New smoking ban

[lensperson]

Re: New smoking ban

A buddy asked me recently..." do you ever smoke after sex?".
All I could say was I didn't look

[alohabear]

Re: New smoking ban

This morning on the AM radio(KPUA), It was reported that many beach goers over the weekend were seen smoking with no law enforcement in site. This was also seen at the Carnival on the Civic grounds(county land). No enforcement. The law will be too hard to enforce....recall it now!

People still smoking on Hawaii county land despite new ban

By Associated Press

HILO, Hawaii (AP) _ Big Island smokers are continuing to light up at beaches and public parks despite a new law that bans smoking at all county-owned recreational facilities.

Several people were seen smoking during recent visits to Lincoln Park, Reed's Bay Beach Park and Leleiwi Beach Park.

People were also smoking openly at the Lehua Jaycees Springfest Carnival held at the county's Hilo Civic Fairgrounds.

The law expands a smoking prohibition already in place for restaurants, shopping malls, and other public areas.

Hawaii County Councilman J Yoshimoto of Hilo, who authored the bill, says he thinks a lot of people are unaware of the law.

He says the county needs to put up signs and otherwise educate people.

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

There's a front page article in the Honolulu Advertiser about banning smoking in a person's own home and bedroom.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...NTPAGECAROUSEL

Some are saying a condo can ban it without reprisal. A little deceitful, since lawsuits have been won in court against the condos that did this before. It's basically playing with fire.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: New smoking ban

Some are saying a condo can ban it without reprisal. A little deceitful, since lawsuits have been won in court against the condos that did this before. It's basically playing with fire.

That's interesting. But was that in a case where the owner's association banned smoking in a condo where it was previously allowed, or was that in a condo which had the no-smoking rule from the beginning? Also, what state/county?

[AlohaKine]

Here's an example of were the smoking tenent won. The plaintiff ( the anti-smoker ) also had to pay out legal fees as well as paying his own attorney. The anti-smoking groups attempt to paint this condo ban issue as safe for the plaintiff, IT IS NOT! Better to just talk to your neighbors and work things out, like the smoker did in the Advertiser's article.

Platt v. Stella Landi,et al.,No. BC 152452,Calif. Super. Ct.,Los Angeles County,(1996). A nonsmoking owner of a condominium unit sued his downstairs neighbor and the condo association because of the cigarette smoke that drifted through his open windows from the unit below. The plaintiff sought to prohibit his neighbors from smoking anywhere in the development or from smoking in their condominium,except with the windows closed and under certain conditions. He also wanted the landlords to refrain from renting the neighboring condominiums to smokers. The trial court dismissed the case and the plaintiff appealed. He later sold his unit and vacated the building. The court of appeal ruled that since both the plaintiff and the downstairs neighbor had moved from the building,the case was moot. In addition,the court did not overturn the trial court's ruling awarding attorneys' fees to the defendants. See Liss,R.,"Non-Smoker Sues Neighbors," Los Angeles Daily Journal,June 28,1996; and Simon,S.,. "Smoke and Ire: Man's Suit Over Neighbors' Cigarettes Could Open New Front in War on Tobacco," Los Angeles Times,July 5,1996,B2.

Also making a smoking condo owner stop in his own home may make them extremely angry and cause a fight / revenge. Also the smoker may look to attack the condo association in court on ANY non-related issue that previously was a non-issue out of revenge. Furthermore, banning smoking is a form of "partial condemnation of a person's property" since it would be undesirible to a fifth or more of perspective tenents/ buyers and may there command a lower value and an increased time between tenents. Remember who is trumpeting the "benefits" of smoke free, the anti-smoking groups themselves - what do you expect.

Same with the Hotels here that banned smoking - they have seen a decreased room occupancy numbers since that action. Non-smokers typically don't care either way as long a no smoke goes in their room, smokers like me avoid those hotels with a passion.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: New smoking ban

Here's an example of were the smoking tenent won. The plaintiff ( the anti-smoker ) also had to pay out legal fees as well as paying his own attorney.

