Smoking ban urged for Peel condos and apartments

heehee

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Jul 31, 2006
2,462
223
Same country as Santa Claus
I wonder what they are going to come up with next? Yes, I'm a smoker and no, I don't smoke at home. But this is getting ridiculous.:rolleyes:

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.

"Tobacco smoke can seep from various openings in a multi-unit dwelling, including electrical outlets, plumbing, ductwork, ceiling light fixtures, cracks in wall, floors or doors and through common areas, such as hallways," wrote Smith and Mowat in the report. "Some units may share ventilation or heating systems, which can further spread the smoke throughout a building."
Linky
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
The issue is real, as we had to move apartments because of the smoke and smell that passed through the ventiliation system. In our replacement apartment, we couldn't use our balcony on good days because our downstairs neighbor would be out puffing away - but at least he didn't smoke inside of his apartment.

The issue with smoking within your apartmet or condo is serious, as it can interfere with the habitability of the structure and the ability to enjoy your property. This is more serious in condo units, wher each individual is the owner of their unit and is entitled to all the benefits that ownership would have otherwise entailed. This can be a major factor when units are purchased at the same time or the smoker arrives after the non-smoker.

Alternatively, if the neighbor is a smoker and is already there when you move in, the non-smoker options should be more limited - after all, the non-smoker should have been aware or otherwise understood that the neighbor smoked. Nevertheless, itis incumbent on the property manager (landlord or CA) to ensure that all tenants are able to enjoy their property without interference from other neighbors.

There is ana analogy to this in the form of music or leaking pipes. In the case of the music, however, the ability of the owner to seek law enforcement assistance (noise ordinances) and the transient nature of the problem (music stops, problem gone) does create some differences. A leaky pipe upstairs will impede use of and damage the unit below, but unlike the smoking, an owner does not choose to blow pipes and suffers harm as well. While smokers seek to smoke for their enjoyment, burst pipes are universally considered a problem and thus distinguishable. Smoking, therefore, lies in the middle of these two problem, and the only method by which an individual can be prevented from damaging their neighbor's unit is to a) fully seal all transmission points in their apartment, including sealing the walls to prevent the transmission of particulates through the structure or b) smoke in an area that will not violate the law and will not cause intereference with the ability of others to enjoy the property.

Just as courtesy dictates keeping your kid from jumping on the floor, keeping music to a reasonable volulme, and maintaining your unit to avoid causing damage, it is incumbent on neighbors to develop a policy that encourages postive relations. An outright ban would eliminate the personal animosity that can occur by putting the non-smoker in a position where a neutral party becomes the enforcer, and makes exceptions the providence of the neighbor relation rather than forcing animosity as the non-smoker is required to take negative action to change the status quo.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
No- this is wrong. If certain apartment buildings want to be non-smoking, that's fine. But it should not be mandated for an entire area. There should also be a lease opt-out provision for those who wish to leave if this does indeed happen.

Enough with this silliness already. This is where it stops.
 

Sky Blue

Guest
Jan 8, 2005
6,860
10
The issue is real, as we had to move apartments because of the smoke and smell that passed through the ventiliation system.
I agree. Our neighbor next to us smokes and now and again it seeps in through the ventilation.
 

nbs2

macrumors 68030
Mar 31, 2004
2,713
485
A geographical oddity
No- this is wrong. If certain apartment buildings want to be non-smoking, that's fine. But it should not be mandated for an entire area. There should also be a lease opt-out provision for those who wish to leave if this does indeed happen.

Enough with this silliness already. This is where it stops.
When I was working on tobacco regulation issues, our preferred modelwas for complexes to integrate nonsmoking provisions into new leases. As people moved in/out and renewed, it would filter to tenants.

The condo issue is more messy, as it would require changing activity in on owned property. There, the goal was to still not interfere with the smoker beyond eliminating his effect on the neighbor. In the end, though, If the smell passes through, it is no different than if the owner left his place covered in filth or had other noxious odors that pass through.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
In light of the established evidence that ETS negatively affects the health of those around you I don't see how this can be disputed at all. If your activites in your apartment harm the health of others you are overstepping your liberty and encrouching on theirs.

