Strata Non-Smoking Bylaw - How Strongly Is It Enforced?

sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 10:13
Last edited 31/10/2019 - 10:46 by 1 other user

Hi All,

I have been reading some of the other neighbour complaint stories and have one of my own. For the past few years we have been living in a strata complex with two different neighbours below us who regularly smoke. Both of these are tenanted apartment lots. It used to be so bad that it would come in from our balcony door, main bedroom windows and now even can smell it in our kitchen with the windows closed. It is happening at least twice a day at the same time, but I cannot seem to "catch" them in the act even though it happens so regularly. They are also on ground floor and may be smoking within their apartment building which still somehow manages to enter via our balcony and kitchen windows. I do not want to be restricted and unable to open and close as I freely choose.

Originally there was no bylaw in place to stop this but after 1-2 years of going back and forth with the strata and getting approved at the last AGM we finally have a no smoking bylaw which states that residents or their visitors cannot smoke in common areas which includes smoking outside and entering into other lot owners apartment blocks.

After the bylaw got approved my partner was verbally harassed by that neighbour after returning home from work on common property, we notified strata. Nothing was done about it. One of the neighbours has moved as a result of no longer being able to smoke, but the second one continues to do it at least 2 times a day. It also results in common property stairway smelling very often as well.

Again I tried contacting strata manager about this and now they want me to take photographs and sign an affidavit confirming it is them and recording all the times this happens in order for Strata's lawyer to issue them an NCAT order. Now, I don't necessarily want to be going down NCAT route as it can drag out and might not result in any real change. Is this really my only option? Has anyone else had any success stories or provide any real concrete advice.

Home & Garden

Comments

  • Skramit on 31/10/2019 - 10:27
    +11

    Is this really my only option?

    Yes.

    Or hire bikies.

    • CyberMurning on 31/10/2019 - 10:30
      +2

      or lebanese / vietnamese gangster

      • elgrande on 31/10/2019 - 13:14
        +21

        finding a gangster with mixed lebanese and vietnamese heritage may be difficult at short notice

        • kolorijo on 31/10/2019 - 13:37
          +10

          easy enough in Bankstown

          • ccrap on 31/10/2019 - 18:04
            +15

            @kolorijo: Wait how do you know Mustafa Nguyen?!?

            • skywards on 31/10/2019 - 20:37
              +3

              @ccrap: I think the name is really Nguyen Mustafa 😉

            • kolorijo on 01/11/2019 - 08:54

              @ccrap: I can tell you but I will have to kill you XD

      • monkeyfood on 31/10/2019 - 16:06

        russian in tracksuit pants and leather jacket also works

      • CharityCase on 01/11/2019 - 11:13
        +2

        Phuc Dat Bich at your service, sir!

    • zambuck on 01/11/2019 - 11:49
      +1

      Non-smoker bikies.

  • mbck on 31/10/2019 - 10:32
    +6

    I'll do it.

    Then I'll subcontract. Hopefully they don't subcontract again and again though…

    • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 14:07
      +14

      real concrete advice

      Spoonful of cement?

      • ccrap on 31/10/2019 - 18:05

        Helps the medicine go down..

    • John Kimble on 31/10/2019 - 14:21
      +1

      Separate it and make it bold

    • This Guy on 31/10/2019 - 19:13
      +1

      Want to provide your billing details?

      5 comments in two threads earnt this. I'll need to grab popcorn before I scroll down!

  • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 10:53
    +4

    Shouldn't strata be contacting the landlord if the apartment is tenanted?

    • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 11:04

      Yes, but they want confirmation about the smoking from someone else or photographic evidence as well before they do that as there used to be two different units who smoked below us.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 11:08
        +1

        Do you have/ can you get the evidence they are requesting?

        • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 11:16
          +1

          I know they are the ones smoking, I have no issue signing affidavit. I just cant get photographic evidence of it. They are at the back of the block and I think they smoke inside their apartment with windows open some of the time. But I dont think that is legal to take photos inside someones unit.

