It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RFBurns
Well dont know what else to tell you, smokers will be here, will continue to smoke, and until the state of this free country changes from being a free country to a dictatorship or socialist state and bans smoking, I and millions of others will continue to light up.
I would suggest moving if it is that much of a problem. I guarantee you those smokers are not going to move.
Case Law from Various Jurisdictions
Employing the legal approaches noted above, residents of multiple-person dwellings and office buildings have in some cases prevailed. The following summarizes some of the legal cases that have been decided in various jurisdictions around the country.
Fox Point Apt. v. Kippes,No. 92-6924,(Lackamas County (OR) Dist. Ct. 1992). The landlord moved a known smoker into the apartment below a nonsmoking tenant who began to suffer nausea,swollen membranes and respiratory problems as the cigarette smoke entered her apartment. The tenant sued the landlord,alleging that the landlord had breached its statutory duty to keep the premises habitable and the covenant of peaceful enjoyment which the common law implied in every rental agreement. The jury unanimously found a breach of habitability,reduced the plaintiff's rent by 50 percent and awarded the tenant medical costs.
Donath v. Dadah,et al.,No. 91-CV179 (Worcester Cty.,MA,Housing Court Dept. 1991). A tenant sued her landlord for nuisance,breach of warranty of habitability,breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment,negligence,battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in her home emanating from the second floor apartment of the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that she had suffered asthma attacks,labored breathing,wheezing,prolonged coughing bouts,clogged sinuses and frequent vomiting due to the exposure to secondhand smoke in her home. The case was settled for an undisclosed sum of money. She moved out of the apartment shortly after filing the lawsuit.
Dworkin v. Paley, 638 N.E.2d 636,93 Ohio App. 3d 383, (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1994). A nonsmoking tenant,Mr. Dworkin,entered into a one-year lease with the landlord,Ms. Paley,to reside in a two-family dwelling. The lease was later renewed for an additional one-year term. During the second year,Paley,a smoker,moved into the dwelling unit below Dworkin's. Two weeks later,Dworkin informed Paley in writing that her smoking was annoying him and causing physical discomfort. Dworkin noted that the smoke came through the common heating and cooling systems shared by the two units. Within one month,Dworkin vacated the premises. Eight months later,he filed a lawsuit to terminate the lease and recover his security deposit from Paley. The legal action,alleging that Paley had breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and the statutory duties imposed on landlords (including doing "whatever is reasonably necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition") was dismissed on a motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal,concluding that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke could constitute a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings,finding that a review of the affidavits presented "the existence of general issues of material fact concerning the amount of smoke or noxious odors being transmitted into appellant's rental unit."
Pentony v. Conrad et al.,NJ Super. Ct. (1994). The plaintiffs sought an injunction preventing their downstairs neighbors from smoking between 4:00 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. (when the Pentonys would be home from work) in their apartment because the secondhand smoke seeped throughout the Pentonys' apartment. After a two-hour hearing,the judge ordered the apartment complex directors to try to resolve the dispute out of court. The neighbors settled their dispute,but the terms of the settlement remain confidential.
Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by Harassment101
Harassment101: I totally hear you.
We used to live in an apartment in New York City and every morning when the guy in the apartment below us would wake up he would have his morning cigarette. We know this because our apartment would be filled with the smell of nicotine. We tried speaking to him about it, and he would deny he smoked indoors - except we saw him smoking one day when he opened the door, then he apologised and said it would never happen again, and he obviously tried not to smoke in his bedroom, but instead he would smoke in the bathroom , fumigating you off the toilet if that was his smoke break.
Other occasions he or any one of the smokers in the building would smoke directly outside our door, or in the elevator. Ever been in an elevator where someone had just smoked? It's pretty much like those smoking rooms at the airport. I start wheezing and coughing and it lasts for minutes.
Before anybody suggests I should worry about my twinkies I am 6' tall and weigh 130 lbs. Before anybody suggests it's all my cars fault - living in New York we never used a car, and a cab a hand full of times a year.
Originally posted by Heike
FUN WITH LOGIC
(Bear with me, we'll be on topic before this is over).