The lawsuit that you cited isn't one between a smoking tenant and a condo association instituting a smoking ban, as you described in post #798.

Same with the Hotels here that banned smoking - they have seen a decreased room occupancy numbers since that action. Non-smokers typically don't care either way as long a no smoke goes in their room, smokers like me avoid those hotels with a passion.

Obviously, you've never worked at a hotel before!

You better believe that many non-smoking guests get upset when they sit on their lanai and they can smell smoke coming from a neighboring room that is also supposed to be non-smoking. (Most hotels designate entire floors as being either smoking or non-smoking.) Telling the complaining guests to go inside their room and close the balcony door is not an option.

Non-smoking guests also get very upset when they are assigned to a room where they can smell lingering smoke from a previous guest. FYI, airing out a room and spraying air freshener doesn't completely rid a room of the cigarette smell.

I'm not trying to take sides between smokers and non-smokers here. But I did want to dispell you of your very incorrect notion that non-smoking hotel guests are indifferent to the smell of cigarette smoke on the balcony and in the corridors. Many are not afraid to complain strongly to the management whenever they encounter smoke in what are supposed to be smoke-free areas.

As a consumer, you obviously have the choice in deciding which hotels you want to patronize. If as a smoker, you choose not to stay at a hotel because they don't allow smoking in any of their rooms, that's totally understandable. But don't fool yourself into thinking that only smokers feel strongly about this issue. There are many non-smokers who also feel very strongly about wanting their experience in the hotel to be free of smoke as well. If you don't believe, ask anyone who works as a hotel front desk clerk.

[Amati]

Re: New smoking ban

A nonsmoking owner of a condominium unit sued his downstairs neighbor and the condo association because of the cigarette smoke that drifted through his open windows from the unit below.

I followed the newspaper article to a website about the proposed policy for condos, etc. The website has a letter by the Attorney General
http://www.hawaiismokefreehomes.org/...ral_Letter.pdf
The AG states that condos can impose a ban only IF it is supported by the majority of the owners (at least 67% of all owners). In other words, if the majority of OWNERS support a ban, it can happen. If the majority of owners don't, then it cannot happen.
That is different from the lawsuit you mentioned - nobody is suing anybody, and a ban would be enacted only if supported by the majority OWNERS.

If owners don't want it, then don't vote to allow it.

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

I have 8 neighbors within a 20 ft radius of my room. They have never complained to myself or the management about my smoking. I have never gotten ANY compliants about it. And it's not like they wouldn't complain about things such as water dripping from the AC or about noise, because they have complained about both and I fixed the problems. The way my building is constructed, apperently it doesn't go room to room. Only the poorest designed apartments allow odors and air to pass from one room to the next.

As for Hotels, I wonder if that is there is still a problem with the current rules for people that dislike smoke. All rooms are now on the same level and they are not permitted to alternate between smoking and non-smoking.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: New smoking ban

As for Hotels, I wonder if that is there is still a problem with the current rules for people that dislike smoke. All rooms are now on the same level and they are not permitted to alternate between smoking and non-smoking.

It wouldn't be a problem if everybody followed the rules. Where the complaints happen is whenever a guest assigned to a non-smoking room decides to light up, whether it be out of ignorance, forgetfulness, or a deliberate disregard for the non-smoking rule that applies to their room.

Smokers sometimes think they can get away with taking a quick drag on their lanai with no one being the wiser. But if they have neighbors who are sensitive to smoke, they tend to be very quick to call down and complain. When I worked as a front office manager, we would get those calls every few days. Not a rare occurrence, by any means.

And you still haven't answered my question re: details of a lawsuit where a smoking tenant successfully sued a condo association for instituting a no-smoking rule. If you can't document it, then in the future, it will be hard for me and others here to take everything you say at face value.

