Smoke at home? Get sued.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So get this... a lady smokes in her own apartment, is being sued by lawyers who live in the adjoining hallway. Go figure it's two bloodsuckers married to each other suing her, but at what point do we draw the line?

PS, I still don't smoke. Yay me.

http://body.aol.com/condition-center/smoking-cessation/secondhand-smoke

Would You Sue Your Neighbor for Smoking?


By Katherine Steinberg

Smokers are being increasingly pushed to the wayside as bans on smoking sweep across cities from the West to the East coasts, from the work place to restaurants. It seems there is no place to light up indoors anymore. But when does the ban on public smoking become private?


Two neighbors are feuding in New York over secondhand smoke seeping into a public hallway, as reported in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/nyregion/09ansonia.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). One neighbor is a 57-year-old chain-smoking restaurateur who says she has been a smoker for four decades. She admits to feeling guilty over not being able to quit, and claims she uses air purifiers and door seals to ward against smoke seepage. Her neighbors, a couple, both 40 and lawyers, claim her efforts are not stopping the smoke fumes from infecting the hallway where their young son is exposed to her secondhand smoke (http://body.aol.com/conditions/secondhand-smoke). But do they have the right to restrict her smoking in her own apartment?

The well-documented dangers of secondhand smoke are many, ranging from lung cancer (http://body.aol.com/conditions/lung-cancer) to heart disease (http://body.aol.com/condition-center/heart-disease), and possibly many other cancers, such as breast (http://body.aol.com/condition-center/breast-cancer) and cervical cancer (http://body.aol.com/conditions/cervical-cancer). Secondhand smoke exposure has been concluded to be unsafe at any level, according to a June 2006 report by the U.S. Surgeon General. The report went further, stating there must be a ban on indoor smoking entirely in order to fully protect nonsmokers.
But, should your own apartment be considered a smoke-free zone, simply because it's indoors? Perhaps, if that apartment has a shared hallway where smoke can collect. What this means to smokers in their own apartments is still up for debate. Home may not be a sanctuary for smokers much longer.

[thefarmer]

As long as she does make an effort not to have her smoke leak into the hallway (door stoppers, vents to the outside, etc) then fuck those people.

If you can't smoke in your own house, something's really wrong.

EDIT: I bet those two lawyers would be up in arms if the old lady tried to sue them for hearing their voices from across the hall, or their kids music/tv/games.

[Danical]

But there's an acceptable DB range for noise violations, there isn't an analog to smoking (as far as I know).

[Numbers]

Hate lawyers.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'd do the next most-American thing and sue my housing company and constructors for improper insulation.

But in short, no. I don't think almost anyone who reads these boards has ever sat in their homes and caught a whiff of burning whatever, leaped to their feet, and heralded, to the same tune as the Ricola Yodler:

"I SHALL NOW SUE MY NEIGHBORS."

No.

[Sean of the Thread]

What's next... suing people for smelling their pot roast cooking down the hall if you're a vegetarian?

[diethx]

What's next... suing people for smelling their pot roast cooking down the hall if you're a vegetarian?

While it may gross you out, inhaling pot roast odors won't give you cancer.

This is a BS lawsuit imho, but I guess I can see where they're coming from. I still think though that if they have that big of a problem with it, they should move.

[Sean of the Thread]

Sue the government for allowing cigg sales then.

[Numbers]

The obvious answer is to legalize marijuana.

[Celephais]

As long as she does make an effort not to have her smoke leak into the hallway (door stoppers, vents to the outside, etc) then fuck those people.

If you can't smoke in your own house, something's really wrong.

EDIT: I bet those two lawyers would be up in arms if the old lady tried to sue them for hearing their voices from across the hall, or their kids music/tv/games.
If you can't not have smoke in your own house, something is really wrong.

And "effort" is bullshit... if your smoke is seeping out of your living space into public/other individuals space then yeah, you're inconveniencing them.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<If you can't smoke in your own house, something's really wrong.>>

If you rent an apartment, sorry, it isn't your house, and you don't own the property. Smoke is pollution and it can't be removed by simple cleaning.

<<If you can't not have smoke in your own house, something is really wrong.>>

An even better argument would be that if you can't not drink alcohol in your own house, something is really wrong. But as a drinker, you'd find that outrageous.

Guess how smokers feel!

[diethx]

If you rent an apartment, sorry, it isn't your house, and you don't own the property. Smoke is pollution and it can't be removed by simple cleaning.

It doesn't say, but I don't think these people are renting. They probably own their own units. So then it IS her house.

