I'm getting tired of this.

I recently noticed that Penn Jillette of "Penn and Teller" is now making apologies for a TV show he did exposing secondhand smoke as a fraud.

The British Writer, Christopher Hitchens, who opposes anti-smoking and makes a habit of smoking in non-smoking situations, also acknowledges the health effects of secondhand smoke.

It's not secondhand smoke, but I recently watched a debate I'd been looking forward to between Newt Gingrich and John Kerry on Global Warming. Gingrich, who had previously called Al Gore's movie "a joke" could break Kerry in half in a debate, but what did he do? He sat there and acknowledged the issue of Global Warming and tried to propose incentive based solutions while he waited patiently as Kerry went on ad nauseam about Government intervention to the Leftist crowd, who constantly affirmed him with their golf claps. Gingrich even held up Kerry's Global Warming book and recommended it!

Will someone please be brave enough to stick up for himself!!!

There is a creeping conformity going on here. One first attempts to take the brave stance and hopes to find a crowd forming around them, even if it is a small one. When they don't find that happening, they shrug their shoulders and change their mind. It pisses me off...

...but perhaps I am partially to blame. I could've sent off an email to Penn Jillette, thanking him for taking a stand, but I didn't. Same for Hitchens and Gingrich.

Secondhand smoke is A FRAUD. It is a political tactic. Do you want to know how many people have died from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke this year? Here's the answer: No one. Do you want to know how many people have died in the history of the world from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke? Here's the answer: NO ONE. I don't mean it can't be proven that no one died from secondhand smoke, I mean "No one has ever died from inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke. Ever. Period."

Am I the only one paying attention to these epidemiological studies? They're ludicrous! Not shaving every day, exposure to power lines, children's nightlights (I'm not kidding), fluoride, drinking milk, exposure to outdoor air pollution, hey, you name it, have been shown to cause a statistical deviation on the dangerous side at proportions the same or not greater than that of exposure to secondhand smoke. It's all crap. You might as well worry about drowning in your bathtub or having the roof fall in on your head.

I don't think people realize that a very serious disease has spread into our culture. This getting to be really weird. This is "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" stuff. Please make no mistake regarding the extremism of the people who perpetrate this type of thinking. They will make eating meat the same moral crime that they've made of smoking. These people will have you living in the dark for shame of having electric lights. They'll have you living without a roof for shame of ever having one. The lunatics are running, and have been running, the asylum. They're a bunch of nutjobs with a TV commercial. They're crazy, and crazy is more popular than it's ever been these days.

So, we've discussed many times what we can do to get things rolling to counteract all of this crap and it looks as if we've taken alot for granted. So, here, finally, is the very easy, pain-free first step we must take to fight anti-smoking: reach out to people who agree with us.

When you're losing people because they're not finding support, maybe it's time to preach to the choir a little louder. We can no longer assume that the bar owner across the country who opposed a local ban or the reporter in the next state who wrote an article decrying the evils of anti-smoking got 1,000 emails just like yours, so don't bother.

We must make a point of avoiding "diffusion of responsibility". All we have to do as a best first step is make sure that those who agree with us know we agree with them, en masse. Otherwise, we'll find that the bar owner who took a stand last year, will "see the point" next year. The politician who spoke out will do the same. The reporter who spoke out will do the same.

I've had an epiphany. I've complained before that smoking rights advocates spend too much time preaching to the choir. I was terrifically wrong. We don't do enough of it.

If you see an article, a position, anything, supporting our side, where you know your views will have a warm reception, send the email, even if its short. If you're rightfully afraid of what's happening, send it anonymously if you have to.

Every chance you have, in any way you can, regardless of how small it seems, say "I agree" or "I'm on your side". Even if you have to type up a standardized form of encouragement to save time, do it. Spread it. If they'll take it, just donate a buck or five bucks, or 50 cents they'll take it, if donations are what they're asking for.

I had this so wrong and it all makes sense to me now.

Preaching to the choir is the most important thing we can do. People like us have to do better and I realize now how little it takes, and it's just that little private reluctance I've experienced a thousand times where I could have emailed even one word: "Thanks", and if we did it more it would make a tremendous difference.

This most simple step has been overlooked, and though others have done a great deal, I haven't even been doing the bare minimum. I could've just emailed a "Thanks". I have done this a few times, but I could've done it a thousand more.

Just even the slightest touch. That's the start. We need to do it more.

I need to do it more. All the time, every time, don't assume they've gotten other support, just give it, even in the smallest of ways.

