Inside Washtenaw County Public Health: Should property owners ban smoking in apartments?
Angela Parsons, Washtenaw County Public Health. photo by Julie Stafford
In 2005, Michigan conducted the Michigan Adult Tobacco Survey, and more than 70 percent of households surveyed said they have some type of “no smoking” policy for their homes.
What if you have a “no smoking” policy in your home, but it’s still smoky? Many renters deal with this on a daily basis. Apartments can allow for smoke to creep from one unit to the next, often through shared walls and ductwork. In fact, as much as 60 percent of the air in an apartment unit comes from other units in the building.
Smoking in apartments costs money, from hundreds more to rehab an apartment after a smoker moves out, to higher insurance rates. Also, cigarettes are the leading cause of fires in buildings, causing 40 percent of the deaths and 16 percent of the injuries associated with apartment fires.
Smoke cannot be controlled by ventilation, air cleaning or the separation of smokers from non-smokers. The only solution to this problem is to make buildings smoke-free.
Currently, only 9 percent of property owners in Washtenaw County enforce smoke-free policies. The Washtenaw County Public Health Department is trying to change that. We're not regulating smoking; our program asks for voluntary action. We want to educate tenants and property owners on these issues to help them make an informed decision.
Want to learn more? To help renters and property owners alike better understand the benefits of smoke free housing, the Washtenaw County Public Health Department and the Tobacco Reduction Coalition are hosting “Clearing the Air: What You Need to Know About Smoke Free Housing and Medical Marijuana.” This workshop will be held on Thursday, March 10 from noon - 2 p.m. at the Learning Resource Center, located at 4135 Washtenaw in Ann Arbor.
Local and state experts on smoke-free living will help attendees better understand their legal rights to adopt a smoke-free policy, as well as the health and economic benefits associated with smoke-free properties. There will also be a discussion on the use of medical marijuana as it relates to smoke-free housing. For more information or to register for the free workshop, please contact DeBorah Borden at 734-544-6874.
Comments
Sergio
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.
Since everyone shares the medical expenses of a smoker (through Medicare, Medicaid, insurance), then yes, smoking should be banned - everywhere. However - if a person wants to smoke AND pay for all the expenses they will incur from their medical treatments/surgeries/oxygen tanks/nebulizers due to their smoking habit, then they should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it is not hurting others. However, since we know (the studies are now exhaustive) that exhaled smoke can cause cancer and heart disease in those who breathe it in, smoking should be completely banned from society. for those of you who see this as an onslaught to 'individual freedoms': Is such a request any different than having speed limits? Food inspections at eateries? Drunk driving laws? Septic tank/waste disposal requirements? Recently, I went to India. They don't have driving laws. The streets were total chaos - a combination of pedestrians, cows, cars driving on whichever side they wanted, no traffic lights or lane dividers. Hence, it took two hours for my vehicle to go five miles (ps, the streets were also being used as a bathroom). For those of you who see this as losing your "right to smoke", do you also see driving laws as taking away your right to drive as you please? Take a trip to India and it will all start to make more sense...
TripleVSix
Fri, Mar 4, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.
Since everyone shares the medical expenses of a auto accidents (through Medicare, Medicaid, insurance), then yes, driving should be banned - everywhere. Since everyone shares the medical expenses of a hit pedestrian, (through Medicare, Medicaid, insurance), then yes, walking should be banned - everywhere. Since everyone shares the medical expenses of a choking death, (through Medicare, Medicaid, insurance), then yes, solid food should be banned - everywhere. Since everyone shares the medical expenses of a drowning, (through Medicare, Medicaid, insurance), then yes, swimming should be banned - everywhere. Since everyone shares the medical expenses of a dog bite (through Medicare, Medicaid, insurance), then yes, dogs should be banned - everywhere. Since everyone shares the medical expenses of a head injury (through Medicare, Medicaid, insurance), then yes, youth baseball should be banned - everywhere. In other words, Medicare and Medicaid can be used to oppress people. First you give things to people, calling them "entitlements" to make them believe they are entitled to them, and then you use those programs to enslave the rest of the people.
breadman
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 1:41 a.m.
Then need to band smoking everywhere unless you own your home then you have the right. First of all I only smoked for about four years and cold turkey quit and never picked the nasty habit back up. And being single for almost sixteen years you will never have too worry about me ever kissing a ash tray. And my health does not take much smoke. Two inhalers every day and a smoking peace pipe to keep the air way open. Ever stop and think of what you can own, do with all the money you have smoked up? When I quit, I got mine in Ind. cost was less, the last pack I paid was 1.75 per pack.
loves_fall
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:22 p.m.
I think it's fine if apartment complexes want to choose to be smoke free. I'd personally choose a smoke-free complex over a smoking one if given a choice. That being said, I think it's a little unreasonable to mandate that all apartments go smoke free.
Ypsicitizen
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:32 p.m.
I'm not sure I read where anyone is trying to mandate anything.
Angela Parsons
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.
Thank you all for the thoughtful comments regarding this topic. As stated, the program we are promoting is voluntary. We are encouraging property owners to explore their options - be it to designate some buildings as smoke-free, to "grandfather" existing smokers, or to ban smoking completely. Many options exist, and it is ultimately the decision of the property owners. -Angela Parsons, Washtenaw County Public Health
Another Michael
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
Angela Parsons, Unfortunately, the trajectory of public policy has been toward fewer rights for business owners who wish to make their facilities attractive, or even amenable, to smokers. That is fueled in part by widespread misinformation. Your announcement plays with statistics that sound dire when given without any context. It's a disconcerting start for those who are familiar with the nature of a moral panic. I hope the workshop is productive. Certainly, no one could disagree with its goals as stated.