[Gan]

<<If you can't smoke in your own house, something's really wrong.>>

If you rent an apartment, sorry, it isn't your house, and you don't own the property. Smoke is pollution and it can't be removed by simple cleaning.

/Agreed.

If you want to smoke in your home, buy a home that isnt adjoining someone else's home (as in sharing walls, common areas, etc.).

When they create a way to control the smoke where it wont unwillingly affects others, then extra steps like this need not be taken to protect others from the uncontrollable and dangerous second hand smoke.

[Bobmuhthol]

It's not a house, so it's certainly not her house. Moreover, even if she owned it, it's still part of a public hallway. There's this crazy new technology in physics called dispersion. You should check it out.

[Sean of the Thread]

They need to suck it up. Literally.

I might as well start suing every mall, grocery store and airline that I walked thru as a child with people lit up like a Christmas tree the entire time.

[diethx]

It's not a house, so it's certainly not her house. Moreover, even if she owned it, it's still part of a public hallway. There's this crazy new technology in physics called dispersion. You should check it out.

I never said the smoke couldn't leak out of her apartment, I simply said that I don't think either of the parties in question rent. Two totally different topics. Way to read.

[Gan]

They need to suck it up. Literally.

I might as well start suing every mall, grocery store and airline that I walked thru as a child with people lit up like a Christmas tree the entire time.

Lets sue.
I could start with my chain smoking parents. Then every smoking area of a restaurant I was forced to sit in. Every bar/club I went to that was filled with cigarette smoke. Every flight I flew before all smoking was banned. The prison system where I was forced to work in smoke filled general and ad seg population rows/dorms.

Somehow I dont think reparations is the answer.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I never said the smoke couldn't leak out of her apartment, I simply said that I don't think either of the parties in question rent. Two totally different topics. Way to read.>>

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were actually trying to make a point instead of pointing out some retarded, irrelevant detail.

[Celephais]

An even better argument would be that if you can't not drink alcohol in your own house, something is really wrong. But as a drinker, you'd find that outrageous.
Actually you can not drink alcohol in your own house... other people drinking in their houses doesn't put booze in your home, but in their case they CAN'T not have smoke.

I know what you're getting at, and I agree it's gotta suck for smokers, but the fact that their habit directly influences others (vs indirect like DUI/medical costs/etc) makes it tough.

[diethx]

<<I never said the smoke couldn't leak out of her apartment, I simply said that I don't think either of the parties in question rent. Two totally different topics. Way to read.>>

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were actually trying to make a point instead of pointing out some retarded, irrelevant detail.

It's relevant when you point out they rent and don't own the property, but irrelevant when I say that they probably do own the property. Good to know, dipshit.

[Bobmuhthol]

They don't own the property that's being disputed, you fucking idiot.

[diethx]

They don't own the property that's being disputed, you fucking idiot.

You said they rented. I said they probably own their own apartments. Stop trying to twist shit around, you dumbfuck.

[Bobmuhthol]

Moreover, even if she owned it, it's still part of a public hallway.

That's me making a counterargument.


You said they rented. I said they probably own their own apartments. Stop trying to twist shit around, you dumbfuck.

That's you being a complete fucking moron multiple posts later to something that I covered multiple posts ago.

[diethx]

That's me making a counterargument.



That's you being a complete fucking moron multiple posts later to something that I covered multiple posts ago.

You can't make a counterargument to an ARGUMENT I NEVER MADE, you stubborn, stupid fuck. I never fucking said the smoke wouldn't seep out, I simply said they probably own their own apartments. The only reason the argument went this far is because you try to put words in people's mouths (posts) that were never said. If you could quit kissing your own ass for three seconds, you might've seen that.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<You can't make a counterargument to an ARGUMENT I NEVER MADE, you stubborn, stupid fuck.>>

I covered this:


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were actually trying to make a point instead of pointing out some retarded, irrelevant detail.

<<I never fucking said the smoke wouldn't seep out, I simply said they probably own their own apartments.>>

Again:


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were actually trying to make a point instead of pointing out some retarded, irrelevant detail.

<<The only reason the argument went this far is because you try to put words in people's mouths (posts) that were never said.>>

No, I don't remember that ever happening here. I don't know how to make it any clearer that I mistakenly assumed you were making a point when you very obviously and admittedly weren't.

[diethx]

:banghead:

You're so not even worth repeating myself anymore.

[Celephais]

Well this is getting interesting.

[Keller]

I approve, unequivicably, of the spot-on use of "fuck" in this thread.

