I am a nonsmoker and I hate to be around second hand smoke. I’m thankful for laws preventing smoking in restaurants and stores, but are we going too far? Our country is increasingly creating bans on smoking in work places and restaurants and even bars. Now a woman may be prevented from smoking in her own home.
A couple in New York, both lawyers, is quite upset that their neighbor, a chain smoker for four decades, allegedly is allowing secondhand smoke to seep into a public hallway. The smoker claims to use air purifiers and door seals to prevent smoke seepage, but the lawyer couple says that her efforts are not enough.
I get it. It’s an apartment building, and on one hand, you don’t want any second hand smoke in or near you home, but on the other, should people be allowed to smoke privately in their homes? Since when is it anyone’s business what we do in our own homes? Second hand smoke is dangerous on any level, and the Surgeon General recommends a complete ban on all indoor smoking.
As far as I’m concerned, any smoke seepage would be minimal compared the amount of pollutants in the air, especially in New York City, and people should be allowed to smoke in their own homes if they so choose. It’s their life, let them waste it away if they want to! Furthermore, I absolutely believe that smoking should be allowed in bars. Bars are private businesses, and it should be the bar owner’s choice of whether or not to allow smoking. If nonsmokers don’t like it, don’t go to that particular bar!
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Ah I love this! You're so right!
It's way too far out of control.
Especially because this couple lives in New York City?
Like...go outside and breathe...you have alot bigger problems to worry about.
No matter what you do, there are people who will just bitch and feel like they have had some menial impact on their "unjust" society in their insignificant lives.
~The Writer~
I live in Colorado where laws were recently passed banning smoking in public places. Now, like you, I am a nonsmoker, and I absolutely despise the smell of cigarette smoke. I could never tolerate it when my grandmother used to smoke, and I still dread it now, absolutely dread it.
Yet while my personal views on smoking are very hazy, if you will, I have thought a great deal about the law. The questions you raise are excellent and I will not restate them; rather, I will share with you my conclusion: it is not the government's place.
Whether it is government regulation of an individual's decision to smoke in the home or a restaurant's decision to allow smoking, where does the government find itself the power to decree that such things cannot happen? The government has no place telling businesses whether or not they can allow patrons to partake in entirely legal activity within their respective establishment; on the contrary, it is the business's right to make this decision.
When it comes to the individual home, that is utterly ridiculous. Smoking is legal (and it shouldn't become illegal), and if a consenting adult wishes to partake in that entirely legal activity in their own home, the government has absolutely no right to mandate otherwise. In both instances it is a trampling upon the individual's and the business's rights to make their own decisions, much less on their property rights.
Were I a state senator or representative, the most I would support is the mandate that businesses have a smoking and a nonsmoking section, but that's as far as I believe the government has any right to go.
Having said that, I don't care all that much about the Colorado government's decision to ban smoking in public places and business establishments because I like the ability not to smell smoke and so forth, yet at the same time I worry about the implications for the future and what else the government might do when it comes to regulating perfectly legal behavior.
"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan
I think when you live in an apartment you have to make compromises. It's like noise ordinances. Once has the right to play loud music in his or her home, but that music disturbs other people and they have the right to quiet.
“I hope the departue is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
That is a good point; when it comes to an apartment complex where disturbance is an issue (and an often-regulated one), perhaps there is some validity in government intervention in that case, though I'd much prefer that the establishment itself make the decision instead of the government.
"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan
That's pretty much the same thing I think. Individual establishments should make their own rules.
“I hope the departue is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
Yes but you aren't forced to NOT play music.
You are just asked to respect you levels of volume and keep them in a range that doesn't bother others.
Same with smoking, and this guy went out of his way to accommodate the other people on his floor. It's not like he was standing outside blowing smoke rings in the children's faces.
~The Writer~
Right, he didn't have to put towels under his door- he didn't have to buy an air purifier.
These other people who are giving him a hard time should either go to a non-smoking apartment, or learn to respect that he is doing his best for them while still enjoying his own personal choice.
That's true, Zephyr. I, like She.is.unique, agree with that statement. Here you did have someone who went out of his way to lessen the negative experience of the fellow members of his floor. It is a case in which the government needn't have gotten involved and should not get involved. If it were the alternative that you suggested, then something would have needed to happen on some level. That's what I meant in terms of when government involvement might potentially be acceptable when it comes to smoking.
"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan
I suppose.
I'm kind of a Libertarian so I really don't think government involvement is needed in much of anything besides foreign affairs and diplomatic processes (obvious that's an extreme, I do acknowledge their necessity.)
It's really beyond me as to why these people couldn't settle their disputes civilly without having to drop an unnecessary load on our judiciary system.
Human interaction seems a triviality these days.
~The Writer~
And a smoker is only asked to respect other people's right to not second hand smoke. I think he should be able to smoke if he can keep it from affecting other people, but if he can't then he should stop smoking inside. He can smoke outside, or he can open his window and put the fan on.
“I hope the departue is joyful and I hope never to return.” - Frida Kahlo
I’m so excited that my post prompted such a great discussion! I think it is apparent in my original post that I don’t think the government should be mandating how much people should smoke in their own home (I also have some fairly strong Libertarian values). People smoke. It’s a reality, and who’s to say they shouldn’t? Personally, I would much rather have people smoking in their apartment than on the street where I still have to walk by it. Considering how far the smoker went in this case to accommodate the neighbors, and that any smoke that they would come in contact with would be so miniscule, I really think people should be left alone to smoke in their home, apartment or not.
I agree. I don't think that the government could or should mandate a cap on smoking in one's own home, but an apartment building is different. While the gov. can't really have a say, the owner can. I'm an asthmatic and have passed out from contact with second-hand smoke before, and if I lived in an apartment I wouldn't want smoke coming from the next room. All the same, there probably wouldn't be much smoke coming in and I may just as well live somewhere else. :)
I sympathize with your condition as an asthmatic, and precautions should exist to keep people with asthma safe, but not all conditions treated with ideal care in the ideal world. Consider epileptics. Bright flashing lights are all over the place, and if the siren on an ambulance (sort of ironic) couldn’t trigger a seizure from some, I don’t know what could.
Oh, I'm not complaining about my problems. I'm just throwing that out there. Its not just asthma, S-H-Smoke affects everyone.
I agree with you on the statement that this seems to have gone too far; however, I think it is logical for people to take action when her smoking is effecting the health of the other people in her building. I mean if she were a suspected murderer or something, legal action would be taken to protect the others in the building. Why? Because it risks others getting hurt. Stopping her from smoking is the same thing really since they are preventing her from hurting the health of those around her.
To compare someone smoking an occasional cigarette in their own home to being a murder is a huge false analogy. Not a very logical argument.
PS. Not to be a stickler, but it's "affecting" not "effecting"