Let's postulate a simple logic algorithm. If [A] is the primary cause of [B], then a decrease in [A] must result in a corresponding decrease of [B].
Not sure? Let's plug in real stuff and see how it works.
If [uncontrolled intersections] are the primary cause of [traffic accidents], then a decrease in [uncontrolled intersections] must result in a corresponding decrease of [traffic accidents] . So we put up some stop signs and traffic lights, reducing the number of uncontrolled intersections by 30%, and in the following months see a 25% reduction in traffic accidents. Didn't we just prove to ourselves that the uncontrolled intersections WERE a primary cause of traffic accidents?
Let's try another one.
If [stray dogs] are the primary cause of [dog bites], then a decrease in [stray dogs] must result in a corresponding decrease of [dog bites]. So we hire a dog catcher and decrease the number of stray dogs by 60%, but the number of dog bites only decreases by 10%. Oops. Guess we just effectively proved that stray dogs aren't the primary cause of dog bites. Didn't we?
Ok, now let's try something relevant.
If [smoking] is the primary cause of [cancer], then a decrease in (the number of people) [smoking] must result in a corresponding decrease of [cancer].
Well .. let's see.. from 1944 to 2006, the percentage of Americans smoking dropped from 45% to 21% .. a whopping 24% percent decrease. (Source) So, have we seen a corresponding decrease in cancer? The numbers were harder to find than I expected, but the answer is a resounding NO. Until the early 90's cancer incidence rates were still increasing, and in recent years they're making much ado of the slight (2%) decrease in cancer mortality rates (reflecting not how many new cases of cancer there were, but instead how many people died). A perusal of some of the stats featured HERE will show you that lung cancer rates actually "stabilized" or increased until just recently (2004).
So 54 years ago the decrease in the percentage of people smoking began to drop, but the incidence of cancer didn't start dropping until 4 years ago, and then only by 2% or less. Hmm.
So if [A] - smoking DECREASED (by 24%) over the past 54 years and [B]- cancer did NOT show anything like a corresponding decrease, then haven't we just effectively proven that smoking is NOT the primary cause of cancer? And we did it without any government funding, too. Man, we're good!
[edit on 31-1-2009 by Heike]
Originally posted by RFBurns
Cant imagine how all the non smokers will deal with having to be next to a wood burning fire for cooking and staying warm when SHTF.
All that smoke...worse smoke than cig smoke btw....getting into your clothes, your tent, oh yes the wonderful smell of wood burning smoke eminating from thousands of camp fires scattered all over the countryside...smoke being blown in your direction, into your open tent, into your face, into your "clean air" zone...
What ya gonna do...petition to ban everyone's camp fire because the smoke bothers you? Heh..who would you petition for a ban during a SHTF situation?!!!!
Weak...very very weak body tolorances IMO. Chances are quite good the non smokers wont last very long in a SHTF situation. My bet is less than a week.
Originally posted by Clark Savage Jr.
So many up in arms with such emotional energy over such a truly non-enforcable proposal!
You have explained this very well, I applaude you, but the fact remains, the information that I am coming across, is showing that smoke my come into multiple dwelling units regardless, please see some of my recent postings.
Woodfires don't stink
come with a valid response
Originally posted by Harassment101
Please when the SHTF we are ATS members, we will all be rounded up first. But should the smell of burning wood in the camp happen, it would not be a problem. Those things do not cause the same trigger affect that cigarettes do. Don't know why.
Originally posted by Harassment101
We are tough we have had to survive you smokers, it's the smokers who won't last in the camps. They will snitch people out for FEM_ cigarette's.
Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by RFBurns
Hate to say this but you are clutching at straws. Woodfires don't stink and secondly there is no nicotine lungsteam involved in the process of burning wood. I like a little campfire and even a fire in a little ski chalet.
Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
They'll never give up because we made the first mistake of stepping out of the restaurants in the first place. Once we gave them an inch they wanted the whole damn mile. Now we have to smoke in glass cages like we're some kind of exhibit or lower lass citizens.
Now they want EVERY doorway, they want every available space. They think that they get to own the outside.