Keep it up!

PS: Who owns the hallway, Bob?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

More importantly, who owns the air I'm breathing in my home?

[Celephais]

More importantly, who owns the air I'm breathing in my home?
You can't own the air man, nobody owns the air, it's gods air..

[diethx]

You can't own the air man, nobody owns the air, it's gods air..

What if you don't believe in god? :x

[Bobmuhthol]

<<PS: Who owns the hallway, Bob?>>

Whoever owns the complex?

[Whimsi]

I'd probably have been totally opposed to the entire idea of someone trying to legislate smoking in my own home before I quit smoking. Not so much now.

On a related note, one of the towns in my county is working on a total ban in all public parks. I'm finding the idea of this a bit more distressing, mostly I guess because it seems to be legislation that isn't about secondhand smoke since most areas are wide open outdoors and far from buildings. Can't be about butts littering the place since they already have a littering law in effect. I guess fire hazard could be enough reason. Just seems this is more a punitive than preventative ban to me.

[Stanley Burrell]

Man.

The only thing I could ever say that I fully identified with, with this administration, was its '01 claims (and platform before that) about Torte reform.

I don't think the suing-doesn't-look-lucrative-to-90%-of-America BoR claims will ever be viable, actually.

[Celephais]

What if you don't believe in god? :x
Was semi-quoting super troopers...
She could sue ME.

[Gan]

<<PS: Who owns the hallway, Bob?>>

Whoever owns the complex?

Bob is correct. The hallway is considered a common area, that is usually owned by the building owner or home owners association (condo owners association/town home owners association). Its considered a common area and bound by the restrictive covenants set in place by said owner/association to govern the use of.

[Sean of the Thread]

Then make the building non-smoking OR install smoke eaters in the hallways and common areas.


!!

[Gan]

Then make the building non-smoking OR install smoke eaters in the hallways and common areas.


!!

If I owned the building I would make it smoke free, just to preserve the value, not to mention mitigate any future liability - such as seen in the OP and this discussion.

Smoke eaters in the hallways would be costly and should be added onto any building/association fees paid by the tenants if they're to be installed. I would also question the effecacy of said filters not to mention how many would be required. Is the cost really worth the benefit?

[Sean of the Thread]

Exactly my point.

[Blud]

I'm a smoker, but I don't smoke in my house. Mainly because I don't want my house smelling like an ashtray. I can sympathize with the lawyers, but I still can't help but feel that this is a bullshit suit.

I seriously doubt there is a covenant in place against smoking in this building. I make this claim based on the following: Being these are lawyers, they are capable of finding a way through the covenant to enforce not smoking in the building, without resorting to a law suit.

Sounds like they either need to suck this up and take note of it when they move to another building, or work to get the covenant changed to address this issue.

Furthermore, since we are talking about married lawyers (which I'm sure make a pretty good living), it is possible they own the apartment they are living in within the building. It's not unreasonable to assume that the lady being sued probably owns her apartment as well. I understand the hallway is considered a common area, but there again, I fall back on the convenant arguement I made a second ago.

[CrystalTears]

I understand that the hallway is common area, but shouldn't that be up to the manager of the building whether it's a problem or not?

I'm refusing to believe that secondhand smoke in the hallway, not the other apartment, is so detrimental while walking through it that they need to file a suit against this smoker.

[Blud]

I understand that the hallway is common area, but shouldn't that be up to the manager of the building whether it's a problem or not?

I'm refusing to believe that secondhand smoke in the hallway, not the other apartment, is so detrimental while walking through it that they need to file a suit against this smoker.

I totally agree. I would also submit that the problem they have probably has more to do with the smell of the smoke than second-hand smoke itself since the smoke itself probably isn't wafting through the hall, but the smell is. This makes the second-hand smoke claim bullshit.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Besides, the bloodsuckers spawn should be playing in the streets like most of us did growing up.

[Gan]

I'm a smoker, but I don't smoke in my house. Mainly because I don't want my house smelling like an ashtray. I can sympathize with the lawyers, but I still can't help but feel that this is a bullshit suit.

I seriously doubt there is a covenant in place against smoking in this building. I make this claim based on the following: Being these are lawyers, they are capable of finding a way through the covenant to enforce not smoking in the building, without resorting to a law suit.

Sounds like they either need to suck this up and take note of it when they move to another building, or work to get the covenant changed to address this issue.

