LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
Interesting issue.
Cigarette smoke travels.......it penetrates porous surfaces. It makes the immediate environment unhealthy and unpleasant. It costs money to rid a space of the odor and discoloration ( ask Paul Ryan ). It's not a bad idea to limit tobacco use in publicly subsidized housing for these reasons.
I believe that any property owner can designate his or her property as non smoking. This isn't going to be legally challenged.
I smoke the occasion a cigar........outside. I'd never want to pollute the inside of my home with the smoke.
Where will the nutters come down on this one. On one hand....they want to make anyone who accepts any public assistance miserable......but they supposedly can't stand it when people are told what to do in their own homes.
End game for the anti-smoking gestapo is a complete alcohol prohibition like ban. No one'd support that all at once though so they're doing it a bit at a time. Like the perverbial frog in a pot of slowly boiling water. Raise the temp too quickly it jumps out, but if you do it gradually giving it time to acclimate it'll stay put and boil to death (not really though I checked hehe.)
What would a perfect world regarding cigarette smoking look like?
Way they do it here is sensible and fair. Apartments are divided into 4 sections with a common area seperating them. 2 of the sections are for smokers, 2 for non-smokers. Can smoke on your balcony or outside in any, but only inside in the ones designated for smokers. Can't smoke in the pool area (local ordinance,) clubhouse (apt rules,) of anywhere inside in the common areas (hallways and the seperating areas.
Works fine.
Is there an added fee that smokers need to pay? There usually is.