Tobacco.org

City may make public housing a smoke-free zone 

Finding a place to light up a cigarette can be difficult these days, but for public housing residents, smoking may soon be close to impossible.

Following the wave of recent anti-smoking laws, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently sent a memo strongly encouraging public housing authorities nationwide to “implement non-smoking policies in some or all of their public housing units.” Although the New York City Housing Authority has yet to institute any laws locally, the memo has sparked a heated debate about the merits of such policies.

For some, this legislation is a direct infringement on privacy and other basic freedoms. But others see this as an opportunity to encourage healthy environments and mitigate persistent problems of asthma.

“You can’t smoke anywhere, now you can’t smoke at home?” said Audrey Silk, founder of the smokers’ rights group New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment. . . .

“Your home should be your castle, no matter whether you own it or not,” she said. “The city here is creating a divide in classes. People in housing are there because they can’t afford anything else. Now these people would be punished for their personal situation by having their right to smoke taken away. This is an intolerance campaign.”

Joanne Koldare, director of the New York City Coalition for a Smoke Free City, also said she sees smoking in public housing projects as an issue of individual rights. But for her, this is the right to be free from the harms of secondhand smoke.

“Those people living in low income housing should be able to live in a complex that doesn’t have smoking,”

Jump to full article »

WARNER: Anti-smokers just can’t quit  

The Wenatchee City Council could have banned smoking in parks. Many cities have, and many are considering it. The city can do it, just because. It doesn’t even have to pick from the usual anti-smoking justifications, real or imagined, like protecting public health or protecting children or fighting litter. It’s enough that most people who use city parks find smoking objectionable and don’t want to watch people do it, or smell it, or get a small whiff of their personal residue. The implications of banning a normally legal personal habit simply because it produces an odor doesn’t matter. A city can ban a public nuisance, and a public nuisance is usually whatever the city says it is. The limits are broad, and smoking has so few defenders the political risk is slight. . . .

So where does it stop? Not at your threshold. The next great frontier of anti-smoking law is the private residence. . . .

We should be able to sleep without fretting that someone somewhere might be sitting on their couch smoking a cigarette, but we just can’t give it up. Onward, prohibitionists.

Jump to full article »

• NYC's First Non-Smoking Apt Building Set To Open  

So some apartment buildings are now banning smoking for new tenants. Existing tenants who smoke will be allowed to continue to puff away.

That's not the case with the new East Harlem building at 1510 Lexington Avenue, which will be the city's first completely non-smoking residence, where tenants won't even be allowed to walk outside and light up in the immediate perimeter of the building. Even the construction workers can't light up.

"We feel that you're impacting, in a rental, so many people around you that we would like to offer the public an opportunity to live in a smoke-free environment," said Kinne Yon of Kenbar Management, which runs the building that will house 298 units.

The family-owned company gave CBS 2 a tour of the building, still under construction. The East Harlem development features upscale apartments, with concierge service, a large gym, and gardens. Smoking will not be allowed anywhere on the property.

Jump to full article »

UP IN SMOKE  

Faced with strong opposition to the draconian measures contained in the Tobacco Control Bill, Government yesterday relaxed some of the prohibitions and rolled back some of the harsher penalties.

Health Minister Jerry Narace in winding up in debate in the Senate yesterday said he was backing down with regret and that it bothered him to have to concede on some of the points.

He said the domestic worker was being put at risk as the children in the homes, in conceding that home could not be defined as a workplace, except where it is used for the purpose of 'manufacture, distribution and trade' of tobacco products.

He said the amendments came in the interest of getting the legislation passed.

Government also removed the ban on sale of single cigarettes which would be affected small vendors and the low income smoker.

It also slashed the penalties-for a number of offences-prohibition on sales by minors, on public displays of tobacco products and on the sales of tobacco products in certain places.

Jump to full article »

Smoking Ban May Now Include Your Apartment  

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. . . .

Should renters be allowed to smoke in their apartments?(polling)

Jump to full article »

READERS' COMMENTS For Some Smokers, Even Home Is Off Limits  

Landlords Move to Ban Smoking in Apartment Buildings 

The movement to ban smoking in New York City has grown so quickly that no place seems immune -- certainly not restaurants or bars, and public beaches and parks may not be far behind. Now the efforts are rapidly expanding into the living room.

More landlords are moving to prohibit smoking in their apartment buildings, telling prospective tenants they can be evicted if they light up in them.

This month, the Related Companies will ban smoking at some of its downtown apartment buildings because of health concerns about secondhand smoke, according to company officials.

Jump to full article »

• For Some Smokers, Home’s Off Limits 

More landlords are moving to prohibit smoking in their apartment buildings, telling prospective tenants they can be evicted if they light up in them.