To dispute such a ruling smokers need to make a case why they should be able to harm the health of others with their addiction. Just because it's your property doesn't excuse the fact that the ramifications extend beyond the boundaries.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
In light of the established evidence that ETS negatively affects the health of those around you I don't see how this can be disputed at all. If your activites in your apartment harm the health of others you are overstepping your liberty and encrouching on theirs.

To dispute such a ruling smokers need to make a case why they should be able to harm the health of others with their addiction. Just because it's your property doesn't excuse the fact that the ramifications extend beyond the boundaries.
Like I said- I have no problem with condo associations/apartment owners making this decision on their own. But to simply outlaw it outright with no option at all is a bit much.
 

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,874
57
Plus they don't want the expense of upgrading the facility filters and adding expensive HEPA quality filter pair with those activated carbon filters to remove smells.

Why switch from cheap 99 cent to few dollar filters to hepa quality filters paired with carbon filters when those might run you $20 or more each.

You can ask a smoker to put a carbon filter on his a/c return, but likely after the first time spending $20 he ain't gonna change it again when it likely would only last 30-days with him.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,059
1,185
5045 feet above sea level
No- this is wrong. If certain apartment buildings want to be non-smoking, that's fine. But it should not be mandated for an entire area. There should also be a lease opt-out provision for those who wish to leave if this does indeed happen.

Enough with this silliness already. This is where it stops.
agree

as much as i hate smoke, smokers should be able to have their peace within reason. blanket laws are never good

this is beyond reason
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Why should there be an option for smokers to harm the health of others in their homes?
.Andy- everything isn't black and white. There is absolutely no reason that this needs to be an absolute, blanket law. There is no reason provisions can't be made for certain apartment buildings to allow smoking and some not. Are there also not ways for ventilation systems to be closed so as not to allow smoke to bleed from one apartment to another? My point is- there are fixes for this problem.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
.Andy- everything isn't black and white. There is absolutely no reason that this needs to be an absolute, blanket law. There is no reason provisions can't be made for certain apartment buildings to allow smoking and some not. Are there also not ways for ventilation systems to be closed so as not to allow smoke to bleed from one apartment to another? My point is- there are fixes for this problem.
Are those non-smoking condos more expensive/in more desirable locations? I imagine poor people won't have the luxury of not breathing in their neighbors death sticks. I also imagine poor people are more apt to be smokers.

I am not sure if this mandates government intervention, but at the very least I should be able to sue my neighbor for damages if it is proven that second hand smoke can be transferred through apartment ventilation.

Oh and for everyone who has public smoking bans enacted in their city, I am envious.

To the end of smokers.
 

Gray-Wolf

macrumors 68030
Apr 19, 2008
2,602
1
Pandora, Home Tree
If owners want to make their buildings smoke free, they have every right to. Smokers are not one of the protected classes for fair housing.

Smokers can still find a place to live, just not in those buildings. unless they wish to give up the smokes. Like going to your favorite restaurant, that bans smoking. If you wish to eat there, you can, just no smoking. The alternative, is to find one that caters to smokers.
 

daflake

macrumors 6502a
Apr 8, 2008
920
4,225
As a former smoker...

I have to agree with making them smoke free. I had a closet that I couldn't use do to our downstairs smoker that puffed away in bed. My clothes all smelled like smoke to the point that my wife wondered if I had started again. When you share housing like that, it will seep. We left because of it and our landlord was kind enough to not press the lease issue.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Are those non-smoking condos more expensive/in more desirable locations? I imagine poor people won't have the luxury of not breathing in their neighbors death sticks. I also imagine poor people are more apt to be smokers.

I am not sure if this mandates government intervention, but at the very least I should be able to sue my neighbor for damages if it is proven that second hand smoke can be transferred through apartment ventilation.

Oh and for everyone who has public smoking bans enacted in their city, I am envious.

To the end of smokers.
Smoking is never going to go away. You can make it more difficult, but like anything else, it's not going away. You can either choose to deal with it in a manner that is sensible, or you can choose to simply move it around.