          • abb on 31/10/2019 - 13:49
            +2

            @sagrules:

            I think they smoke inside their apartment

            Is this prohibited by the strata rule?

            • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 14:33

              @abb: As far as I'm aware no, but if the vapours enters another persons lot then it is prohibited by the strata rule.

          • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 14:25
            +7

            @sagrules: That's a lot words to say:

            "No, I have no evidence."

            • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 14:34
              +1

              @HighAndDry: I have a written email from the tenant that previously left saying that the lot owners husband smokes. This is something that strata manager has previously informed me.

  • bobbified on 31/10/2019 - 11:29
    +1

    It is happening at least twice a day at the same time…

    I do not want to be restricted and unable to open and close as I freely choose

    This is what… about 10 minutes of a 24 hour day?

    …and may be smoking within their apartment building

    You're the one that wanted this no smoking in common area by-law and now you're complaining about them smoking inside their apartment.

    Seriously dude - you live in an apartment block so you can't expect to have everything your way. Get a life and let others live theirs.

    • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 11:35

      I have tried to let it go but I'm very sensitive to the smell, and have no issue with them smoking in their apartment. My issue is that the smoke vapours goes into my apartment windows while I am home on a regular basis. Those two times in a day are the ones that happen on a regular basis, sometimes more than these two times. I also have kids at home. I do not want to be running around needing to check if its entering my main bedrooms where they play. The main bedroom windows also do not face the same direction as balcony its almost as if they smoke underneath my window sill which I have not been able to capture, hence the CCTV idea.

      • bobbified on 31/10/2019 - 11:44
        +9

        Those two times in a day are the ones that happen on a regular basis, sometimes more than these two times. I also have kids at home. I do not want to be running around needing to check if its entering my main bedrooms where they play.

        Again, you live in a apartment block within close proximity to others. Not everything is going to be exactly how you like it. If it really bothers you that much, the option to move is always there.

    • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 11:45
      +21

      now you're complaining about them smoking inside their apartment.

      Except that it's not their apartment. They are renting. This could be in breach of the lease agreement the signed when they moved in the apartment.

      As for telling OP to "get a life and let others live theirs.":

      There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.

      In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:

      • Ear infections
      • More frequent and severe asthma attacks
      • Respiratory symptoms (for example, coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath)
      • Respiratory infections (bronchitis and pneumonia)
      • A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

      Health Effects in Adults
      In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:

      • Heart disease
      • For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.

      It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.
      Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005–2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.

      Source

      • bobbified on 31/10/2019 - 11:49
        -6

        Except that it's not their apartment. They are renting.

        It is "their" apartment as long as they pay rent and live within the agreement.

        This could be in breach of the lease agreement the signed when they moved in the apartment.

        Any breach of the agreement has nothing to do with OP. It's between the landlord and the tenant. Sticking his head in there opens him up to abuse (like he has already experienced).

        There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure

        OP can close the window - oh wait, I forgot! He doesn't want to have to run around to check that the windows are closed TWICE a day. Is it really that hard to close the window?

        • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 11:55
          +5

          If I was OP, I would share the second-hand smoking stats with the neighbours and get those stat decs and as much proof as he can and forward it all to strata who will contact the landlord. If the landlord decides to stand by his tenant, which is unlikely , then a hearing at the tribunal it is.

          • bobbified on 31/10/2019 - 11:57
            -7

            @[Deactivated]:

            If I was OP, I would share the second-hand smoking stats with the neighbours…

            And if I was OP, I'd just close the window.

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 12:00
              +2

              @bobbified: What about all the other neighbours? How hard is it for the neighbour to smoke in his car with the windows up? No one can stop him from doing that.