Furthermore, since we are talking about married lawyers (which I'm sure make a pretty good living), it is possible they own the apartment they are living in within the building. It's not unreasonable to assume that the lady being sued probably owns her apartment as well. I understand the hallway is considered a common area, but there again, I fall back on the convenant arguement I made a second ago.

Lots of assumptions there.

[Gan]

I totally agree. I would also submit that the problem they have probably has more to do with the smell of the smoke than second-hand smoke itself since the smoke itself probably isn't wafting through the hall, but the smell is. This makes the second-hand smoke claim bullshit.

And what exactly are you smelling? Could it be the chemicals that comprise the smoke? And if you smell said chemicals then through the act of smelling you are inhaling said chemicals and therefore available to the effects of said chemicals. ;)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And what exactly are you smelling? Could it be the chemicals that comprise the smoke? And if you smell said chemicals then through the act of smelling you are inhaling said chemicals and therefore available to the effects of said chemicals. ;)

I disagree with this. I smell a good steak I'm not gonna suddenly get the calories from it.

Natural gas has no smell at all, does that mean it's healthy for you?

[Celephais]

Natural gas has no smell at all, does that mean it's healthy for you?
But it's a gas, and smelling it isn't healthy for you... I don't think cig smoke "smell" is healthy for you either, it is a chemical, and odds are it's not one of those healthy chemicals. In the dose you're getting it though it's hardly going to do anything.

(I wouldn't be surprised if you get some trace calories from smelling a steak to be honest...)

[Blud]

I disagree with this. I smell a good steak I'm not gonna suddenly get the calories from it.

Natural gas has no smell at all, does that mean it's healthy for you?

Yeah, I agree. I smell a fart, does that mean I got a mouth full of his ass?

[Blud]

(I wouldn't be surprised if you get some trace calories from smelling a steak to be honest...)

Maybe, but I think the amount of calories you body consumes to process that smell outweigh whatever calories you took in from the smell.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

But it's a gas, and smelling it isn't healthy for you... I don't think cig smoke "smell" is healthy for you either, it is a chemical, and odds are it's not one of those healthy chemicals. In the dose you're getting it though it's hardly going to do anything.

(I wouldn't be surprised if you get some trace calories from smelling a steak to be honest...)

Forest fires also generate chemicals, car emissions definitely generate chemicals.

Under your cig smoke smell is unhealthy (implied from your quote above) chemicals, you should bunch campfires, coleman lanterns, combustion engines, candles, and any other incendiary device you can think of.

We can prevent those things also, so let us get some laws onto the books and start suing.

[Celephais]

Yeah, I agree. I smell a fart, does that mean I got a mouth full of his ass?
Umm.. actually quite often you did. Farts are quite literally laden with fecal mater.

Enjoy.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Umm.. actually quite often you did. Farts are quite literally laden with fecal mater.

Enjoy.

I'm suing.

[Gan]

I disagree with this. I smell a good steak I'm not gonna suddenly get the calories from it.

Natural gas has no smell at all, does that mean it's healthy for you?

What defines an odor? Is it an airborne chemical? Bacteria? Its not anti-matter... For you to smell something, your olfactory senses are picking up trace amounts of something. And the act of smelling is done through the nose (for the most part) which entails that you breathe in the odor for your olfactory to detect it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

What defines an odor? Is it an airborne chemical? Bacteria? Its not anti-matter... For you to smell something, your olfactory senses are picking up trace amounts of something. And the act of smelling is done through the nose (for the most part) which entails that you breathe in the odor for your olfactory to detect it.

Now you are pulling a Clinton and trying to define sex on me.

[CrystalTears]

I'm betting that New Yorkers inhale more car fumes than they do secondhand smoke. The argument I see with that is that car fumes are mostly an outside occurance (unless you live in a building that has an underground garage).

I just don't see the point of the suit other than to be an asshole.

[Gan]

I disagree with this. I smell a good steak I'm not gonna suddenly get the calories from it.

Natural gas has no smell at all, does that mean it's healthy for you?

Natural gas has an odor, just one that your olfactory senses can not detect. Thats why they add an odorizer to it.

[Gan]

Now you are pulling a Clinton and trying to define sex on me.

No, I'm just defining what an odor really is. Or attempting to.

[Gan]

I'm betting that New Yorkers inhale more car fumes than they do secondhand smoke. The argument I see with that is that car fumes are mostly an outside occurance (unless you live in a building that has an underground garage).
/Agreed


I just don't see the point of the suit other than to be an asshole.
I think the suit has merit to an extent, but if the occupants were allowed to smoke inside the dwelling to begin with and are taking measures to prevent the second hand and exhaled smoke from exiting into a common area, all in good faith, then the judge will probably dismiss the suit or at least find in favor of the defendants.