Winston, welcome to the worldwide view of the war against the anti's (communists/fascists).
and I would add as my signature line:
if you are to put a gun to my head-YOU BETTER DAMN WELL USE IT. YOU WILL NOT TAKE ONE MORE THING FROM ME. I AM NOT ASKING FOR MY AMERICA BACK-I AM TAKING IT BACK.

Concerning Newt Gingrich and his 'Green Conservative' party - might want to read this string from Red State:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/newt_gingrich/2007/apr/18...r_green_conservatism

Newt has officially 'Jumped the Shark'

We are being dictated to for the good of the hypocondriacs. It gains more legislation and gains a hell of alot of taxes - and this isn't just about smoking:

Check out this article and ask yourself what this world will be in - oh- 5 years...if the government fully embraces these types of people:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=24239

Well, I have come to believe this all fits right in the neo-communist theory. All this mass brain-washing, which ends up giving the government MORE power to regulate free-enterprise is a karl marx wet dream.

If this isn't a plank in the commie manifesto (destroying the free-market), I don't know what is. As for these apologetists, personally, they don't have an excuse.
They just seemed to have sold out.

Thanks,I am with you all the way!

Winston - thanks again - great post!

Here's a thought - whenever you see someone, for example like the Penn & Teller turnaround, write them a note - letter or email - tell them, shame on them for falling for the BS! They know full well it's a lie! And here's another guess as far as why Penn & Teller turned their opinion around - I'll bet money that someone in "the industry" told them they had better or there would be some sort of repercussion to their career! Just a thought on my part.

As far as former Speaker Gingrich, I don't know, I was never a fan of his - nor was I a fan of John Kerry.

quote:

I'll bet money that someone in "the industry" told them they had better or there would be some sort of repercussion to their career! Just a thought on my part.

Bingo! I am willing to bet that that someone was John Banzhaf or one of his minions who threaten to sue anyone who tries to explain that smokers are not quite as undesireable as serial killers or child molesters. It also could be one of the big pharma sponsors of network TV, though they're on cable. Hitchens writes for Vanity Fair which is one of the leftist elite's favorite rags...

quote:

Originally posted by varla_pussycat: Here's a thought - whenever you see someone, for example like the Penn & Teller turnaround, write them a note - letter or email - tell them, shame on them for falling for the BS!

This is a fine idea and I know many here do this, but what I'm fianlly catching onto here is that, in many ways, the network isn't strong enough yet.

If there's 50 million out there who smoke, they're looking for support. There are many who probably don't even know we're here. To be honest, many people just aren't that comfortable firing off a letter to an elected official. They think on some level that it will come back to haunt them in some way. So I guess my point is that we've got to make the existing base stronger and I think other things will culminate from there. Reach out. I don't know that others feel they have a network of others to fall back on when they write a strongly worded letter or do anything else. Maybe it's just easier to accentuate the positive first.

Regarding Gingrich: I don't share many of his views, but he's right on Global Warming and he's extremely smart, definitely smarter than Kerry, and it really bugged me to see him engage in a lovefest over an issue so important. Others have also criticized him for it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

The link Glister provided is great by the way. Just great. Thank you, Glister. My point exactly.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=24239

"The environmentally ill are fast becoming the “new homeless”. With the ever increasing amount of toxic substances used in and around homes, many environmentally ill persons find themselves unable to tolerate living in traditional housing. It soon becomes a struggle in which safe housing is desperately sought, but often unavailable. Victims may find they are forced to camp outside or dwell in vehicles."

This should be an article in "The Onion". It's ludicrous! These people aren't "environmentally ill"; THEY'RE MENTALLY ILL!!!

Why do these people act in such a way? There has to be a rational explanation and I don't think it has a damn thing to with any bullshit about "the ever increasing amount of toxic substances". "Toxic" is the Orwellian buzzword of our time.

"Victims may find they are forced to camp outside or dwell in vehicles."

Oh, well, I should be more sensitive. I didn't realize that they're "victims". I understand now, these poor, poor souls were attacked by the "ever increasing amount of TOXIC substances".

Look what I did. I ordered a cheeseburger at McDonald's drive thru, and now some anti-smoker has to live the rest of her life in a tent. How will I sleep tonight? Because of my greedy, sheepish addiction to a 99 cent double cheeseburger, I've increased homelessness and caused some mentally ill communist to live in a tent. I think I'll drive, no wait that causes pollution... I'll ride a horse... no, wait, that oppresses an animal...I'll walk 800 miles in my sneakers... hang on, sneakers oppress people who lined up by the hundreds for a job in a "sweat shop"...I'll walk barefoot to the homeless, desert people I've created and fully open myself to their ingenious, enlightened views. They're highly educated people, so we can discuss "To Kill a Mockingbird"...hang on, "To Kill a Mockingbird", a novel that seeks to destroy stereotypes and preconceptions (things I obviously have no knowledge of), has an African-American house servant in it. Also, it was written by Harper Lee, who was or is a smoker, and she's still alive and 81 years old, and that's offensive to the "environmentally ill"...

