Tobacco.org

• 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 »

• 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 »

• 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 »

• Apartment building going smoke-free  

Russell Chandler has smoked for more than 50 years, but he is willing to curb his habit to be more neighbourly.

He is one of approximately 90 tenants of the South Chatham Village Apartments who will have to adapt to a smoking ban coming effect at the apartment complex, Jan 1, 2010.

"There's no hard feelings that they're doing that," Chandler said.

Martin Vanderzwan, chairman of the apartment's board of directors, said the smoking ban has been motivated by reducing the risk of fire and reducing the known health effects of secondhand smoke.

He said most of the residents responded to a survey on implementing the ban.

"It was almost unanimous that we should have a nonsmoking policy," Vanderzwan said.

There are 67 units in the building, including seven or eight units occupied by smokers, he said.

Jump to full article »

• El Dorado Hills couple sues neighbor over cigarette smoke  

"In a senior community, you think we'll all be compatible and have the same values," said Richard Ganguet, a retired El Dorado County sheriff's deputy.

But three years after settling into their single-family home in El Dorado Hills' Four Seasons development, the Ganguets are suing their next-door neighbor over cigar and cigarette smoke they say wafts into their backyard and house.

Because of the smoke, the couple say, they no longer sit on their patio. They also try to sandwich in swims in the side-yard lap pool between their neighbors' smoking sessions.

Doug Smith, attorney for the neighboring homeowner, Florence Solone, said the issue is a trivial one that should be resolved by neighbors talking with each other, not with a lawsuit in El Dorado Superior Court.

But disputes between neighbors over secondhand smoke are increasingly making their way into courtrooms and city council chambers.

With smoking banned in workplaces, restaurants and bars, Californians are less willing to tolerate the smell of smoke in their houses or backyards, said Robin Salsburg, a staff attorney with the Oakland-based Public Health Institute's Public Health Law and Policy program.

Jump to full article »

• Almost half of all Victorian smokers still light up around children 

Almost half of Victoria's cigarette smokers still light up around children, despite an increase over the last decade in the number of homes that enforce a no-smoking policy.

New research released today by the Cancer Council Victoria found significant improvement in the efforts of parents to keep tobacco smoke away from their kids.

In 1998 just over half of surveyed households had home smoking bans, but in the latest survey just under three quarters of respondents to a phone survey said their household's regular smoker always or usually smoked outside.

If there is a child in the house, it is even more likely (82 per cent) the smoker will go outside.

However the researchers said it was not an even trend. Parents were much more likely to protect their children from cigarette smoke when they were aged under five. There was a belief that as their child gets older they are better able to tolerate or avoid smoke exposure. Also, households in lower socio-economic areas were less likely to enforce home smoking bans.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking debate sparks new row 

Smokers are being told to stub it out in their OWN homes before any visit by council staff. The move by Moyle District Council is designed to protect employees from exposure to second-hand smoke.

But it was slammed as "ludicrous" last night by lobby group Forest, who warned other local authorities across Northern Ireland were likely to follow suit.

The smoking ban, introduced in May 2006, covers all enclosed public places as well as the workplace.

But the legislation did not include any reference to extending it to people's homes.

The new policy in Moyle, which covers areas including Ballycastle, Cushendun and Bushmills, stipulates:

"Where council employees are required to work or visit other premises that are not entirely smoke-free, all reasonable arrangements will be made to minimise exposure to second-hand smoke.

Jump to full article »

• Peel rejects proposal to ban smoking in tenants' homes  

Thursday, Peel Region's general committee rejected the idea of passing a bylaw banning smoking in such buildings because officials said restricting tenants' rights to do what they wish in their own homes wouldn't stand up in court. But the committee will ask the province for legislation that would protect residents of multi-unit buildings from second-hand smoke through various measures such as changes to the Ontario Building Code.

A decision by Waterloo to phase out smoking in social housing by requiring tenants after April 1 to sign leases with no-smoking provisions, and a similar proposal being considered in Hamilton, will have a "domino effect," predicts Pippa Beck, policy analyst for the non-smokers' group.

"Every day we're getting calls from tenants and condo owners who are desperate to escape the smoke," she said.

Building code changes that would require retrofitting ventilation systems in old buildings and ensure that new ones are capable of filtering out second-hand smoke are among the measures that could be taken, Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking ban urged for Peel condos and apartments  

Peel's top public health officials are lobbying to ban smoking from apartments and condos in an effort to limit second-hand smoke inhalation.

If their push is successful, apartment dwellers would not be able to smoke in their own homes.

The region's council is going to examine a report co-authored by Commissioner of Health Services Janette Smith, and Dr. David Mowat, Peel's medical officer of health.

Their report says that Peel Public Health has received complaints from apartment tenants about smoke seeping into their homes.

Jump to full article »

• Eighty per cent of pregnant women in Nunavut smoke 

When Ottawa’s Bob Reid convened a meeting several years ago to discuss Nunavut’s smoking epidemic, the territory’s health officials, Inuit elders and leaders all shared an overriding concern.

Nunavut’s expectant mothers smoked too much, they told him, and required urgent help.

“One of the things that was appalling to community members was the degree to which women continued to smoke throughout pregnancy,” says Reid, associate director of the rehabilitation centre at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

Reid, an expert in smoking cessation and behaviour modification, works with heart patients trying to break their addiction to tobacco.

About one-quarter of the 7,000 patients who visit the institute every year are smokers. (Smoking is a leading risk factor for heart disease.)

But the scale of the epidemic among Nunavut’s expectant mothers is of a different magnitude: studies show that up to 80 per cent of pregnant women in the territory smoke.

That level of tobacco use has profound effects on the health of Nunavut’s infants, who suffer the world’s highest rates of hospitalization for pneumonia, bronchiolitis and other respiratory infections.

Jump to full article »