[Blud]

Now you are pulling a Clinton and trying to define sex on me.

LOL. "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

No I agree that you pick up matter in a scent, but I think what SHM and I are saying is that the trace amount of matter you pick up in a cigarette smoke scent is probably not enough to cause cancer, which makes the case bogus. The problem is most definately the odor of the smoke, not that the hallway is permeated with visible, wafting smoke. Unless a study surfaces that says you can get cancer from odor, then they have no case in my opinion.

[Clove]

I'm an ex-smoker but honestly the whole second-hand smoke thing is ridiculous. Unless you worked in a bar or restaurant or other "smoke filled room" the dillution of smoke and frequency of exposure of the average person to second hand smoke is insignificant compared to air pollution in general.

[Gan]

In the oilfields where you're dealing with natural gas and sour (SO2) gas, its said that if you can smell it, its too late.

I would say the concentration of the chemicals that are airbourne has more to do with this than anything.

Most likely the judge will dismiss based on good faith of the smoking tenants and lack of any substantive proof by the plaintiffs to demonstrate the concentration of cigarette smoke observed in the common area not to mention demonstrating that the smoke is indeed coming from the defendants residence and not someone elses.

I'm betting the plaintiffs would have had a better suit if they had sued the building owner. ;)

[Celephais]

I'm an ex-smoker but honestly the whole second-hand smoke thing is ridiculous. Unless you worked in a bar or restaurant or other "smoke filled room" the dillution of smoke and frequency of exposure of the average person to second hand smoke is insignificant compared to air pollution in general.
I know plenty of people (about three, that's plenty) who have extreme allergies to even trace smoke, yet have no problem with air pollution in general (granted none of them live in a major city).

Personally I have more of a problem with secondhand indians... curry & no showers... can I sue someone for smelling like a taint?

[Gan]

An odor or odour (see spelling differences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences) ) is a volatilized chemical compound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound), generally at a very low concentration, which humans and other animals perceive by the sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense) of olfaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction). Odors are also called smells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell), which can refer to both pleasant and unpleasant odors. The terms fragrance, scent, or aroma are used primarily by the food and cosmetic industry to describe a pleasant odor, and are sometimes used to refer to perfumes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume). In contrast, stench, reek, and stink are used specifically to describe unpleasant odor.

Odor is a sensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation) caused by odorant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odorant) molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule) dissolved in the air. The widest range of odors consist of organic compounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound), although some inorganic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic) substances, such as hydrogen sulfide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide) and ammonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia), are also odorants. The perception of an odor effect is a two step process. First, there is the physiological part; the sense of the stimulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus) by receptors in the nose. After that, the psychological part follows. The stimuli are processed by the region of the human brain which is responsible for smelling. Because of this, an objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28science%29) and analytical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical) measure of odor is impossible. While odor feelings are very personal perceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptions), individual reactions are related to gender (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender), age, state of health, and private affectations. Common odors that people are used to, such as their own body odor, are less noticeable to individuals than external or uncommon odors.

For most people, the process of smelling gives little information concerning the ingredients (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingredients) of a substance. It only offers information related to the emotional impact. Experienced people, however, such as flavorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavorist) and perfumers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfumer), can pick out individual chemicals in complex mixes through smell alone.

more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odor

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I disagree with this. I smell a good steak I'm not gonna suddenly get the calories from it.>>

That's because there's no dietary energy in a scent. You can, however, die if you walk into a room full of H2S (which, by the by, is the gas responsible for fart smells). If the concentration of H2S is over 1 ppt (1000 ppm), taking one breath causes you to collapse and stop breathing.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

<<I disagree with this. I smell a good steak I'm not gonna suddenly get the calories from it.>>

That's because there's no dietary energy in a scent. You can, however, die if you walk into a room full of H2S (which, by the by, is the gas responsible for fart smells). If the concentration of H2S is over 1 ppt (1000 ppm), taking one breath causes you to collapse and stop breathing.

Can't you also die from a room full of pure oxygen?

[Clove]

Can't you also die from a room full of pure oxygen?

Yeah, if you light a match.

[Bobmuhthol]

You would, only because there's such a huge difference between pure oxygen and air. It's not necessarily that you're exposed to too much oxygen, but that you're taking away 80% of your normal atmospheric environment.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I actually looked it up, you can. Pure oxygen doesn't allow the body to release nitrogen, it also increase free radicals in the body, which cause mutations. This is how got my superpowers.

