HarleyRider -

"Cherry-picking" your data? Sounds like something financed by the Tobacco Institute.

On the other hand - many "high efficiency" buildings have incomplete air exchange by intent (much like airplanes).

Air from Return plenums (ducts) is partially returned to Distribution (Inlet) ducts to retain heat/coolness, along with outside fresh air. Therefore, air from smoking areas is partially returned to all areas (including non-smoking areas).

There was a time when doctors appeared in magazine and radio ads touting the health benefits of a particular brand of cigarette. They've backed off dramatically on those claims since then and in fact doctors today have little to say about tobacco use that is a positive. The total ban on cigarette advertising took somewhat longer, but it was another step in the right direction, which would be the end of all tobacco use.

qudrcps - this is exactly the issue that we have in our condo building. If anyone smokes in any of the three units that share walls with us, the smoke is pulled into our central heating and air conditioning unit and comes out all the vents in the house. We've lived in the condo for 6 years and have had various smoking neighbors move in and out around us, including both tobacco and marijuana. I think that the physical health effects of breathing the smoke are probably minimal, but that doesn't mean it hasn't decreased our quality of enjoyment of the property. It has been miserable at times and we look forward to the day we can sell the place and get the heck out. We are upside down and are saving to pay the loss at closing - about $40k.

So, fix your vent! What's next you don't like the neighbors cooking? or maybe they drive a car that smokes a touch when cold!

Hitler was never this bad!

Build better air tight apts, and quit restricting my pursuit of happiness. Are there any smokers apts,are there apt where i can only smoke pot, if legal by the state,are there woman free , or no men apts,how about no obese apts??? leave me and my child HEALTH care taxs alone!

navyvet

hope they do the same to booze it has far more collateral deaths, than a smoke alone in my home.

For those of us with asthma its a matter of life and death. Your smoking can cause our death. Your "right" to smoke is NON EXISTANT. My right to breath is guarenteed. Get over it and quit.

I have chronic asthma since childhood, and guess what, I figured out that smoking helps me to control it when it is triggered by any allergen, especially dust and perfumes (which is unavoidable in any part of the world). Also, being pissed at being an asthmatic, and it never went away like people said it would "when you grow up / get older", I figured I'd smoke my asthma to hell than live an all suffering pathetic uninteresting life. I feel better that I choose to smoke, than be scared of dealing with everything around me which triggers my allergies. At least I am not missing out on nicotine and ice creams :P

Of course, instead of banning smoking, I would love it if dust and perfumes were banned. That would really help me control my allergies, which obviously no one cares about. They would rather take away the freedom to smoke within ones apartment rather than fix the things that are really screwing up this planet.

Shoot, if they're going to ban smoking, why not take it a step further and ban any type of air or noise pollution from the building? Geeesh!

So I guess the fact that the smell of dog sh!t won't make you sick means that I should be able to keep that all over my apartment and stink up the whole building with it.

In reality I doubt you would even consider it then. I know from experience what a powerful addiction tobacco is. I've heard it said that it's a harder habit to kick than heroin. I wouldn't know but I do know quitting tobacco after 20-30 years is no easy thing.

I wouldn't! They'll find the cigarette burning in my cold dead hand! These nazis have goone too far, again! I don't fly to avoid the strip-search machines. I'm carefull what I put on the Internet or phone. Who wants that tap on the door in the middle of the night.

If I give up smoking I'll just take up something else.. Like Blood Drinking, maybe

Call ms Dracula!

Gun-free would be nice but that would require a constitutional amendment. It's not the kids that are the issue. It's the parents with no common sense that let their kids run around like maniacs in an apartment and really have no clue. I'd really like to be able to look into their minds and see what's going on in there.

I'm not too concerned about automobiles. Everyone will be telecommuting in the next 10 years so we won't use card nearly as much.

cigs will kill ya....kids extend your life.

but I will be the first to move to an idiot-free place. LOL!

Oh no, gangs are protected.

It has never been a health issue your last line says it all and quote''Then take your nasty, dirty, disgusting habit and your smelly self elsewhere to live. It isn't like there is a shortage of housing.''

Second hand smoke has never been a health risk to anyone and I can back up every word. Its an insignificant health risk to anyone including children of smokers in the home.

Yes...the 1992/93 EPA report on second hand smoke was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge's ruling doesn't stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.

Here's some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:

2006 Surgeon General's Report (excerpts)

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally.....

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh...

geografer, Do you drive a car? Then you are causing me to inhale your CO2! Get the point?

Of course you're right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Of course every other study that has shown time and time again this is in issue and a health issue is wrong but your one study is the only one that is right. And of course it is just coincidence that when I spend time in smoky environments I cough and have problems breathing and get bad headaches. And it's also just coincidence that having just returned from the smoking capital of America (Las Vegas) I can't quit coughing - I'm sure it's not my bodies way of trying to rid itself of the 200+ toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that even the tobacco companies now admit their products contain. Do you think those toxins just evaporate and disappear when they come off your cigarette or you exhale them?? You're morons if you believe this. Just as the tobacco companies use to claim smoking didn't cause cancer - though I'm sure you've got a study to prove that's all crap too right??