Well, I guess there's nothing I can do to please these people I've so wronged.

And, the truth is, you could say to them "Write down every single thing you want for the world. You have six months to do it and we'll all comply completely." Once they wrote it all down, and you did as promised, they'd just move on to bitch about some other fabricated crap. They'd have the whole world out killing some form of caterpillar that's making them live in a tent. They'd create a war against rocks.

What a bunch of f---ing assholes.

The environmentally ill still have the larger challenge. By this list alone, it is obvious few housing options are open to them. Often moves must take place within 30 - 45 days, yet that is insufficient time to locate a suitable home with so many restrictions. Adding to this challenge, discrimination by landlords who view the disabled as problem tenants must be overcome. While the environmentally ill must make their needs known so there is no danger of making a huge mistake both financially and health wise, there is also the concern that the mere mention of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), asthma, or disability will hinder any chance of securing a dwelling. Despite this, few would be likely to move again once a suitable rental is found. Quite to the contrary, most environmentally ill patients go the extra mile to maintain their home.

Above quote from the article.
My husband and I are landlords, when someone appears to be of this mindset - we run in the other direction FAST...

The last sentence is funny as hell - "...Most environmentally ill patients go the extra mile to maintain their homes." That is such BS, MOST will go out of their way to make the landlord jump through hoops for their 'delicate' position.

No way Jose - We can't afford their delicate life.

We are not progressive landlords....Don't like the apartment - get the %$&# out!!!

I would suggest they watch Northern Exposure's character played by Anthony Edwards living in a glass bubble in the woods. They should either follow his lead of succumb to their afflictions.

Why is it the private property owner's responsibility to provide them the enviroment they desire? If they are that poorly they should take up residence in a hospital, know for the the infections available to their customers.

We all die from something, let nature take it's course. This is the planet earth, with germs, viruses, people, animals, birds, lizards, fish, and who knows what else. They are an endangered species we can replace. No one is guarantied life on this planet forever. Enjoy the time you have as best you can.

quote:

Why is it the private property owner's responsibility to provide them the enviroment they desire? If they are that poorly they should take up residence in a hospital, know for the the infections available to their customers.

Exactly Bruce, unfortunately, we're going to be the ones who are forced into homelesness or hospitals to acommodate these losers - I really think that this MCS or whatever disorder is really a farce dreamt up by some trial lawyers in order to increase litigation and government regulation of private property.

quote:

Originally posted by gilster:

We are not progressive landlords....Don't like the apartment - get the %$&# out!!!

Glister, so many see ads for apartments demanding non-smokers. I live in an apartment and I told the landlord that I smoke when I moved in, before anti-smoking kicked into full force in my area. They didn't care at the time, but a recent conversation with them made me think that they were suddenly concerned.

A year and a half ago, the man living in the apartment adjacent to mine moved out. That apartment sat empty for a year. I happen to have seen my landlord's ad in the paper for that apartment. It requested a non-smoker.

So, since you obviously smoke, could you please give us some perspective on this assinine situation. It seems to me that landlords often cut off their nose to spite their face.

Let's say the rent for a small apartment in a rural area is $500.00. This represents an income for the landlord of $6,000 a year. Why, I have to ask, would landlords make unusual demands of tenants who, in my experience, tend to be relatively low maintenance? Why would a landlord ask that a tenant not smoke, preventing a paint job of maybe $200 or $300 dollars, to deter gaining $6,000 a year?

My landlords lost, in my example, $6,000. Why the hell are they making demands?

Since you are a landlord and you smoke, could you please add your thoughts on this? I'm very eager to know what's going on here.

Absent socially engineered anti-smoking, does a smoking tenant provide any difficulties for a landlord? This hypothetical tenant smokes, let's say, five packs a day. A super smoker. 16 waking hours means they smoke a cigarette every 9.6 minutes. Basically, this tenant smokes constantly except for scenarios where they can't smoke for practical reasons.

Other than remote fire risk, and reasons engineered by anti-smoking, as a landlord, are there any practical considerations that you think justify asking whether or not a tenant smokes?

that artical just amazes me environmentally ill and no suituable housing is avail.. just why are they claiming they are environmentally ill? these people jeopdized their health by voiding any and all substances that challenged their immune system running to the doctor for antibotics

this story is filled with so much conflicting ills. resort to living in their cars just how clean is their cars or the tent or some field or out under a tree or in the park.

quote:

Originally posted by WinstonSmith:
Since you are a landlord and you smoke, could you please add your thoughts on this? I'm very eager to know what's going on here.