What about the 1% of trace elements in air that we breathe every day, who can I sue about that? or the 76% of nitrogen in the air? Surely someone is culpable.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You would, only because there's such a huge difference between pure oxygen and air. It's not necessarily that you're exposed to too much oxygen, but that you're taking away 80% of your normal atmospheric environment.

So kind of like saying a significant increase in fart elements would kill you, right?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<So kind of like saying a significant increase in fart elements would kill you, right?>>

Not entirely. They both lead to death but are drastically different scenarios.

[Clove]

You can breath pure oxygen, without suffering oxygen toxicity; but not at high concentration. Low-pressure pure oxygen or nearly pure oxygen breathing systems are used all the time.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I heard if you drink your weight in diet coke every day for a month it is likely to give you cancer, if not kill you outright.

[Clove]

On that note...

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_209.html

[Keller]

I'm suing.

Do you even know what the proper remedy is w/r/t the OPs story?

[fallenSaint]

Effed up society in general we got goin here, I mean seriously that kid is receiving more damage from the hell of having two lawyers for parents than he is from his walks through the smoke scented hallway.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Do you even know what the proper remedy is w/r/t the OPs story?

My proper remedy or yours? Mine is to sink 95% of the lawyers at the bottom of the ocean. This would resolve the issue in my mind.

What is your remedy?

[Keller]

My proper remedy or yours? Mine is to sink 95% of the lawyers at the bottom of the ocean. This would resolve the issue in my mind.

What is your remedy?

If the lawyer's prevail -- what will "the bloodsuckers" get?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Hopefully a Supreme Court decision that they are infringing on the rights of another and need to STFU.

[Keller]

Hopefully a Supreme Court decision that they are infringing on the rights of another and need to STFU.

No seriously -- what will they get? Will they get damages? Punative damages? How greedy are these blood-thirsty douchebag lawyers?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

"the right to restrict her smoking habits in her own apartment"

[diethx]

I'm suing.

I'm crying.

[TheEschaton]

They'll get injunctive relief. And maybe court costs, but I doubt it.

[Keller]

They'll get injunctive relief. And maybe court costs, but I doubt it.

Bloodsucking douchebag lawyers!

Wait, they wont get any money? And they'll have to spend their own money to litigate? And all they'll get is a lousy injunction?

We all have rights and privileges and if these people want to litigate whether they have a right to keep someone else from smoking when that smoke enters their property -- then let them. They'll lose and waste their money doing it, but I'd hate to see a society in which people don't have the ability to defend or even enlarge the scope of their personal property rights because some dicksplash in Missouri wants to engage in abductio ad absurdum.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Your vocabulary impresses me. Let me guess, though it isn't really a guess. You are a lawyer, or a lawyer wannabe. You checked your morals and values when you signed up for the gravy train of litigating get rich quick fuckstains that inhabit the world now.

Do you guys still chase ambulances, or just run ads on TV with your phone number and some vague reference of how we might be owed money for too hot coffee now?

I mean seriously, does anyone think being a lawyer is a respectable profession anymore? Seriously. I know they all aren't bad, but just like politicians, time to admit the silver has tarnished.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

because some dicksplash in Missouri

Oh, the best part of your own elitist response was that I live in Missouri (I don't) so my opinion must not matter. Typical lawyer. I also lived in Dulles, Herndon and Leesburg Virginia, all just outside of DC and very much next to our capital for nearly 5 years. Maybe seeing all that corruption and lack of morals jaded me.

[Gan]

I mean seriously, does anyone think being a lawyer is a respectable profession anymore?
Yes.



Seriously. I know they all aren't bad, but just like politicians, time to admit the silver has tarnished.
You can apply that to any profession.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You can apply that to any profession.

Not really.

[Snapp]

Effed up society in general we got goin here, I mean seriously that kid is receiving more damage from the hell of having two lawyers for parents than he is from his walks through the smoke scented hallway.

:lol:

[Whimsi]

You can, however, die if you walk into a room full of H2S (which, by the by, is the gas responsible for fart smells). If the concentration of H2S is over 1 ppt (1000 ppm), taking one breath causes you to collapse and stop breathing.

Gives "silent but deadly" a whole new twist.

[Keller]

Your vocabulary impresses me.

You flatter me.


Let me guess, though it isn't really a guess.

It might be my lawyerly training, or my second grade education, but that's not even a sentence.


