Categories
· Lawsuits
· Secondhand Smoke
· Letter
· Households
USA, by State
· New York
|
Jump to full article: Article Comments-New York Times, 2008-04-08
Author: 103 Readers
Intro: The comments here, and the complaints of the two lawyers in the story focus on second hand smoke, which is in itself, a smokescreen. The SMOKE is not entering other's apartments and common areas, the SMELL is. SMELL is not a carcinogen...or at least you better hope it's not. Because then colognes, cooking odors, pet odors, child odors et. al, become 'banned' along with smoke odors.
Further, the amount of exposure to the smell, or even in the alternative, the 'second hand smoke' should be taken into account. Is there real harm to a few seconds a day walking through such odors to get to your apartment?
I think the anti-smoking hysteria crowd is playing unfairly. It is a sickening holier than thou superiority that is an affront to civil tolerance and community.
FAR more disgusting and deleterious than the odor of cigarette smoke.
??" catch_the_wind, San Francisco
Recommend Recommended by 103 Readers
1.
April 8th, 2008 7:37 am
Link
When the smoke reaches other residents, that's when restrictions begin. If you're going to pollute your own living space with smoke, that's your choice. When you pollute the shared environment with your smoke, it's not your choice anymore. You have to find a way to contain your pollution to your own private, personal space. This is self-evident.
??" jh, nyc
Recommend Recommended by 77 Readers
Jump to full article » |