As for apartments/condos- that would be up to the owners what they wish to do. That doesn't mean that the only smoke free ones available would be to the wealthy/middle class.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
Smoking is never going to go away. You can make it more difficult, but like anything else, it's not going away. You can either choose to deal with it in a manner that is sensible, or you can choose to simply move it around.
Choosing to move it around is a sensible option. Smokers can smoke all they like - it's their right to do so. They just should be obligated to do it in a manner which doesn't harm the health of others. I consider this a black and white issue and I honestly don't see how it can be argued as anything else.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,059
1,185
5045 feet above sea level
Choosing to move it around is a sensible option. Smokers can smoke all they like - it's their right to do so. They just should be obligated to do it in a manner which doesn't harm the health of others. I consider this a black and white issue and I honestly don't see how it can be argued as anything else.
if a smoker cant even smoke where they reside, where can they

public? nope
in privacy of their own residence? apparently not

pray tell where does this right exist?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Choosing to move it around is a sensible option. Smokers can smoke all they like - it's their right to do so. They just should be obligated to do it in a manner which doesn't harm the health of others. I consider this a black and white issue and I honestly don't see how it can be argued as anything else.
I've already suggested some alternative solutions, but I see you aren't open to discussing them. So I don't feel the need to keep doing so.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
if a smoker cant even smoke where they reside, where can they

public? nope

in privacy of their own residence? apparently not

pray tell where does this right exist?
Their rights exist everywhere they don't impact on the health of others. Smokers have exactly zero right to harm the health of others for their addiction. If they can't find somewhere else to smoke that's their problem. It is not an excuse for them to harm others.

leekohler said:
I've already suggested some alternative solutions, but I see you aren't open to discussing them. So I don't feel the need to keep doing so.
I agree that if smokers can hermetically seal their apartments in such a way that their smoking doesn't harm other people's health that this is a good outcome. However I think such a suggestion is financially prohibitive and impractical.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,059
1,185
5045 feet above sea level
Their rights exist everywhere they don't impact on the health of others. Smokers have exactly zero right to harm the health of others for their addiction. If they can't find somewhere else to smoke that's their problem. It is not an excuse for them to harm others.
But a smoker could never guarantee that when they smoke they aren't harming others no matter where they decide to smoke

Where do you draw the line?

Should motorists be able to drive their car although their driving causes emissions that arent healthy to the perosn walking their dog on the sidewalk for example?

At what point is it ok to have other's actions affect you negatively such as driving and the resultant emmsions?

What about perfume usage and people that can get allergic reactions?

What about the family that has cats that causes their neighbor to have allergies? or the farmer next door who raises crops that give you allergies through the air?

What about the neighbor who is using a wood burning fireplace that billows out into the neighborhood affecting everyone?

The fact is that no one lives within a bubble completely isolated from others actions.

I agree with not smoking in public places, but not being able to in your own residence? comeon, that's just ridiculous and no I am not a smoker, I despise it
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
But a smoker could never guarantee that when they smoke they aren't harming others
They can if they are on private property removed from other people. If they can't be sure that they aren't going to harm other people they shoudn't light up. It would be reckeless to do so.

Should motorists be able to drive theit cars although their driving causes emissions that arent healthy to the perosn walking their dog for example?
I'd certainly be for similar emission standards for smoking to that required for cars. A catalytic convertor for all emissions on each cigarette and exhalation. Your argument here is for tighter restrictions on the emissions of cars, not an excuse for smokers to expose others.

edit:
What about perfume usage and people that can get allergic reactions?

What about the family that has cats that causes their neighbor to have allergies? or the farmer next door who raises crops that give you allergies through the air?

What about the neighbor who is using a wood burning fireplace that billows out into the neighborhood affecting everyone?

The fact is that no one lives within a bubble completely isolated from others actions
Your whole argument here is that because some things harm others that this is an excuse to do whatever one likes to harm others. Quite the contrary. Each and every one of your examples is something that can be worked on individually to reduce the impact on others. For exmaple no perfumes in hospitals. Inefficient combustion fireplaces replaced with gas or elecricity heating. Classing of highly allergenic plants as noxious weeds. You are right that there is little one can do that doesn't impact on others. However there are easily ways to overcome these problems with a little thought.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Their rights exist everywhere they don't impact on the health of others. Smokers have exactly zero right to harm the health of others for their addiction. If they can't find somewhere else to smoke that's their problem. It is not an excuse for them to harm others.
And that would be where?


I agree that if smokers can hermetically seal their apartments in such a way that their smoking doesn't harm other people's health that this is a good outcome. However I think such a suggestion is financially prohibitive and impractical.
I'd have to see some figures on that. Air filtration systems are another option.