          • hikaru78 on 31/10/2019 - 12:47
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: unless it is in the lease though it means nothing. I would guess as long as they are taking reasonable steps i.e smoking in their own apartment with the doors and windows closed not a hell of alot you can do

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 12:54
              +3

              @hikaru78:

              smoking in their own apartment with the doors and windows closed not a hell of alot you can do

              Which according to OP , they are not doing.

              unless it is in the lease though it means nothing

              True but lease ends. Smoking indoors causes discoloration to walls and carpets and that awful lingering smell. I've never heard of an indoor smoker who got their bond returned.

              • hikaru78 on 31/10/2019 - 13:16
                +2

                @[Deactivated]: op was asked to provide proof. Didnt..
                The bond issue has nothing to do with the op. Something for the tenant and landlord to sort out.

                ops is complaining that they smoke in their apartment as well. I assume if it's not restricted in their lease they are entitled to quiet enjoyment in their apartment.

                Ops options are to provide proof they are breaching the bylaws by photo as requested in common areas but tenant smoking in their apartment is outside anything the op has any power to do anything

              • bobbified on 31/10/2019 - 13:16
                +4

                @[Deactivated]:

                I've never heard of an indoor smoker who got their bond returned.

                How many lease returns have you heard of? I used to smoke in the bathroom of the apartments when I was taking a dump or when it was freezing outside. In all four places I lived, I got my full bond back.

                • nicksinternet on 02/11/2019 - 11:25
                  +2

                  @bobbified: Now we know why Bobbified is so passionate on the topic…. A smoker 🤮

                  Funny how smokers are always so passionate about being able to live their lives as smokers, but are ignorant to others wanting to live theirs minus second hand smoke.

            • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 14:36

              @hikaru78: If the windows were closed then we would not be complaining.

              • hikaru78 on 31/10/2019 - 14:55

                @sagrules: simple prove it… get photos of the smoke coming out of their open windows

          • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 12:55

            @[Deactivated]: Yes, that could be an option. That is how we managed to get the new bylaw introduced which was meant to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

      • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 14:27

        Stress kills. Op stressing over this is also "killing" them.

    • HardlyCharly on 31/10/2019 - 12:47
      +15

      Either you're a filthy smoker yourself or you've never lived near one. Rather than OP getting a life, you should get a damn clue.

      • bobbified on 31/10/2019 - 13:12
        +4

        I have been one and I no longer. I don't like the smell anymore either but I'm not going to stick my nose into other people's business! It is their choice and their home too. They have a right to live as much as I do.

        Selfish people try and demand to have everything their way without considering what others want.

        Like I said, living in an apartment in close proximity to others - you can't have everything your way.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 13:29
          +11

          Selfish people try and demand to have everything their way without considering what others want.

          I'm sorry but which part of "second-hand smoking kills" don't you get?

          • bobbified on 31/10/2019 - 13:37

            @[Deactivated]: You make it sound like there's no option - simply closing the window helps.

            • nicksinternet on 02/11/2019 - 11:27

              @bobbified: Why should they have to? They have a right to open their window and get air.

          • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 13:56
            +4

            @[Deactivated]: Everything kills. Live in a bubble?

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 14:01
              -1

              @HighAndDry: So you find dying from second-hand smoking acceptable?

              • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 14:03
                +3

                @[Deactivated]: No one dies "from second-hand smoking" the same that no one dies from eating meat, unless they literally suffocate or choke, respectively.

                Plus, op can close their windows. Isn't that a small step to take, to save their own lives? (according to this logic).

                Plus, apparently no one else in the building other than OP is scared about dying.

                • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 14:56
                  +8

                  @HighAndDry:

                  No one dies "from second-hand smoking" the same that no one dies from eating meat (…)

                  Not quite.

                  If my neighbour chooses to eat highly-processed meat twice a day, every day , this has no consequence on my health. On the other hand, if he smokes with his windows open and I ( and my children) breath it in, it increases our risk of developing heart disease by 25-30% and developing lung cancer by 20-30% .

