going to "buy an air filter" so my neighbors'can smoke inside.

  105. I am an X smoker and I think the anti smoking movement is going way too far and is now violating individuals rights !

    First of all if a person lives in a HUD apartment it would have to be stated in the lease that the apartment is a non-smoking apartment otherwise they can not stop you from smoking in your apartment.

    Second hand smoke would only bother you if you are not in direct contact in a closed place with a smoker,you can't get effected by someone smoking in their own apartment with their door closed. It is only the smell that might bother someone but not the actual smoke. Smoke is dispersed in the air which filters down the particles so it really is not possible to be injured by second hand smoke in this way !

    Why can't people live and let live instead of trying to impose their lifestyle on others.

    This is the same with some Vegan's and Vegitarians who harrass and impose their lifestyle on meat eaters. For gods sake can't people just mind their own business and stop trying to dictate what others do with their own body.HUD might remember that they are an agency that is not suppose to discriminate against any group of people ,,smokers should be up in arms against having their rights stepped on like this.

    Sure any landlord can say I don't want anyone smoking in my building but they have to state that in writting before the tenent moves in ,they can't just change the rules at any time it has to be done during the signing of the lease !

  106. The anti-smoking propaganda which is rarely challenged has taken hold of people's imaginations. Has anyone noted that Mr. Goodrich is in his eighties? That's pretty good for someone who's lived his entire life in a smoking society. I really can't abide the nastiness of some self-righteous anti-smokers.

  107. How ludicrous. I'm glad there is a California, so all the screwballs can have a place to go.

    Nat Solomon, you belong there. Go.

  108. Bravo Belmont! As am ex-smoker who would rather let a person's home remain their castle, 5 years ago I was forced to move from the condominium I had lived in for 14 years because a new tenant moved in downstairs and turned my place into an ashtray. To my surprise, there was no local city ordinance that would have helped me find a solution to the problem. And the new tenant would not consider working out a compromise with me that would have allowed her to continue smoking and at the same time allowed me to live smoke-free. When asked to help, the Homeowners Association did nothing about the matter. Ultimately the only way to resolve the situation was I moved. All in all this was a very traumatic situation. I still want to believe that a person's home should be their castle and he/she should be free to smoke. But in those instances where activities such as smoking travel into and negatively impact other people's living space creating a health and lifestyle problem, laws and regulations such as the ones in Belmont are necessary. Again I say Bravo Belmont!

  109. Cigarettes cause fires. The government has to pay for the fire department. The government wants to reduce behaviours that promote fires. No smoking in multi unit buildings.

    Buy yorself a home and smoke away.

  110. The rights we have as members of a free society only go so far. Smokers do have a right to smoke. Until that smoke starts to harm others--and make no mistake, secondhand smoke DOES harm others. We only have rights insofar as they do not impede the rights of others. Your right to smoke does not outweigh my right to live without cancer and emphysema. So go ahead, smoke those tiny little cigarettes that make you smell bad, stain your teeth, and slowly kill you from the inside out. Just do it as far away from me as you can get.

  111. California is years ahead of us in Kentucky. I'm a physician and our university hospital doesn't even enforce the smoking ban that started a year ago on hospital property. Keep smoking, we'll keep cutting out your cancer...

  112. When asked by a smoker, "Do you mind if I smoke?", my response has always been, "Certainly not. As long as you swallow it."

  113. I disagree with those who assert the frivolity of the ban by pairing cigarettes with other annoyances such as excess perfume, air fresheners, cooking odors, etc. Yes, these are annoying, and if controllable any polite person would try to minimize their effect on neighbors. The difference with cigarette smoke is that it does contain any potential pleasant smells. I've never heard of anyone saying they love secondhand smoke, even smokes. Proof positive is that they open their windows to let it spew out into the airspace of the community. It also shows they understand that is bad for you. People don't open their windows to let air-freshener out. Occasionally, they will open windows for cooking odors to let fresh air in. People are also not addicted to air fresheners and cooking smells so aren't rabid about their rights to use them. We're not a frontier country anymore where people lived on many acres and could do what they want. We live much closer now and have to realize our rights are only as strong as they negatively impact others. Having to sit in an apartment with the smell of others cigarette smoke (no way at all pleasant), is not pleasant. Any polite neighbor would understand this and do something about it.

