Banning Smoking in Units

No, but if upheld, actions in the bedroom will soon be regulated

Why? What are you doing in your bedroom that is leeching into other areas and/or impacting other human beings?

it's only a few more steps before this could be applied to single family homes.

If the threat of second hand smoke migrating from one "unit" to another is legally admissible and potentially tortable, then we are talking distance and ability. IF the distance is close enough and there is the ability of the smoke to drift, then it can be regulated. COurts already uphold a variety of "distance" laws, from 10 feet to 50 feet that they believe smoke can "drift" and present a danger to others, and use them in enforcing distance from doorways rules, how far the salad bar must be from the smoking area, etc.

So, one more step: Your neighbor lights up on his patio. the smoke drifts 15 feet over to your garden. Can you then force him to legally stop smoking on his own property? Why not? He can't smoke within 25 feet of an entrance to a cafe, why can he smoke within 15 feet of me?

That day is sooner than you probably want to think.

Um (not me, of course but) possibly making loud, obnoxious, offensive noise and screams of ecstasy - a noxious activity or an infraction the noise ordinances :-).

Don't worry all, once the FDA approves the first drugs made from tobacco plants they'll have their way with banning smoking. After all you can't just exstinguish a whole industry, right? Gee, I sure hope that there's nothing toxic in those plants that could remain an impurity in a medical product.

The question is where will the excess tax revenue come from when that happens?

I believe its NJ that is already debating adding a "sin tax" to fast food.

" While we are at it, we should ban people from wearing perfume and aftershave lotions. I know my lungs react far more to that than second hand smoke. "

No they don't, but keep on saying that and believing that. It's a well-used, yet obsolete, slippery-slope wanna be argument.

The toxins in second-hand smoke trump perfume allergies any day of the week. Just because you don't get an immediate and physical reaction, doesn't mitigate the damage that exists in second-hand smoke compared to "odors" or "fumes" from perfume.

But, again, Nice Try.

I realize most people are just having some "fun" in this thread now, branching off onto the re-treads of responses/reactions to the much-delayed regulation of second-hand smoke. But the truth of the matter is that second-hand smoke, by it's very definition, affects people who have no control or choice whatsoever in whether they want to "share" the primary smoker's self-destructive habit.

Transfats (and calories) only affect the primary consumer. Automobile emissions and industry pollutants are already regulated (though one could argue, in some cases, not strongly enough), alcohol consumption is already strictly regulated, and the "perfume" argument is just plain silly (while some may have "allergic reactions" to perfumes, they're not toxins by any stretch, unless you ingest them and then shame on you).

Even so, I'm just amazed that a smoking ban in condos can and has been upheld.

It makes sense, however, given the interconnection of air ducts, etc.

I will also say this, it's not often that DJ1 and I click on the same wavelength. However, I am 100% behind this statement of his: " Just to be clear, I have no problem with a smoker killing themselves...just don't take me with em. [Smile] "

One word: Toxins.

I second that, post entirely!

Chuck W.