Color me unsympathetic.

I agree that smoking bans are a terrible idea. But if your neighbor's activity is fouling your home, you have every right to legal recourse. This would seem like the one sensible smoking ban yet discussed -- no different than a noise complaint or any other nuisance.

This is exactly what people should be doing instead of smoking bans: Treating smoke like the foul pollution that it is, and insisting that smokers keep it under control. It's both more just and more narrowly tailored than a ban.
Grant Gould | 03.12.07 - 11:06 am | #

I've heard the outback is a vast open space, they could always purchase a place there. Or, find an apartment or condo building where everyone agrees to smoking as a condition of lease. Do it before it's too late and smoking's and smoker's obnoxious behavior leads you to a world where even those options are illegal.
z | 03.12.07 - 11:48 am | #

I have to agree with Grant. Our rights are only inalienable until they infringe on someone else's rights. Property ownership (a joke in and of itself these days, expecially ownership of ourselves...but I digress) is one of the foundations of our rights, and if that principle is not sacred, (i.e. the court had not found as it did) what then?
Tom Sullivan | 03.12.07 - 1:15 pm | #

I deplore smoking bans, but also agree with Grant and Tom. This is why I always lived in well-made or smoke free buildings, though. Smoking is a neighborly nuisance like too much noise and should be treated as such.
Megs | 03.12.07 - 2:00 pm | #

Quick points.

These suits are new, but not brand-new and are considered pet-projects for the anti-smoking lobby. Funny, but I haven't thought of them as crusaders for private property.

As for the distinction between smoke and say noise; let me know when the powerful anti-noise lobby starts backing lawsuits. Until then, I see a difference.

The first case -- and if it was 2005 and not 2007 I would have used this example for the post -- that broke the ground in the US was in Mass and the specifics of the case were very disturbing. The landlord prior to the end of lease was forcibly evicting the tenant after complaints due to the smell from his heavy smoking habits. He had signed a contract (private property matters in this debate, but not contracts?) It (the lease) did NOT include a no-smoking clause. The landlord had specifically assured him that he would be able to smoke in his condo. It went to court and the jury sided with the landowner. It was upheld and he was forcibly evicted. That set precedence in this country for this issue; so think if you are happy with the grounds for the decision before you endorse this type of policy.

I'm also unclear as to why the person who is being annoyed is unable to move. I've been annoyed by roommates and neighbors plenty of times. Most of the time I have acted like an adult and urinated on their paper, killed their cat, etc. A time or two I have waited till my lease was up and moved. I'm perplexed that people feel they have a right NOT to be annoyed by something or someone. Let me explain that further. The groups touting these cases disguise them as second-hand smoke victories. Does anyone believe that? It’s a crock. But, it is much easier to tell someone not to so something if it supposedly hurts someone while they are doing it, rather than just annoying them. If you are ok with breaking contracts and throwing people out of their homes because they annoy their neighbor, then I ask -- what do you, or don’t you -- classify as an annoyance?

These lawsuits are not brought by a smoker trying to rent from someone who will not rent to him. This is important. They have agreed by law to enter a business relationship under a certain set of criteria. Perhaps the complaining parties should have researched if the condo/apt building allowed smoking. Plenty exist. If so and this is a deal breaker for them, they should have not moved in. Why is the burden on the smoker?
Rob | Homepage | 03.12.07 - 3:26 pm | #

I meant--*plenty non-smoking condo/apt buildings exist.
Rob | Homepage | 03.12.07 - 3:28 pm | #

For those who favor a suit, how's this any different than suing the fill-in-the-blank so-called "ethnic" family who's choice of spices tends to reek? The answer isn't that secondhand smoke that seeps through a crappy wall is harmful, because it's not. It just smells.

Buying an air purifier, or moving, or splitting the difference with your neighbor to build a more airtight wall, all seem to be much more libertarian solution than suing. No?
Baylen | Homepage | 03.12.07 - 4:11 pm | #

I agree, some peoples food stinks like death, and usually, their breath and body odor arent' much better. If that crap makes it's way into my apartment they should be sued.
z | 03.12.07 - 5:54 pm | #

Rob/Baylen, you make some good points, and lease/contract details are important (I give up certain rights if/when I agree to that in a contract...this goes both ways, for the smoker and non-smoker). I took for granted that those details were/would be considered in the suit(s). My personal approach would be to confront the affronting party(ies) before going to the trouble of a lawsuit (I like the cat idea). And although "splitting the difference with your neighbor to build a more airtight wall" is certainly an option (and would have meet the court's criteria in this case), libertarianism also allows for court action, and indeed prefers it to a gubmint response. We don't have to, and indeed won't always agree with the motive/reason...
As for the slippery slope issue; I don't like the players behind this any more than you do, nor do I like the implications (the slope), but until we libertarians/reluctant anarchists complete our education of the masses to the gospel of liberty, this is the kind of thing we are going to continue to see.
V/R
Tom
Tom Sullivan | 03.13.07 - 9:13 am | #