                  Second-hand smoke is a carcinogen, meaning it is known to cause cancer as it contains around 7000 chemicals, 69 of which are known to cause cancer on their own. There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke has been shown to be harmful even at low levels, including in outdoor areas. (…)

                  Some of these toxins in second-hand smoke are smaller than those being inhaled by the smoker. This means the smoke can go deeper into the lungs and is more toxic. Additionally, half of the chemicals in the smoke can still be in the air five to six hours after it was first created. It has been estimated that old side-stream smoke is 12 times more toxic than the smoke a smoker inhales.

                  Cancer council of Australia

                  So I'll ask again , which part of 'second-hand smoking kills' don't you and @bobbified get?

                  • trapper on 01/11/2019 - 13:09
                    -4

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    On the other hand, if he smokes with his windows open and I ( and my children) breath it in, it increases our risk of developing heart disease by 25-30% and developing lung cancer by 20-30% .

                    I hate the smell of smoke too… but come on, this is an absolute load of crap.

                    • Altitud on 01/11/2019 - 16:17

                      @trapper: So… what the Cancer Council publishes is a load of crap ?

                      • trapper on 01/11/2019 - 16:48
                        +4

                        @Altitud: The Cancel Council did not publish that at all. Here is the actual quote.

                        Non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke in the home have a 25-30 per cent greater chance of developing heart disease and a 20-30 per cent increased risk of developing lung cancer compared with people who live in a smoke-free home.

                        This is taking about living with a person who smokes inside your home, not a bit of smoke blowing occasionally across from the neighbours place.

                        Also it's patently obvious that smelling a bit of smoke from the neighbour isn't going to increase your risks of any disease by 20-30%, no-one would have survived the 1970's lol

                • RecklessMonkeys on 01/11/2019 - 10:23
                  +1

                  @HighAndDry:

                  No one dies "from second-hand smoking"

                  Come again?

        • 91rs on 31/10/2019 - 14:54
          +9

          "Selfish people" Like the ones who go out in to those areas and smoke nights and weekends impacting those who live around them, maybe those smokers who stand out the front of buildings, bus stops, car parks and other places people have to walk through clouds of poison? Those "selfish people" you mean?
          I've moved apartments before due to this, place with no AC, 10 floors up, west facing so it was basically like an oven in summer so keeping windows or doors closed is not an option.
          Neighbors below and to the side would be out from early afternoon (before I finished work) till 3am smoking and would spend their weekends on a balcony smoking, it made it unlivable.
          Currently have the same issue in another place where due to places being built so close to each other not only can you hear their conversations until the early hours but get to enjoy the chain smoking that goes along with it.
          Good luck OP however I don't see anything coming from it that will make it better and might just make things more awkward with those you live nearby to.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2019 - 13:26

          It is their choice and their home too. They have a right to live as much as I do.

          Which falls apart as soon as their smoke enters another person's house.

      • This Guy on 31/10/2019 - 19:24
        +6

        ???

        The smoking tenant moved in before the rules changed. Smoking is a hard habit to kick for some (yes, easy for others).

        This is like complaining to strata about a neighbors kids, making a no loitering rule for common areas, then trying to get them evicted when you realise you hear more noise when they are stuck in the apartment below yours.

        OP moved into a block without a smoking ban. OP campaigned for one. OP made their bed.

        you should get a damn clue

        That's not nice.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2019 - 15:47
          +1

          Like I said previously, why can't he smoke in his car with his windows up? He gets to inhale twice the amount of carcinogens.

    • tsunamisurfer on 31/10/2019 - 14:39
      +13

      This.

      I hate smoking, it's disgusting and bad for health of not only the individual but others around.

      But if you chose to live in an apartment, you need to accept the territory that comes with living closely with others. Inc loud walking on floorboards, banging of headboards, smell of non-vegans cooking steak and smoking.

      • This Guy on 31/10/2019 - 19:27
        +1

        Even worse, people waling quietly on floorboards, loud preying to the ubereats rider, the smell of vegans cooking tofu and the lack of the smell of smoke. Progressive apartment blocks are hell!

        • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2019 - 13:29

          people waling quietly on floorboards, loud preying to the ubereats rider, the smell of vegans cooking tofu and the lack of the smell of smoke.

          No of those does the same damage to your body as smoking does.

  • Baysew on 31/10/2019 - 11:45
    +6

    Pretty easy to thumb your nose at petty by-law breaches Have You Ever Fought against Strata Committee and Won? Please Share Your Stories

    • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 12:52
      +5

      I do not believe this is a petty matter, because of the health related risks of second hand smoke in Jar Jar Binks comments above. As I said above, they can smoke in their own apartment with the windows closed as much as they want. Why do I need to close mine?

        • sagrules on 31/10/2019 - 14:39

          The matters that were raised in your link above were petty, such as hanging laundry on my own balcony. It was not harming anybody.

        • unelectric on 31/10/2019 - 15:12
          +18

          The smoker has their windows open because the smoke stinks, and they don't want it all over their apartment. But they obviously have no problem with it stinking up other's apartments. It's entitled and selfish.

          • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 15:36

            @unelectric: The smoke gets diluted once it goes out the window. All particulate pollution levels are measured in ppm - so the level of dilution is important.

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 16:11
              +3

              @HighAndDry:

              so the level of dilution is important.

              Source?

              This is the Cancer Council's stance on the issue :

              There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke has been shown to be harmful even at low levels, including in outdoor areas.

              Source and reference:

              • CCA.

              • International-Agency-for-Research-on-Cancer, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking 2004, International Agency for Research on Cancer Lyon, France

              • United-States-Department-of-Health-and-Human-Services, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2006, United-States-Department-of-Health-and-Human-Services.

              • United-States-Environmental-Protection-Agency, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. 1992, United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington DC. p. 63.

              • California-Environmental-Protection-Agency, Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Tobacco Control, 1997. 6(4): p. 346-353.

              • Council, N.H.a.M.R., The Health Effects of Passive Smoking: A Scientific Information Paper. 1997, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, ACT.

              • Cao, S., et al., The Health Effects of Passive Smoking: An Overview of Systematic Reviews Based on Observational Epidemiological Evidence. PLoS ONE, 2015. 10(10): p. e0139907.

              • U.S.-Department-of-Health-and-Human-Services, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Editors. 1986, US Government Printing Office: Washington DC.

              • Partnership, N.P.H., National response to passive smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces A Background Paper. 2000, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, ACT.

              • Fischer, F. and A. Kraemer, Meta-analysis of the association between second-hand smoke exposure and ischaemic heart diseases, COPD and stroke. BMC Public Health, 2015. 15: p. 1202.

              • Malek, A.M., et al., Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Stroke: The Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2015. 49(6): p. e89-e97.

              • Ye, X., et al., Dose-response relations between second-hand smoke exposure and depressive symptoms among middle-aged women. Psychiatry Research, 2015. 229(1-2): p. 533-538.

              • Yang, T., et al., Second hand smoke exposure in public venues and mental disorder: a representative nationwide study of China. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 2015. 13(1): p. 1-8.

              • Zeng, Y.-N. and Y.-M. Li, Secondhand smoke exposure and mental health in adults: a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2015: p. 1-10.

              • Lv, X., et al., Risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease associated with secondhand smoke exposure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Cardiology. 199: p. 106-115.

              • Collins, D. and H. Lapsley, The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian society in 2004-05, C.D.o.H.a. Ageing, Editor. 2008, Department of Health and Ageing: Canberra, ACT.

              • Ridolfo, B. and C. Stevenson, Quantification of drug-caused mortality and morbidity in Australia, 1998 2001, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Canberra.

              • Davis, R., Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Identifying and Protecting Those At Risk. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1998. 280(22): p. 1947-1949.