Smokers have become Cats and Dogs to many landlords - an expense at Apartment turnover and a potential lawsuit situation to 'allergic' neighbors.

With all the SHS hype - Smokers have gone beyond paying an extra 'smokers-pet-fee' right to an all out ban at alot of places.

In our leases we specify no pets now- we have replaced many a rug at our expense for their enjoyment of their pets. Also tenants in our neck of the woods tend to own dogs on the 'insurance bad-list' Shephards, Rotties, Pitbulls. That is a landlords nightmare, you could lose everything if a tenants dog attacks someone and you did nothing to get rid of the dog.

We have a dog [who's on the insurance bad dog list] and two cats at our house, they do some damage to our house, but they are our pets and we love them - we also pay to fix their mistakes and pay extra insurance for the dog.Tenants don't - therefore the difference. It sucks, but that's what it is....

The same holds true for damage by children of tenants but you can't discriminate against those buggers any more ...LOL....

Now as to smokers, we absolutely allow smokers into our apartments - no restrictions at all.

I've even gone as far as thinking in the future that we should write up rental agreements that the apartments are smoker-friendly or smokers only.

For two reasons: To be accomodating and attract smokers who may not be able to live anywhere else because of the SHS craze, and to cover ourselves against 'sensitive' tenants who may force a fellow tenant off the properties because they don't like smelling tobacco smoke by suing us.

As for tenats who smoke, we had one leave an apartment last month - one that burned the carpets with dropped cig butts - which resulted in a $500 carpet replacement - that money came out of our pockets, not the tenant....the security deposit was needed for all the other damage to the apartment - we are spending over $1000 to get it back into shape for another tenent.

We considered him a crappy tenant- not an evil smoker tenant, he has not jaded us to ban smoking in the apartments - but what will the future hold when more and more tenants demand smoke free apartments? Which is just as furious as demanding smoke free bars....we may be forced to ban smoking in the future....Time to put the houses up for sale - I believe.

We will always rent to a smoker, many landlords are banning smokers now, wrapping the SHS mania as an excuse and offsetting potential damage to the apartments. Burn marks - priming and repainting walls. Tenants leave without compensating for damage - any damage....smokers are just an easy pickings group to discriminate against now -and the future holds potential non-smokin tenant lawsuits against their fellow smoking neighbors, the landlords will be wrapped up and fined in the lawsuits.

Bad tenant experience of any type ruins it for future tenants. Check out your rental agreements, how many restrictions are written already? Most have been listed because of what happened to the landlord from a tenant from the past.

It's time for us to sell these properties, the landlord business is getting too restrictive and taxes are through the roof. Wish the market was in better shape for more profitable sales.

It's a tough business, like any small business.
Taxes keep going up, hard to offset by charging the customers-tenants more - can only go as high as the market will allow.

Don't even get me started on lead paint.

And now we have to possibly deal with the potential of getting sued for renting to smokers
- You know it could be the innevitable.

My suggestion to all smokers who rent - get enough money together and buy rental property and make it smoker-friendly. If you buy a two-family - make sure you rent to a smoker - your place will be safe for you to enjoy.
The rent can be enough to offset the mortgage to get it down to a reasonable monthly payment.

Just make sure you are careful in your tenant selection practices -so you don't get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit because you rejected a non-smoker application.

Landlord occupied two family housing is the best way to go - you have more leeway to reject a tenant for many reasons- because you live there.

~Wow - sorry - that was a long post~

As a smoker who use to rent I would suggest avoiding high rise buildings with long shared hallways that seem to trap odors from all the attached units. Avoid carpeted units and buildings with a single heat source, normally conducted thru pipes like hot water or steam. The pipes create openings between units and allow air and critters an unobstructed path throughout the building.

Look for exhaust fans directly outdoors from baths and kitchens, not an exhaust rising from the bottom to the top of the building.

Look for multi-glazed glass in windows and doors and weather shields on openings between common hallways. Avoid carpeting in common areas of the building. Check the common walls for fire breaks and sound barriers between units.

Bear in mind you may have to seal yourself from the rest of the building. Read the rental agreement and renewal methods. I knew a women who rented a penthouse in a building with an high rent in 1930 that renewed automatically each year at the same rate for the next 70 years. She continued to live in a quarter of the top floor of this hotel for $ 200.00 a month with the best views of the city available anywhere. I will grant she lived some very lean years as the hotel changed hands many times and went thru a number of conversions. She was self contained once she entered her unit.

I have never considered owning rental units because I have rented a lot of them myself and seen what the landlord has been stuck with.