Study finds overwhelming support for smoke-free policies among L.A. tenants, landlords.

[2greys]

Exposure to secondhand smoke poses serious health risks to tenants in densely populated housing.

Half of apartment dwellers in Los Angeles report having been exposed to unwanted secondhand smoke in their homes in the last year, and 9 in 10 of them say they favor policies banning smoking from their buildings, a new study by researchers at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research reveals.

Owners of multiunit housing properties in Los Angeles also expressed strong support, with 92% saying they favor smoke-free policies, according to the study, which surveyed more than 5,000 tenants and owners in some of the city’s most densely populated areas.

“We found that 1 in 2 tenants said that they were exposed to secondhand smoke and that there is a need to reduce that exposure in order to protect all tenants and children from harmful health effects,” said Peggy Toy, director of the Health DATA Program at the Center for Health Policy Research and lead author of the study.

newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/...

[2greys]

This definitely needs implementing here in the UK and asap.

[hypercat54]

I was going to reply with my usual caustic comments then remembered how much I missed you and was worried about you when you were so ill with the virus! I made a promise to myself then that if you recovered I was not going to rise to the bait anymore. 🤐 x

[2greys in reply to hypercat54]

Not intended as bait at all Bev. Anyone would be able to go outside and smoke. I am sure you would agree that smoking around a baby or child is not the thing to do. Secondhand smoke though open windows into a room with a baby present is not welcomed either, let alone to someone with a lung disease. We cannot open our windows even when it is hot because of the antisocial actions of our downstairs neighbours smoking on their balcony below, saying they cannot smoke indoors because of their children, but it is okay to pollute our flat with it, rather hypocritical if you ask me. The usual I'm alright Jack **** you.

[hypercat54 in reply to 2greys]

Well there are no babies or children in my flats. Or balconies. Maybe the law should be no smoking on balconies or where other people could be affected? So it could left to landlords to decide this rather than a blanket ban. x

[2greys in reply to hypercat54]

Unfortunately that would not work with local councils. They are too lazy/understaffed/underfunded, call it what you like, to do this on an individual basis. It is an impossible task to get them to enforce the tenancy agreement that clearly states that "antisocial behaviour that spoils the enjoyment of another's home is strictly forbidden. All words and bluster with no action.

[Tugun in reply to hypercat54]

Hi hypercat54,

It would depend on if there was shared ventilation. There are so many ifs and buts with this issue. Not smoking but with perfume, I have to keep a towel at the bottom of the front door of my unit as the lady below likes putting on a lot of perfume and the draft of our stairwell takes it straight up to my loungeroom. I had to take a lot of ventolin a couple of unexpected times before I put the towel there. It was worse of course when I had the door open but now I don't. Her partner likes to smoke on the balcony and I have to shut my windows and doors - not good in summer. Basically their choices are interfering with me breathing in "my" space.

I'm lucky - he doesn't live there and the perfume is not everyday all day. I must admit I would hate to work with someone who piles on the perfume. I live in Australia and smoking in shared public environments is now banned. I work in schools and the policy is not to have too much perfume in case the students are allergic. I did have to ask one teacher not to use so much perfume. She didn't take it well but she obliged. With perfume the wearer often has no idea how strong it is, as within a short period of time, they can no longer smell it on themselves and ironically put more on.

Anyway - all the best.

[hypercat54 in reply to Tugun]

Ban the perfume wearers too! x

[Tugun in reply to hypercat54]

I wish............

..... at least the ones you can "scent" from 50 yards away ----- and you know they've been there 20 minutes after they have left...... xxx

[judes]

I can understand landlords not wanting people to smoke in their properties, and in densely populated housing.

However, in England an English mans (or woman) home is his castle I’ve worked hard all my life to own my home. In my home I will do whatever I like, my home my rules.

My back yard is only separated to next door by a four foot wall, they have a young child so if he’s out I don’t smoke in the back yard, it’s a bit of give and take but still my house my rules.

J

[2greys in reply to judes]

I am afraid it is not. If you light a bonfire outside permitted hours and cause your neighbor annoyance, they can complain to Environment Health about it and you can get a notice to stop, carry on and you can get taken to court for it.

[hypercat54 in reply to 2greys]

Depends on your council. Mine has no restrictions on bonfires but only requests ie not doing it at weekends, or when there is a strong wind. Of course if they do it too often it will come under anti-social rules instead.

[2greys]

Smoke as a product of combustion is regulated as a pollutant and health concern, regulated by the Environment Agency who delegate the enforcement of non licenceable activity at a local level to local authority Environment Health departments to enforce.

[hypercat54 in reply to 2greys]

Taken from my councils site.

'Home ASB, environment and nuisance Bonfires

Bonfires

Find out how you can avoid being a nuisance and anti social with your bonfires.

There is no law prohibiting bonfires or regulating times when they can be lit, but they do cause annoyance and add to local air pollution so we would discourage their use for disposal of waste.

An occasional well controlled bonfire is not a statutory nuisance under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (see below).

Dense smoke caused by burning noxious or toxic substances can damage people’s health.

Dark Smoke

It is an offence to emit dark smoke from an industrial trade or business premises under the terms of the Clean Air Act 1993.

The Law

If alleged smoke from regular bonfires is persistent and interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties then it could be considered a statutory nuisance under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, it should be borne in mind that smoke from occasional bonfires although understandably annoying, would not be frequent enough to be considered a statutory nuisance.

If however you are being bothered by persistent bonfires, you will need to provide evidence of how and when this is affecting you. Before the Council will act, you will need to provide a nuisance diary detailing how and when you have been affected by the smoke. You will need to provide at least a fortnight’s worth of dates to assist us. A diary sheet can be downloaded from below. We will not consider your complaint unless a nuisance diary is submitted in support of it.'

[2greys]

Refer back to what I said, "Smoke as a product of combustion is regulated as a pollutant and health concern" & "Unfortunately that would not work with local councils. They are too lazy/understaffed/underfunded, call it what you like, to do this on an individual basis". The local councils do not carry out their duty. The whole East side of Southampton has been a smokeless zone for over 50 years, is it enforced? No. Dogs fouling the street is illegal, is it eforced? No and there are many other examples. This is where the whole system of law and order breaks down completely.

Just because a law is not enforced, it does not make it legal. So if your neighbour lights a bonfire and it causes smoke damage to your home or for that matter your health you can in fact sue them for damages. This is civil law and the rules on the burden of proof are a lot different and based on probabilities where the offender has to prove that he did not cause damage. So they are on dodgy footing to start with.

[hypercat54]

My point is there are no regulations at my local council about times when bonfires can be lit. Obviously if it is persistent or it causes damage it comes under different rules entirely which is what the information states.