You are a lawyer, or a lawyer wannabe.

Oh, this must be the second half of your half-baked thought.


You checked your morals and values when you signed up for the gravy train of litigating get rich quick fuckstains that inhabit the world now.

You impress me with your vast knowledge of the legal profession.

(Hint: Plaintiff's lawyers are by far the poorest workers in our profession. But you knew that, right?)


Do you guys still chase ambulances, or just run ads on TV with your phone number and some vague reference of how we might be owed money for too hot coffee now?


You forgot to mention that we sue people for fucking up our trousers. And we like precise definitions to common words like "is". I know, I know -- so many cliches, so little time.



I mean seriously, does anyone think being a lawyer is a respectable profession anymore?


Seriously?


Seriously. I know they all aren't bad, but just like politicians, time to admit the silver has tarnished.

Seriously.



[quote=Suppa Hobbit Mage;686987 Oh, the best part of your own elitist response was that I live in Missouri (I don't) so my opinion must not matter. Typical lawyer. I also lived in Dulles, Herndon and Leesburg Virginia, all just outside of DC and very much next to our capital for nearly 5 years. Maybe seeing all that corruption and lack of morals jaded me.[/quote]

Interesting perspective. I think the most interesting parts of my response were that I pointed out the usefulness of a functioning judiciary as well as the irrelevance of retarded arguments.

(PS: Your opinion doesn't matter because it's illogical, not because you live in Missouri. Personally, I thought "dicksplash that lives in Missouri" flowed better than "douchebag who goes by the internet handle Super Hobbit Mage". Chaulk it up to artistic license.)

[Tsa`ah]

First it doesn't matter if the defendant is a renter unless there's a clause in her lease that states her unit is designated as a non-smoking unit. Anything else is pretty irrelevant.

Second, the "smell" in the hallway is not second hand smoke. While there is a minute amount of second hand smoke during, and shortly after the smoker burns tobacco ... the lingering smell after the smoke dissipates is less harmful than the air along the sidewalk.

Third it would appear to me that time of residency will factor into this. If the couple moved in after the smoker, then it's likely they inspected the unit prior to moving in .... and would have noticed the scent. Also, it's really up to them to not place themselves into situations such as this. On the other hand, if they were residents in their unit before the smoker .... it seems to me that their issue should be with the landlord or whatever association the unit owners have formed or joined.

[Divinity]

What's next... suing people for smelling their pot roast cooking down the hall if you're a vegetarian?

This had me, literally, loling.

It's absurd to think that the court would allow a case to grace their interior. Meh.. America.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It might be my lawyerly training

You could have just stopped there. I figured you were a douchebag lawyer from the start, you just had to confirm it. Congrats on the career choice!

[DeV]

Yes.

x2

[Keller]

You could have just stopped there. I figured you were a douchebag lawyer from the start, you just had to confirm it. Congrats on the career choice!

Hope springs eternal that I may aspire to be more of the bloodsucker lawyer. If I try hard enough, I may reach the pinacle of my profession and become a bloodsucking-douchebag lawyer -- but only time may tell.

[Clove]

Hope springs eternal that I may aspire to be more of the bloodsucker lawyer. If I try hard enough, I may reach the pinacle of my profession and become a bloodsucking-douchebag lawyer -- but only time may tell.

That's just France talking.

[Keller]

That's just France talking.

What does that even mean?

[Clove]

What does that even mean?

You do that alot, and I refuse to believe that as educated as you are, you can't connect the dots.

[Celephais]

You do that alot, and I refuse to believe that as educated as you are, you can't connect the dots.
I'm continually amazed by the comments that outright go over people's heads, and this forum seems to have some generally smarter than average (I'm talking median, as we have some people that really skew the numbers) individuals.

[Clove]

I'm continually amazed by the comments that outright go over people's heads, and this forum seems to have some generally smarter than average (I'm talking median, as we have some people that really skew the numbers) individuals.

Well, consider the median intelligence. Now consider 1/2 the people are DUMBER than that. Scarey huh?

[Celephais]

Well, consider the median intelligence. Now consider 1/2 the people are DUMBER than that. Scarey huh?
What really scares me is that I look at the way the world works and then I look at the people I (personally) know... a good deal of them are intelligent individuals, yet collectively as a society we act like complete morons.

90% of the people I know seem smarter than 90% of the population.

[Keller]

You do that alot, and I refuse to believe that as educated as you are, you can't connect the dots.

Because France has expansive social programs and you think social programs = bloodsucking?