TripleVSix
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:53 p.m.
This is another example of at one point making jokes about what outrageous move the Nanny State will do next and then having i come true. First it was public places... then it was our own back yards... the it was bars... "What's next Banning smoking in our own homes?" Whoops... there it is.
Sarah Rigg
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.
I have no love for smelling other people's tobacco smoke, but I have to agree with Another Michael about the biased wording of the poll.
treetowncartel
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 8:29 p.m.
All this smoking regulation and we still let little kids sit in cars, with rolled up window,s and adults smoking away. We are protecting bar and restaurant employees who have made a choice to work at an establishment, but we are not protecting the toddler who is strapped into the car seat with out any say in the matter? Now, we are looking to protect people who have a wall built to code speccifications between them and the smoker. Crazy set of priorities here folks, just crazy.
tonuab
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.
Why does it have to be about a health risk? I moved out of my last apartment about 7 months ago to rent a house. The apartment building hallways always reeked of smoke and you could smell it in my apartment whenever someone lit up in the nearby apartments. When I moved out, I noticed that my clothes smelled of smoke and the coats that hung in the hallway closet next to our front door absolutely reeked of smoke. I'm sorry, but I find that smell repulsive. And it doesn't go away with one washing. But I don't think it has to be all or nothing. I don't think a ban would need to be placed against an entire apartment complex, but I certainly would have liked the option of a smoke-free building. For apartments that share ductwork (or hallway entrances where smoke can seep in around the door), it seems like the non-smoking tenants should have the option to not have to live in a smokey environment. My apartment had rules about noise, but no rules about smoking. For me, the smell of smoke is just as intrusive as loud noises, even if it's not posing a health risk. People should absolutely have the right to smoke in their own home, but, on the other hand, their right to smoke shouldn't infringe on my right to live in a smoke-free environment. I can see how having some smoke-free buildings, but not banning it from the entire complex, would address the rights of both smokers and non-smokers. Just a thought.
Another Michael
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.
tonuab, Presumably there has to be a putative health issue for the Public Health Department to get involved. There's a lot of unwarranted hysteria about secondhand smoke. Most apartment dwellers aren't put at any measurable risk by the smoke that wanders in from adjoining living spaces. Far and away, this discussion is for the benefit of those who are annoyed by the smell of cigarette smoke, or who generally disapprove of having smokers in their buildings. It's important to make this clear if there's to be a fair discussion about the costs and benefits of no-smoking policies. That said, I think you have some good suggestions that could contribute to a productive conversation. The tone of the article is off-putting, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that the forum could ultimately benefit apartment owners and nonsmoking dwellers.
breadman
Thu, Mar 3, 2011 : 1:24 a.m.
I agree with this guy!! Smoke does not wash in one wash, and then when these people have guess and they all smoke its worse. I live in a duplex and have my own entry way, but my god the freight trains above me get going, I somewhat have to pass the smell just to get too my door. The out side of the windows are all yellow nasty. And its very bad on my ASTHMA second and third hand smoke.....
Ypsicitizen
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 9:34 p.m.
tonuab, nice, well-thought out reply. I agree, separate buildings might be a good option
Dalex64
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 7:40 p.m.
I also think that the landlords should be able to continue to decide whether or not they are going to rent to smokers. If they have multiple buildings or properties, they could decide that some of the buildings should be smoke free, and others would be ok for smokers. They would then let the market decide what the best mix is. Smoke-free might be a draw for some people, just as declaring a place as smoking-never-to-be-banned. It looks like the purpose of the workshop is to convince people that they want to live in smoke-free buildings.
Matrix
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.
Let the landlords decide on their own. They will do what is best for their property. If enough tenants want smoking banned, then, if legal, landlord can ban smoking. No laws or regulations need to be passed. If the tenant isn't happy, the tenant can move out, move to another unit within the complex, etc. It is that simple. Market demand will drive landlord's decision.
Allison
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
In most buildings smoking is not allowed in the common areas, such as the hallways and the laundry room and the steps to the building, if a law was passed to say no smoking in the Apt's then where would a smoker smoke? Not in the bars, not in their home, not in the hallways, not at work, only place left would be in their car. I am not a smoker and I never want to become one, certain apartment complexes can say no smoking allowed but to have all of them go non smoking wouldn't be fair at all.
Dale
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.
The responce not provided in the poll is the approate one. No way. Let the BUILDING OWNER decided.
Another Michael
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 6:23 p.m.
"Regardless of the potential effects on others"? Push polling, anyone? For years I used to deal with smoke migrating into my apartment from elsewhere in the building. It caused an unwelcome smell in the entryway and bathroom. Yes, it was annoying. No, it did not make the top-five list of neighborly irritations. And there wasn't nearly enough secondhand smoke to present a genuine health hazard, even for my asthmatic roommate. Educating the public is great, but "voluntary" has a tendency to turn into "compulsory" given enough time and "awareness". Seems to me that apartment managers are better positioned than health departments to measure the costs of maintaining the property (including the slight risk of catastrophic loss) against those of enforcing a non-smoking policy in some or all of their buildings. As long as the rules about smoking are disclosed to tenants, I don't see how anyone else's opinion of how things "should" be has any bearing on the arrangement.
Ignatz
Wed, Mar 2, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.
If the building is designed where there is no regular exchange of air via either ductwork or walls, then it should be left to the sole discretion of the occupant.