This month, the Related Companies will ban smoking at some of its downtown apartment buildings because of health concerns about secondhand smoke, according to company officials.

Smokers who already live in any of these buildings will not be affected, according to Jeff Brodsky, a president of Related, which is a national developer with 17 buildings in Manhattan.

But any new renters must promise not to smoke at home, even if they continue to elsewhere.

Kenbar Management, a local developer, is going a step further. When its new project, 1510 Lexington Avenue, opens in December, smoking will be banned in all 298 units, in addition to private and shared terraces.

And the typical smoker’s refuge — directly outside the building — is also off limits; tenants must agree not to smoke on any of the sidewalks that wrap around the building, which takes up most of a block in East Harlem, according to Kinne Yon, a Kenbar principal.

The trend has predictably divided smokers and nonsmokers in New York. . . .

So far, about 50 public housing agencies have now forbidden smoking, according to Betsy Feigin Befus, a lawyer with the National Multi Housing Council, a landlord trade group that has tracked the efforts.

Other cities, through legislation or by initiatives of developers, have taken similar steps.

Jump to full article »

• 3 counties work to get smoke-free apartments 

Three metro counties will spend about $204,000 from state health-improvement grants over the next two years to help apartment landlords and renters make their buildings smoke-free.

They start the effort with a survey showing that half of local renters would consider moving to a smoke-free building, including 16 percent of smokers.

"We know that many people want to live in smoke-free environments, and we know that can improve public health," said Lisa Mueller, who administers the state grants for Hennepin County.

Hennepin, Ramsey and Dakota counties, as well as Minneapolis, are pooling part of their state grants to hire the nonprofit Association for Nonsmokers Minnesota to advise them on voluntary non-smoking efforts in multi-unit housing.

The association used part of that grant money to conduct the renters survey. It was conducted by Wilder Research and released to coincide with the annual Great American Smokeout, a stop-smoking effort started in 1974 in Minnesota.

Jump to full article »

• Pub ban stubs out smoking at home  

A ban on smoking in bars and pubs has prompted many New Zealanders to stop smoking at home, Ministry of Health research shows.

Next month will mark six years since the passing of smoke-free legislation that bans smoking in indoor work environments such as clubs, casinos, bars and restaurants. It came into force one year later, in December 2004.

A ministry expert on tobacco, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, says one of the positive spin-offs of the law has been that the number of smoke-free homes has dramatically increased. He attributes the trend to a change in attitude - "People started thinking, `I can't smoke in the pub so I won't smoke in my home'."

A report evaluating the law's effectiveness and impact across various sectors shows exposure to second-hand smoke in the home decreased from 20% in 2003 to 9% in 2006. And the cultural shift, which has seen smoking become less socially acceptable, has seen smoking rates fall year on year.

The research, he says, also shows "the overall economic impact [of the legislation] was not a negative one".

But Josh White of the Hospitality Association of New Zealand says there is no doubt the law has had a negative impact on licensed premises. "Everyone that's tried to survive has had to put a smoking area in at their own cost."

Jump to full article »

• TIMOTHY ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee vs RACHEAL ANDERSON nka HILL, Defendant-Appellant (PDF) 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Racheal Anderson nka Hill, appeals a decision of the Warren County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, regarding custody and parenting time matters involving her daughter. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court. . . .

On April 3, 2008, Marilyn moved the court to modify Racheal's parenting time with Victoria, and further moved the court for an order prohibiting all parties from smoking cigarettes in Victoria's presence. Marilyn argued that Victoria had expressed concerns, fears and reluctance over spending time with her mother, and had returned home from parenting time smelling of cigarette smoke as a result of Racheal smoking in her home and car. Marilyn also requested that a guardian ad litem be appointed for Victoria. . . .

In her third assignment of error, Racheal challenges the trial court's imposition of a no-smoking ban upon the parties. Specifically, she argues that there was no evidence before the court that Victoria suffered from any health problems or had an increased sensitivity to smoke, and she contends that there must be some evidence that a child suffers physical harm before the court can restrict a parent from engaging in a lawful activity. Racheal also points to the fact that the smoking ban is not limited to the parties' homes or to the parties themselves, and argues that the ban has effectively restricted the places where she can take Victoria.

