Smoking or non-smoking ... apartments?
There are no-smoking restaurants, hotel rooms and workplaces. But apartment complexes?
Yes, that too. In some places.
The Dallas Morning News reports:
Welcome to the latest no-smoking frontier: private homes. Smoke-free housing could become as common as no-pet policies.Nationwide, more landlords are barring tenants from lighting up to reduce neighbors' exposure to secondhand smoke, joining a long list of cities, companies and hotels that have done the same. The Smokefree Apartment House Registry features about 300 listings nationally, up from 11 when it began in 2001.
The Smokefree Apartment House Registry doesn't seem to have any listings in Maryland, though I see a few in Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Sign up for the At Home newsletter 
Comments
The aforementioned policy is not just the worst sort of tyranny, it's a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The amount of smoke that travels through a solid wall must be minuscule if it exists at all.
Posted by: Joe Camel | August 15, 2008 9:28 AM
This is not just an insufferable tyranny but a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment.
If traces of smoke go from one apartment to another, (doubtful) caulking is the answer, not landlord arrogance.
Posted by: Joe Camel | August 15, 2008 9:33 AM
This relates to landlords telling tenants they can't smoke in the the apartments not the government telling you that you can't smoke in your house. The landlord owns the building, he can set the rules (like no pets, etc.). I agree that second hand smoke is kind of a weak reason, but I can understand a landlord not wanting to deal with the stench of stale smoke when a tenant leaves. If you don't like the rule, don't rent from him.
This is not a violation of civil liberties!
Posted by: Anon | August 15, 2008 10:01 AM
How will this be enforced, other than having the landlord periodically inspecting your apartment for traces of smoke? Perhaps tenants will begin spying upon one another?
This sounds positively Soviet!
Posted by: Overwatch | August 15, 2008 12:56 PM
Perhaps the real tyranny here is exposing non-smokers and thier families to second-hand smoke. If you choose to smoke, it is unfair to impose the consequences of that decision on people who have chosen not to smoke.
Smoke travels through ventilation systems and seeps through cracks in doors, windows, ceiling, etc. If landlords can regulate noise, which is a mere nuisance, why should they not also regulate tobacco smoke, which is a known health threat?
As for enforcement, it would be complaint-based, just like any other nuisance regulation.
This is not about spying, or miniscule amounts of smoke. This is about peoples' right to live in a healthy, comfortable home.
Posted by: anon | January 30, 2009 1:28 PM
I signed a lease for an apartment agreeing to abide by the rules/regulations established in the lease. I did not realize that I was agreeing to be exposed to the smoke from my neighbor's cigarettes and cigars.
We have smoking/non smoking hotel rooms across the nation ---- why not smoking or non smoking apartment buildings?
Posted by: Kathy Bamburg | May 6, 2009 3:50 PM