Geo...just wondering if you went to Vegas on vacation or business?

You obviously don't have asthma. Even a little 2nd hand smoke gets my asthma going. I have a right to breathe. There is no guaranteed right to smoke.

If you live in an apartment in most areas you do not own it. You are a lessee and therefore are subject to the rules of the owner and management. Cigerettes are a personal choice and the rest of us should not have to endure it.

That's because older buildings were built well. Nowdays they are like cardboard.

You obviously don't have asthma. Even a little 2nd hand smoke gets my asthma going. I have a right to breathe. There is no guaranteed right to smoke.

All landlords discriminate against people. They don't say so, but they do. And there are millions of way to disqualify yourself from getting the apartment. Just show up with your loud children or come dressed like a pig. Or you can talk you way out of it just by talking about your friends or your night life.

you see it doesn't take much and your out of here..

Um...Yeah...Very different issue. An overweight person isn't going to be producing anything different than a normal weight person that would effect a neighbor...Unless they lived above you and ver just so huge they were causing structural issues

Thank you Jason-2467476, HazCats, swamprattler and whatiswrongwithyou

Glad to find a few people who think like me :)

Geneb unfortunately your other claims in the sg report are dismissed as the junk they are for the same findings I posted....from the same report..........geneb also recieves his funding from the robert woods johnson foundation for his tobacco.org website........oh he will scream he doesnt but from his own mouth he admits it.......

Rendez-vous with . . . Gene Borio
Webmaster of www.tobacco.org
New York , NY , USA
geneb@tobacco.org

By Philippe Boucher

I funded my own activities out of my computer work and savings for 10 years. It got rough. I would receive small contributions from terrific people with no more to spare than I had. I well remember my first significant donation of $250 from the wonderful folks at Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights! I had to turn down a couple of major contributions from the industry. When I was on the brink of having to abandon TBBS in 1999, Tac chipped in hugely to support the work. In 2000 the ALF picked up support, and now we are to receive funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

http://www.tobacco.org/resources/rendezvous/borio.html

The scientists gene speaks of are nearly all tobacco control researchers such as the claim about

CASE IN POINT.........This lil cherry part was produced by stanton glantz for the sg report.....

[The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and increased risks of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality among both men and women.]

Heres what he did for his study............

Heres what the smoke free groups did to try and prove a connection to heart disease and second hand smoke....

The "30 minute" experiments that the statement is based on have nothing at all to do with the exposures one might get on a park bench sitting next to a smoker or even with what one would normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.

The exposures in the supportive experiments involve smoke concentrations at levels of 400% to 2,000% as high as what used to be measured in the middle of the smoking sections of pressurized airplanes!! (Which used to be held up as one of the worst smoking environments.)

The experiments take nonsmokers who avoid smoke in all their daily home, social, and working life, force them to sign papers

acknowledging the "danger" they are about to be put in, and then sealing them in smoke-choked chambers that nonsmokers would run screaming from if they weren't being paid $100 to endure 30 minutes for science. . . . When the poor souls come stumbling out blood test measurement show small changes that could theoretically relate to heart disease.

The changes are like ones other experimenters find when they feed subjects a bowl of corn flakes and milk.... but in the kooky world of antismoking research those results get twisted into representing an unusual and deadly threat.

And remember: they only get those results in EXTREME conditions, nothing like normal restaurant/park or even decent bar/casino exposures. . . . The Antismokers today are lying.

Cornflakes, White Bread Could Boost Heart Risk
'High-glycemic' carbs like these hamper blood vessel function, study shows.

THURSDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Eating a diet rich in carbohydrates that boost blood sugar levels -- foods such as cornflakes or white bread -- may hamper the functioning of your blood vessels and raise your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a new study suggests.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx...

In December of 1992 the EPA released it’s now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.

Note: Although the official date of this report is December, 1992, it is commonly referred to as the EPA ‘93 study, probably because it became widely available in ‘93.

This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the anti-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it’s no one else’s business. But if he is hurting everyone around him, all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified.

Did this study show SHS is deadly? Let’s examine the facts carefully.

Fact: In 1992 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.

Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself “Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.

Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.

The term “Meta Study” is often used to describe this type of report, but the word “study” is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.

Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.

Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.

Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, “this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day.”

Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)

Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report.

The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA’s methods and conclusions.

Fact: According to the CRS “The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies.”

Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, as discussed in Statistics 102, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by “surrogates.” In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.

Fact: On page 23 of the study, paragraph 3, the CRS noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk (a protective effect). The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk.

Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA’s study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.

Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as “a positive risk that was barely statistically significant.” (p. 25)

Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed “no risk at all.” (p.25)

Fact: The “scientists” who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. They were finally forced to when Philip Morris won a lawsuit to gain access to it.

Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham’s refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.

Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn’t come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they changed the CI to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error.

Fact Worth Repeating: Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.

Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?

Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman’s terms that means:

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
• Where you’d usually see 100 cases of cancer you’d see 119.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an unimportant result. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Statistics 101 for more details.)

This rule is routinely ignored when the subject is second hand smoke.

Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results.

Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.

Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study – declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.

Fact: Osteen used the term “cherry-picking” to describe he way the EPA selected their data. “First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA “cherry picked” its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA’s a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA’s excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA’s purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines.”

Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA’s methodology. In his judgment he stated: “The record and EPA’s explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA’s controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA’s conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer.”

Fact: The following is another direct quote from Judge Osteen’s decision: “In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA’s conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA’s demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen.”

Most of the media ignored the judge’s decision.

When confronted with this decision, many anti-tobacco activists and organizations harp on the fact that Judge Osteen lives in South Carolina. The obvious implication is that he’s influenced by the tobacco industry in his state. It may also be an appeal to the “stupid southerner” stereotype.

Fact: Judge Osteen has a history of siding with the government on tobacco cases.

Fact: In 1997 Judge Osteen ruled the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco.

So much for his alleged bias.

Fact: Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate.

Fact: Anyone referring to EPA classifying ETS as a Class A carcinogen is referring to this study.

Opinion: You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to this study, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were facts. That includes everyone who refers to the EPA’s ruling that ETS is a Class A Carcinogen. Once they do, every subsequent statement they make should be considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified.

Fact: Most of the information on this page was gleaned from Judge Osteen’s 92 page decision, the CRS report, and the EPA’s study.

Fact: The EPA fought to have Osteen’s decision overturned on technical grounds. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen’s court did not have jurisdiction.

Fact: In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism on the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

You are strongly encouraged to read these documents yourself. You can find the judge’s entire decision here. The CRS report is available here. The EPA report over six hundred pages long, and we recommend you order a hard copy. It is available to US citizens at no charge. Call (800) 438-4318 and ask for document EPA/600/6-90/006F. The title of the report is “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.” It is also available as on line as a pdf file. Note: this is a four megabyte file.

Fact: Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA, still insists that this study is valid!

Study: Babies' low serotonin levels cause SIDS

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-02-03-sids03_st_N.htm

Researchers may have solved the mystery of what makes some babies vulnerable to sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, which kills more than 2,300 babies a year.

Infants who died of SIDS had low levels of serotonin, a brain chemical that helps the brainstem regulate breathing, temperature, sleeping, waking and other automatic functions, according to an autopsy study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association.

--Exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke cannot be controlled by air cleaning or mechanical air exchange.

Theres nothing to be protected from.....if there were then osha would have passed a rule against it long ago...........

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary atmospheric air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Damn, War and Peace isn't as long as some of these posts!

War and Peace was a great Novel...............well written and well read........enjoy

Well said Kelly. The only relatives I've had with reasonable longevity were the ones that did not smoke. All the smokers either died prematurely of lung disease or are currently suffering from it. It's a no-brainer.

Maybe you were just born with bad lungs? I've known people that have virtually never been around smokers while they were smoking that have the same ill health. I personally smoke. I watched my grandfather and the only man I ever loved die from lung cancer and emphyzema. I watched him lose all ability to get up and take care of himself and watched him die. He died when I was 14, and I started smoking when I was 18. I started at 18 because I wasn't stupid and was not about to start an addiction that I coudn't support. I also started smoking becaue of other family members who never smoked a day in their lives that lived to be in their 90 or older. I watched some of them wither over the years other were always that way and never changed, they were just ancient grumpy and basically useless. I started smoking because my grandfather was the strongest man I have ever met in my life and it killed him quickly once it took root. All of the other bleeding hearts in this articles blog roll are probably against doctor assisted suicide, I am not and since I am not assured of that option I chose to insure a relativley young death in my 60's. I will die strong and towards the end of my usefulness. I will not be a burden upon my children or society. You may not like the smell but I utterly abhor the cast majority of all colognes and perfumes yet I'm forced to live with them and THEIR lingering effects/stench. The fact of the matter is I have rights, buildings that allow smoke to travel from unit to unit sound like they aren't up to fire code to me. Also sharing of heating and cooling systems sounds incredibly unfair to me, how much of my neighbors house is being cooled out of my pocket? Why harp on cigarettes? They only kill me and leave all of my SSI money for the rest of you.

You obviously don't have asthma. Even a little 2nd hand smoke gets my asthma going. I have a right to breathe. There is no guaranteed right to smoke.

bdobb And how many funerals did they attend while alive I smoke and have attended funerals for friends from school k-8 HS college Vets sadly these non smokers will not be around to attend mine Most were alcohol related some were Suicides some were young kids just starting life all were victims one way or another But i never went to a funeral of an 18 yrold died of lung cancer Smoking takes 10 years off your life yea but those are later years you don't want Alcohol just takes any years off your life young ,middle, old and some who never had a drink in their young lives

I say the same thing about Drinkers, Alcohol abusers, and no one listens yet when I hear about the Family minding their own and wiped out by a drunk driver I ask Drunk driver or second hand smoke ? Which would they prefer

Lauren: Better stay away from Preparation-H. You'll shrivel up like aprune!

Next they are going to ban something that will affect YOU, Lauren, and then you will be squawking about YOUR rights. Don't be so supercilious.