              • Schick, S. and S.A. Glantz, Sidestream cigarette smoke toxicity increases with aging and exposure duration. Tobacco Control, 2006. 15(6): p. 424-429.

              • Valavanidis, A., K. Fiotakis, and T. Vlachogianni, Airborne particulate matter and human health: toxicological assessment and importance of size and composition of particles for oxidative damage and carcinogenic mechanisms. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev, 2008. 26(4): p. 339-62.

              • Jones, M.R., et al., Cardiovascular Events Following Smoke-Free Legislations: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Current environmental health reports, 2014. 1(3): p. 239-249.

              • Scollo, M. and M. Winstanley, Tobacco in Australia: Facts and issues. 2015, Cancer Council Victoria: Melbourne, Victoria.

              • Vote for Pedro on 31/10/2019 - 17:23
                +12

                @[Deactivated]: Yet car exhaust no one has a problem with.

                • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 17:27
                  +4

                  @Vote for Pedro: Australia has had road vehicle emission standards for new vehicles in place since the early 1970s and these have been progressively tightened over the past 45 years.

                  The current standards reflect Australia's commitment to harmonise with the vehicle standards developed by the United Nations.The current minimum standard for new light vehicles in Australia is ADR 79/04, which is based on the Euro 5 standards. The current minimum standard for new heavy vehicles is ADR 80/03, which is based on the Euro V standards, with equivalent US or Japanese standards accepted as alternatives. The Australian Government's Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions is currently undertaking a review to consider whether Australia should adopt the Euro 6 standards for light vehicles and Euro VI standards for heavy vehicles.

                  Over the last 10 years in particular there have been improvements in a number of air quality indicators, and it is generally accepted that the increasing proportion of vehicles meeting tighter emission standards has played a major part in these air quality improvements.

                  Of course, more can and should be done.

                  • Vote for Pedro on 31/10/2019 - 17:34
                    +6

                    @[Deactivated]: I get that and absolutely agree. But I also don’t kid myself. I live on a major road in Sydney. I am being exposed to 24hrs (sometimes gets quiet between 2am and 4am) of exhaust fumes from cars, vans, trucks and buses. There’s a constant haze. Do i freak out when someone in my apartment building has a smoke on the balcony? No, because that makes no sense. And this bloody backburning haze from the last few days has me coughing my lungs out.

                    • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2019 - 17:38
                      +6

                      @Vote for Pedro: No offence, but just because you've resigned yourself to dying from preventable causes of cancer and heart disease, doesn't mean we should too.

                      • HighAndDry on 31/10/2019 - 17:40
                        +4

                        @[Deactivated]: Sure. Are you going to complain about the backburning that's covered Sydney in a blanket of smoke too?

                        Oh also:

                        Australia has had road vehicle emission standards

                        A non-zero standard, so there is an acceptable level?

                      • Vote for Pedro on 31/10/2019 - 17:51
                        +2

                        @[Deactivated]: None taken. What I’m trying to say is it would be hypocritical of me to choose to live where i live (being exposed to exhaust fumes non stop) and then complain about someone having a smoke in their own home. Yes I hate the smell (reformed smoker), but the smell of the constant truck exhaust is far far far worse.

                        Ps. Fully support smoking bans in venues and indoor spaces.

                • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2019 - 13:31

                  @Vote for Pedro: Are you saying that society requires smoking to function as much as driving?

                  • Vote for Pedro on 02/11/2019 - 13:50

                    @[Deactivated]: No. That’s not what I’m saying.

                    • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2019 - 13:58

                      @Vote for Pedro:

                      Yet car exhaust no one has a problem with.

                      Then we can certainly have a problem with smoking but not car exhaust.

                      Although really we do take issue with both hence put up regulations to manage them respectively. Car exhaust is a much more necessary problem than smoking.

                      There is a far greater benefit to cost ratio to stop second-hand smoke from seeping through the wall of a non-smoker's house by asking the smoker to smoke elsewhere than to redirect thousands of cars from a highway/road that is most likely more than 20 metres away from the house of a person who also drives.