That's not really a logical connection, but it's the only one I can come up with this early.

[Celephais]

France is stupid. What you said was stupid.
???
Profit.

[CrystalTears]

And here I thought the France comment was because you were being all bitter and mean.

[TheEschaton]

Yay, I'm going to be a bloodsucking douchebag lawyer too!!!!!!111

The sad part is, SHM, that lawyers are a part of most good things that happen in society, but the one's which'll get attention are the ones who sue because their pants were fucked up at the dry cleaners. Lawyers marched with, and were largely the main white constituency who supported, MLK, Gandhi was a lawyer, Mandela was a lawyer.

-TheE-

[Whimsi]

The difference being, of course, that they were not practicing lawyers...

[TheEschaton]

Gandhi and Mandela were very much practicing lawyers, until, of coursse, they were thrown in jail or otherwise similarly targetted.

[Stanley Burrell]

France.

http://www.lazydork.com/movies/coneheads.jpg

FUCKIN' DAN AYKROOOOOOOOYD'D!!!!!111111111one.

That's about all that I can contribute. I'm sorry. God have mercy on my decrepit Earth-wandering carcass.

[Keller]

And here I thought the France comment was because you were being all bitter and mean.

I'm neither bitter, nor mean. I just don't take kindly to resentful ignorance.

[Gan]

Heh. Even I caught the France association. (I think)

:spaz:

[ViridianAsp]

I think smoking is
A. A waste of time inhaling something that is shown to kill you.

B. Stupid because of said inhaling something that is shown to kill you.

C. Spending money on something that is a waste of time that is going to kill you.

Also smokers smell bad...their houses and any possession they own smells like cigarettes.

It's gross, but while it's gross doing it in your own home shouldn't warrant some jackass lawyers trying to sue...if they don't like it maybe they should move.

[Keller]

Heh. Even I caught the France association. (I think)

:spaz:

I still don't.

[Stanley Burrell]

Heh. Even I caught the France association. (I think)

:spaz:

Directly quoting:

"We come from France."

Would've been too much of a dead giveaway. Damn good movie.

[Bobmuhthol]

I think smoking is
A. A waste of time inhaling something that is shown to kill you.

B. Stupid because of said inhaling something that is shown to kill you.

C. Spending money on something that is a waste of time that is going to kill you.

This is the general consensus, and it leads back to a point I made earlier in the thread: most people would be greatly offended if you made the same argument against drinking alcohol, but it's just as valid.

[Keller]

You do that alot, and I refuse to believe that as educated as you are, you can't connect the dots.


I've actually said that to you twice. Both were instances in which you referenced a movie (if what Stanley says it accurate) in a less-than-clear way.

Maybe I just suck at movie references.

[Stanley Burrell]

I've actually said that to you twice. Both were instances in which you referenced a movie (if what Stanley says it accurate) in a less-than-clear way.

Google images sucked today, yesterday and the day before. Not to mention tomorrow, ***ga mmf' dat shit.

[Stanley Burrell]

sucked today, yesterday and the day before

THOU WHO RESISTS THE TEMPTATION OF MOTHER JOKES SHALL BE FROWNED UPON. IN ALL CAPS.

[Sthrockmorton]

If they can prove the secondhand smoke has caused damage to themselves or their child, then I can see where this has some substance. I don't think being exposed to secondhand smoke is enough by itself. It also depends on what the laws are in NY about smoking in/near public places (I don't really care enough to google it). I know a few states don't allow it within 30 feet of a doorway/entrance of a public place.

If there is significant damage to either of the parents, the kid, or any of their own property within their apartment, then by all means sue the lady.

[Back]

Wait a minute? Who are the real bloodsuckers here? The people who hire lawyers, or the lawyers who accept the money from the people who hire them?

[Gan]

What is the real problem?

Guns or the people who use them?
Drugs or the people who use them?
Lawyers or the people who use them?
Gemstone or the people who play it?

[CrystalTears]

What is the real problem?

Guns or the people who use them?
Drugs or the people who use them?
Lawyers or the people who use them?
Gemstone or the people who play it?
Gun-toting, drug-inducing lawyers who play Gemstone.

[ViridianAsp]

This is the general consensus, and it leads back to a point I made earlier in the thread: most people would be greatly offended if you made the same argument against drinking alcohol, but it's just as valid.


What's funny is, I do offer the same argument against drinking, its just as, or in my mind, even more stupid to drink.

[Gan]

Gun-toting, drug-inducing lawyers who play Gemstone.


lol