  114. This is ridiculous. Cigarettes are perfectly legal. If people want to smoke in their own homes, they should have every right to do so. It is crazy to ban someone from doing something in one's own home when it is legal. This is going way, way to far. Government doesn't belong in people's homes.

    View of a non-smoker.

  115. I smoke, and at this point I rejoice when these sorts of laws go into effect in silly localities. The more draconian these laws become, the more thinking people will object to them, and the more this intrusive health-mindedness will lose credibility with the public at large. Seven months ago I was the only one outraged at the cigarette tax increase in New York; now even non-smokers are becoming appalled. Good.

  116. Second hand smoke is a myth. This is from someone who quit almost 4 years ago after 45 years of smoking. I have early stage emphysema. Yet I am just about ready to start again based on this kind of nanny-Nazi legislation. You may be sure that if this were to come to my town, I would in fact buy a pack of cigarettes or a stinky cigar and smoke it in town hall. We're all so damned busy protecting each other from so-called sinful practices that we can't see what we're doing to our liberty. In the end, this all comes back to the detestation of pleasure: if someone likes it, we have to legislate against it.

  117. Mrs. Frederickson IS a criminal. She is endangering the health and well being of innocent people with her addiction. Good for Mr. Goodrich! I live in Manhattan and know what it is like to have wafts of neighbors second hand smoke invade my daughter's bedroom. My neighbors are endangering my daughters health and we will have to leave our home because of it. Their behavior DOES affect others and THAT is what they should not have a right to do.

  118. I was for personal freedom and the right to choose to harm oneself with something as idiotic as smoking.

    But I've reconsidered. Smoking amounts to millions of taxpayer dollars being sucked into treatments for the consequences of the private individual.

    Sure, you have the right to harm yourself, but if you're on medicare then as a taxpayer I end up paying for it. And I'm sick of paying for someone's PREVENTABLE mistakes in the form of oxygen, breathing treatments and chemotherapy for lung cancer.

    So I'll take the slight loss of personal freedom if it means big healthcare savings for responsible taxpayers.

  119. It's not uncommon to ban smoking in apartments, I live in a complex that has banned smoking for 10 years now.

  120. I live in an apartment in New York City where my adjacent neighbor smokes and the putrid smell of his cigarettes seeps under or through the walls and into my bedroom. So when I retire for the evening I am always greeted by the awful smell of stale tobacco smoke. It's horrible!

    Why should I suffer because my neighbor is an addict? If you have a detached house, fine - smoke yourself to death for all I care. But if you're living in an apartment where your behavior affects others, why should you be able to intrude on my enjoyment of life without repercussions?

    Also, whenever I get off the elevator I am greeted by the noxious smell of cigarettes, which comes from beneath his and a few other doors. Cigarette smokers are the most rude and self-absorbed people I know...

  121. It is unbelievable to me that people on this board are outraged by a ruling that protects other people's health and ability to breathe. How selfish can smokers be? You've decided to participate in a nasty habit that is a waste of money and has documented health consequences and so the rest of us should have to suffer also?

    Some of the comparisons made here are absolutely ludicrous. Cabbage and fish smells, while unpleasant, are not going to give someone lung cancer. Many of us do put up with unpleasant, obnoxious behavior from our neighbors, but when you cannot breathe clean, pure air uncontaminated by tobacco in YOUR OWN HOME, that goes beyond what a person should have to endure.

    Grow up, smokers. You're not the only ones on the playground.

  122. the majority has spoken ... on 04-nov-2008. we are now a nation where more people wish to look to government for solutions than to themselves. and, people, i hope that's the way we'll always have it. whether i agree, or disagree, the smoking issue, and all issues, will be decided by government offices; that's what most of you said you wished for in the last election.

    after 232 years, we have collectively decided to change course. benjamin franklin said ... "freedom is a wonderful thing; i hope we're smart enough to keep it."

  123. After years of enduring neighbors screaming kids, barking dogs, loud music, heavy walking, fighting, smelly housekeeping, and SMOKING I am thrilled to own a very modest house that needs repairs.

  124. Everytime you light a cigarette in an apartment, you are starting a fire in a public building. A need to enjoy a cigarette does not come before public safety. It's as simple as leaving dog poo in the grass. You share the grass, and you share the building. When you have your own building and grass, you may smoke and leave your poo wherever you wish.