{¶31} The trial court adopted the magistrate's finding that although there was no evidence presented to indicate that Victoria has any health problems or an increased sensitivity to cigarette smoke, it was not in Victoria's best interest to be exposed to such an activity. Indeed, other Ohio courts have made reference to the "avalanche of authoritative scientific studies" which indicate that "secondhand smoke constitutes a real and substantial danger to children because it causes and aggravates serious diseases in children, which danger is both a 'relevant factor' and a 'physical health factor'" that a trial court is required to consider in making a best interest determination under R.C. 3109.04(F). In Day, the Fifth District Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's imposition of a no-smoking ban, noting that the Ohio Supreme Court has recognized conclusions made by the United States Surgeon General, as well as other health agencies, that "secondhand smoke impairs the respiratory health of thousands of young children." Id., quoting D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Bd. of Health . . . . Regardless of the condition of their health, secondhand smoke is considered a danger to all children.

{¶32} Based on the foregoing, Racheal has not shown that the trial court's decision to restrict Victoria's exposure to cigarette smoke was arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable so as to constitute an abuse of its discretion.

Jump to full article »

No Smoking in Balconies and Patios 

A group of residents that successfully lobbied the City Council to ban smoking in common areas of apartments and condominiums wants the prohibition expanded to balconies and patios.

Santa Monicans for Non-Smoking Renters Rights also wants the creation of non-smoking sections for multi-family residential buildings, including units. And the group says landlords and condo owners should be forced to disclose smoking and non-smoking units to potential tenants and buyers.

"When someone smokes on a balcony or patio, the smoke is pulled into neighboring units because of the difference in air pressure," said group member Myra Morris, who called this "an intrusion."

A press release issued by the group claims that once secondhand smoke has drifted into a unit, it attaches to walls, floors, furniture and rugs and outgases back into the room, even if no one is smoking. The group looks to an article from January of this year in the journal Pediatrics as proof of the existence of what is called "third-hand smoke."

"If smoke is coming into your unit on a regular basis, you are at risk for illness," group member Barbara Bronie said "Cities have a responsibility to protect the public's health."

Jump to full article »

• Tenants demand tougher anti-smoking laws 

"We shut the doors, we shut the windows, which is pretty inconvenient and not guaranteed to stop all the smoke anyway," he said.

Horelick is part of a group of residents who are calling on the City Council to expand an ordinance that bans smoking in all common areas of apartments and condominiums to also apply to balconies and patios, arguing the current regulations, while a step in the right direction, don't go far enough.

Jump to full article »

• Housing authorities ban indoor smoking 

Alan Pape doesn't like going into smokers' apartments. But as the maintenance mechanic for the North Bend City/Coos-Curry Housing Authorities, it's part of the job.

"When you have to stand in them for two or three hours at times and breathe in second-hand smoke -- I know it's not good for me," Pape said.

By March, Pape won't have to worry about nicotine-stained walls or smelling like an ash tray at the end of the day.

The two boards of commissioners for the housing authorities adopted a no-indoor-smoking policy for the apartments and buildings they own. The Woodland Apartments Preservation Inc. and Powers Housing Development Inc. -- apartments managed by the housing authorities -- also passed the same policy. The agencies provide section 8 and low-income housing North Bend, Coos Bay, Myrtle Point, Coquille and Port Orford. Woodland and Powers have units in Empire and Powers. Ned Beman, the executive director of the Housing Authorities, said the policy will likely impact 475 residents. He estimated that about 21 percent smoke.

The policy bans smokers from lighting up inside units or other buildings owned by the agencies. Those who smoke will be allowed to -- but outside at least 10 feet from a neighbor's door. It goes into effect on March 1.

Jump to full article »

• Cigarette smoke wafting onto neighbor's patio brings lawsuit 

This is the story of two neighbors and a dispute over secondhand smoke in the Sacramento suburb of El Dorado Hills.

It seems like a minor story, especially with everything that's wrong in California: . . .

In short, the state is a disaster. You'd think with all those problems that a dispute between neighbors over cigarette smoke wouldn't generate much interest but it has garnered more response in the local newspaper than anything the paper has reported in recent memory --and frankly, the Sacramento Bee has been doing a bang-up job uncovering all sorts of graft, waste and corruption in state government. Does this story resonate at the national level? Here's the deal:

A California couple has filed a lawsuit seeking relief from their next-door neighbor's second-hand cigarette smoke.

Richard and Donna Ganguet were the first to move into a gated community for people age 55 and older. That was 2006. Today, they claim the cigar and cigarette smoke wafts into their yard from the property of neighbor has caused an intolerable situation. . . .

The responses --over 600 on the newspaper's website-- are all over the board. . . .

I had a problem a few years ago with heavy smoking neighbors. No amount of pleading would get them to take their smoke somewhere other than directly into my windows.

I fixed the problem by putting an old piece of fish in a bowl, hooking up a small, quiet fan right behind it, and placing the rig right next to the fence. Worked like a charm - inside two days, the neighbors moved their smoking area away from my side and didn't come back to it.

Don't get mad, get even.

What do you think? How do you resolve this problem between two neighbors?

Jump to full article »