Nearly 1 million Massachusetts residents who don’t smoke and live in apartments or attached houses are exposed regularly to cigarette smoke from their neighbors’ homes, according to a report released Friday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nationally, about 45 percent of apartment dwellers — or 29 million Americans — are exposed to health risks from second-hand tobacco smoke, even though they enforce smoke-free rules in their own apartments.
Comments
I'm not a smoker so I'm not defending it, but this has gotten out of hand.
What scientific studies show that there's a risk from miniscule levels of second-hand smoke. I doubt there are any. It sounds to me to be more of an anti-smoking obsession.
How about one of my neighbor's fireplace that smokes up the neighborhood so badly sometimes that my eyes burn and water -- and that's legal.
You may need to live through the problem to understand it. My condo association recently curtailed smoking rights after one resident was almost smoked out of her unit by a heavy smoker. Air purifiers and other "lesser" remedies were of no avail.
That's a case of bad construction.
who-cares-1940, you got this one right. First, think of everything in the air. There is car exhaust, power plant exhaust, diesel exhaust, lawnmower, chainsaw, generator exhaust, fireplace smoke, wood stove smoke, home heating system exhaust, the list goes on. Cigarette, cigar, and pipe smokers contribute a minuscule amount of this pollution. Secondhand smoke is a factor, sure, if you are in the same space. I agree that there should be studies done to determine the effect of second hand smoke coming from separate housing spaces. My guess is that there is little risk. I don't think these prohibitions against smoking in public housing are all about the reduced risk of fire and reduced maintenance costs with smoke not coating the walls. It's being done because it can be. Those in public housing don't have the influence to maintain their rights, and governments don't respect everyone's rights anymore -- just the rights of those who have been anointed as being in a "victim group". This is simply government doing what it naturally tends to do: represent the best interests of government (not the individual) and make things easier for government (not the individual). Let's see the studies. And let's see them compare the measured impact of secondhand smoke from other housing units from areas with lots of other bad stuff in the air, and from areas with little other bad stuff in the air (to the degree possible).
Sorry, in my last comment, what I meant to say was that the restrictions WERE all about reduced fire risk and maintenance costs, and NOT about health.
This comment has been removed.
Yes, and there is enough methane coming out of the Globe on this story (if you catch my drift) to make a cow jealous.