The facts are plain and simple. Smoking causes life-threatening complications that may surface immediately or not show up until way down the road. This has been proven by countless professionals in the medical field, through educated studies. To deny this would be stupidity. Just because you can't see harm on the outside does not mean it is not there.

Yes, this is a free country. But with that freedom comes responsibility toward others. It is not responsible to subject others to things that have the potential to kill them. If I shoot you, for no reason other than that I have the freedom to do so, should I still get away with it? No. That would be stupidity, just as not taking the responsibility for exposing others to second-hand smoke is stupidity.

So are you saying the government should ban smoking from all rentals? I don't agree with that. I say it should be up to the apartment owner if smoking is allowed or not. If an apartment owner wishes to call their complex "Smokers Heaven" and allow smoking they should have this right.

Of course I would only wish to rent in a non smoking complex and since there are enough people that would wish this there will be non smoking complexes. Let the market place decide and not government.

I didn't say that separate apratment buildings weren't a good idea. But if that is not an option, and people want to continue to subject their neighbors to the toxic chemicals of second-hand smoke, then yes I think if the smoking tenant and the landlord are not going to do anything about it the non-smoking tenants have a right to take action.

In case people aren't aware, asthma is a disability. Not having wheelchair accessible buildings and parking spots can be grounds for a lawsuit, so if measures are not taken to protect those with asthma, why should they not stand up for their rights to breathe clean air?

Amen Carbon,

Smokers rights stop where my air starts. Period.

And as far as tenants and lots of people living nearby, what about the extra potential for fire in a heavily populated building. Lots of innocent lives could go down.

The rights of renters should be limted and not exceed the rights of property owners. If the landlord doesn't agree with you, then you should move and not expect the government to bully the landload just so you get your way.

I have asthma and smoking does impact me also but that doesn't give me more rights than a PRIVATE property owner.

So someone who has lived in an apartment for three or four years should have to move just because a new tenant is sending second-hand smoke into their home? How is that fair? Didn't we fight to pass legislation saying that you had to remove lead-based paint from rentals? So toxins from cigarettes are ok, but not from lead, right?

Do you live in an apartment with other tenants who smoke? And have you ever considered that in some places, it is harder for African Americans and Hispanics than it is for whites to get loans to buy homes? So just because someone is not white, and may have been turned down for a home loan in a predominately white neighborhood, they should have to keep moving from apartment to apartment, which will add up in costs verry quickly, just so that other people can continue to smoke? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning, because it seems to me that you favor the right to smoke over the right to breathe clean air. And do most landlords live in the houses they rent? Not usually, so they don't have to deal with the smoke.

If one is a renter one might have to move. For example, before I owned a home I rented an apartment and I had been there 3 years and liked the place. Well, new tenants moved in and they have a baby. Guess what, babies cry!!! I checked with the management and there was nothing they could do since the tenants weren't breaking any rules. Thus I moved.

Anyhow, like I said we just disagree. I feel the apartment owners should be the ones to decide and since there are so many people that wish to rent smoke free apartments there should be enough smoke free complexes.

Again, I favor the rights of private property owners. If I was an apartment owner I would have a smoke free complex. Thus I don't favor the rights of smokers but the rights of private property owners. This nation was founded on the concept of private property rights.

teddy72752:

Amen Carbon,

Smokers rights stop where my air starts. Period.

And as far as tenants and lots of people living nearby, what about the extra potential for fire in a heavily populated building. Lots of innocent lives could go down.

I have a friend that sounds a lot like you, everyone knows to smoke as far away from her as possible as she is asthmatic and allergic to smoke, so an area where it will not affect her is set aside for anyone that wants to smoke and then she will walk over to that area and then complain that the smoke caused an asthma attack. Smokers rights do not stop where your air starts unless they are the ones that are invading the space that you are already in. If your air starts where your body is and if you take your body where someone else is already smoking and complain that you have to deal with their smoke you are infringing on their rights. When a person is smoking outside in a designated area or an area far enough away from any non-smokers and they are at least trying to be considerate their rights don't end just because you decide to walk into their space.

But does that argument not just reinforce what others are saying about smoking in homes? My apartment is my space and is a no smoking area. When my neighbour lights up the smoke gets into my no smoking area. Thus their "right" does end there.