                      • Vote for Pedro on 02/11/2019 - 14:11
                        +2

                        @[Deactivated]: I’m saying that vehicle emissions are harmful (and smell bad) to humans and yet we go about our daily lives not caring (me included).

                        • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2019 - 14:17
                          +1

                          @Vote for Pedro: Do you drive? Do you think we should complain about a necessary problem when we are likely part of it too now?

                          Most people don't complain about exhaust because society needs it to function. No one's long-term quality of life actually decreased because they stopped smoking.

                          As I said, there is a far greater benefit to cost ratio to society in stopping second-hand smoke from seeping through the wall of a non-smoker's house by asking the smoker to smoke elsewhere (where nobody can smell it) than to redirect thousands of cars from a highway/road that is most likely more than 20 metres away from the house of a person who also drives.

                          • Vote for Pedro on 02/11/2019 - 14:23

                            @[Deactivated]: so you’re saying it’s ok to kill people if it has a decent ‘benefit to cost ratio’ for society?

                            • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2019 - 14:28

                              @Vote for Pedro:

                              so you’re saying it’s ok to kill people if it has a decent ‘benefit to cost ratio’?

                              That is why people go to war no? Countries democratically support to killing of people when the cost benefit ratio works out all the time. The Isis leader was just killed the other day. I think that is okay. The benefit to cost ratio calls for that sometimes.

                              I like you have shifted from smoking to car exhaust and now "killing people". Any other ridiculous comparisons you'd like to bring up or would you like to address the point about smoking instead.

                              • Vote for Pedro on 02/11/2019 - 14:35
                                +1

                                @[Deactivated]: I haven’t shifted but thought I’d try your ‘so you’re saying tactic’ that you tried on me earlier.

                                Smoking is bad. That’s why i quit. But all this outrage about someone having a smoke in their apartment is just ridiculous. The 24/7 exposure to exhaust fumes does far greater damage than the odd smoke.

                                Tbh, I actually think smoking should be banned, we should be transitioning to electric vehicles and renewable energy. As a whole, this would go a long way towards improving our health, wouldn’t you agree?

                                • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2019 - 15:45

                                  @Vote for Pedro:

                                  But all this outrage about someone having a smoke in their apartment is just ridiculous.

                                  No it is not

                                  The 24/7 exposure to exhaust fumes does far greater damage than the odd smoke.

                                  Yes it is. But is our exposure really 24/7? Is the OP here complaining about the "odd smoke"? Is exhaust exposure more avoidable than smoking? As I have said before, does society require smoking as much as car exhaust to function?

                                  Additionally, these are two separate things and the desire for either can exist independently.

                                  I actually think smoking should be banned, we should be transitioning to electric vehicles and renewable energy. As a whole, this would go a long way towards improving our health, wouldn’t you agree?

                                  I do agree.

                                  But these are three independent pursuits of which the implementation of one is not a pre-requisite for the implementation of the other.

                                  The OP here was talking about smoking here and exhaust is not relevant to this discussion at all.

                                  At the risk of legitimizing your whataboutism I'm going to explain why exhaust is not relevant even if comparing smoking to exhaust made sense in this context. 1) OP is not affected by exhaust in the home and 2) supporters of the smoking ban at home are not complaining about exhaust at home. 3) Smoking is easier to eradicate than exhaust 4) Exhaust tends to be emitted further than cigarette smoke 5) Society requires exhaust to function 6) There is no large scale functional replacement for exhaust emitting infrastructure that society requires but there is for smoking.

                                  • Vote for Pedro on 02/11/2019 - 15:59
                                    +1

                                    @[Deactivated]: I don’t disagree with the OPs concerns. But it happening twice a day is, in the scheme of our health, not worth the outrage. We should either ban smoking or not. Going on your logic, banning shouldn’t be too onerous on society. All that we’ve done with these hodgepodge rules is create more problems - such as these.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join