[tutusue]

Re: New smoking ban

[...]Only the poorest designed apartments allow odors and air to pass from one room to the next.[...]

The majority of my condo building in Makaha is designed to take advantage of the trades. Both the mauka (bedroom) and the makai (living room) walls are full of jalousies. The breeze flowing thru those units is fabulous. Of course, if breezes can waft so can smoke and odors. The design of this building was one of it's initial attractions for me. Even with my olfactory limitations I smell bacon cooking in the morning and fish frying in the evening, be it from upstairs, downstairs or next door. I rarely detect cigarette smoke but that tends to be an odor that's not strong enough for me to smell...only feel. Other residents have complained about smoking issues originating outside and, iirc, one couple took the issue to court. Still, to live within feet of the ocean and have to keep a unit sealed tight to avoid smoke or food odors would be a travesty.

Regardless, residents should be able to smoke in their individual units and in appropriately designated common areas...even tho' I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and my father's death was due to diseases directly attributed to smoking.

Would I be upset if smoking was banned entirely? NO! Would I become an activist for either side of the issue? NO!

[AlohaKine]

Re: New smoking ban

It wouldn't be a problem if everybody followed the rules. Where the complaints happen is whenever a guest assigned to a non-smoking room decides to light up, whether it be out of ignorance, forgetfulness, or a deliberate disregard for the non-smoking rule that applies to their room.

Smokers sometimes think they can get away with taking a quick drag on their lanai with no one being the wiser. But if they have neighbors who are sensitive to smoke, they tend to be very quick to call down and complain. When I worked as a front office manager, we would get those calls every few days. Not a rare occurrence, by any means.

And you still haven't answered my question re: details of a lawsuit where a smoking tenant successfully sued a condo association for instituting a no-smoking rule. If you can't document it, then in the future, it will be hard for me and others here to take everything you say at face value.

A link to a lawsuit where the condo association / non-smoker "had no authority to regulate it inside a smoker's condo".

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/module...ticle&sid=4765

I think the truest test will come if an association bans just for the hell of it, even though no non-smokers are being bothered. That would take away the smokers right to "quiet enjoyment of their unit" without causing a problem for other peoples "quiet enjoyment or value of their units", in which case, it would probably hold up.

[craigwatanabe]

Re: New smoking ban

I would think that once that smoke started encrouching on another's domain then it would be an issue. In this case the non-smoker had no right to dictate how a smoker can live their lives.

But this smoker did in fact dictate how the non-smoker had to live in his domain. It's the same arguement in reverse.

Basically if you want to smoke in your home, it's your right, however once that smoke enter's someone elses home, then you have intruded on their rights as well.

When your actions cause harm to others, you can be held liable for those actions. Your defense would then be to ask the prosecution to define harm and if it applies to your actions.

[Amati]

Re: New smoking ban

A link to a lawsuit where the condo association / non-smoker "had no authority to regulate it inside a smoker's condo".
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/module...ticle&sid=4765

According to the site: "It does not specify why Parano lost her small claims case, in which the resident sought $7,500 in homeowners' association dues she wanted refunded because the association failed to take sufficient action to keep the smoke out of her unit".

So, the suit was not about the right to smoke inside of a condo/unit. It as about if a homeowner could sue a homeowner's association for a refund of dues if a homeowner felt that the association was not taking a corrective action.

That is a whole different matter. Or have I missed something in the article?

[craigwatanabe]

Re: New smoking ban

How the prosecution addresses damage can make the difference in winning or loser paying all.

Just like how police will charge an individual with murder and lose in court when it was determined it was manslaughter.

[Amati]

Re: New smoking ban

How the prosecution addresses damage can make the difference in winning or loser paying all.

Just like how police will charge an individual with murder and lose in court when it was determined it was manslaughter.

According to the website, it was a small claims case. Thus, no prosecution, just a judge (and maybe jury). And, in small claims, not even any lawyers!