This is according to researchers at the University of Bath’s Tobacco Control [...]]]> More proof of the health benefits of smokefree workplace laws: Heart attacks dropped 2.4 percent after England’s smokefree workplace law took effect in July 2007. That translates into 1,200 fewer people per year who are rushed to emergency rooms with signs of heart attack.

This is according to researchers at the University of Bath’s Tobacco Control Research Group. The findings appear in the British Medical Journal. 

This isn’t the first time research has shown such a benefit; other studies have shown that heart attacks drop significantly once smokefree laws are passed and people are exposed to less secondhand smoke.

That’s because the coronary systems of non-smokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke are harmed, just as the coronary systems of smokers are harmed.

Amazingly, 70 percent of children in detached housing had  been exposed [...]]]> Children who live in apartments are exposed to secondhand smoke even if they live with non-smokers, according to a new study from the University of Rochester Medical Center. Researchers found that an astounding 84 percent of kids who lived in apartments had been exposed to tobacco smoke.

Amazingly, 70 percent of children in detached housing had  been exposed to secondhand smoke.

It’s worth noting that the carcinogens and other chemicals in secondhand smoke are especially harmful to children.

It’s yet another reason to make apartwhole apartment buildings and condos smokefree.

 So ends a saga that involved the property management company, the condo board (which held a meeting and a hearing about the case), two property owners, a contractor, one attorney and multiple residents of the building. In the end, the [...]]]>  The smokers finally moved out from 1150 K St. NW, a 130-unit condominium building, this week.

 So ends a saga that involved the property management company, the condo board (which held a meeting and a hearing about the case), two property owners, a contractor, one attorney and multiple residents of the building. In the end, the owner of the unit where the smokers resided was fined hundreds of dollars, and the condo’s nuisance policy was strengthened to include secondhand smoke.

Peter Barbera and Kassi Saridakis, whose non-smoking tenants were affected by the smoke, are pleased it’s over. But they are weary from the battle, which cost them a huge amount of time and a not insignificant sum of money.

The situation, Saradakis rightly notes, highlights a gaping hole in the regulatory system:

“If we complain about noise and we call the police, they come right away,” Saradakis said. “But with secondhand smoke, which harms our health, no one is going to come out.”

It’s a problem that many may encounter in multi-unit dwellings like condos and apartment buildings: Cigarette smoke from a nearby unit comes into other units through ducts, hallways and crevices. The common area hallways smell of cigarette smoke, and nonsmokers find their units uninhabitable and can sometimes even develop health problems.

We told you earlier this year about a resident of a Connecticut Avenue building who waged – and won – a year-long battle make her unit habitable.

Here is the story of the Barbera, Saridakis and their tenants.

It began in August, when the couple signed a lease with Saridakis and her husband, Peter Barbera. Almost immediately, the couple noticed cigarette smoke in their apartment, and they notified Barbera and Saridakis.

Barbera tried to resolve the problem via the property management company. He even hired a contractor to install putty and reinforce insulation behind outlets and wall fixtures, where he suspected the smoke was entering.

But it didn’t help. Their nonsmoking tenants still had drifting cigarette smoke in their apartment on a nearly daily basis.

Barbera and Saridakis began forwarding their tenants’ complaints to the board, which discussed the matter at a meeting in November. After determining that the smoke constituted a nuisance under the condo rules, the board sent two violation letters to the owner of the unit where the smokers lived, threatening the owner with fines if the smoking didn’t stop.

The smokers continued lighting up in their apartment, several times a day and even odd early morning hours. More than 40 daily incidences were reported. Other affected neighbors submitted complaints as well.

Barbera, Saridakis, and their nonsmoking tenants tried to talk to the cigarette-smoking neighbors on multiple occasions, but they never answered their door. Their stance, according to others in the building who had talked to them, was that they were not going to stop smoking in their apartment, even if it meant other people were breathing their cigarette smoke in their own homes, involuntarily.

When it became clear the smokers weren’t going to stop, Saridakis contacted Smokefree DC and asked for advice and the name of an attorney. Smokefree DC board member JP Szymkowicz took the case. Said Szymkowicz:

“Many, if not most, condominiums and apartment complexes have existing rules regarding ‘nuisances’ and ‘harmful or offensive odors.’  The strategy employed in this case to utilize these existing rules to fight secondhand smoke that invades adjoining units leads to one result: Smokers must stop smoking in their unit if their smoke migrates into adjoining units.”

A Jan. 25 condo board hearing was scheduled. The board found that nothing had changed since it issued its warning, and it assessed the owner of the smokers’ unit $500 in fines. (Throughout, the owner had maintained that her tenants had a right to smoke in her unit, even if it was jeopardizing the health of neighors.)

The board gave the tenants until Feb. 5 to stop smoking in their unit and assessed a $51.28 daily fine for violations after that.

Still, the tenants smoked – until the day they moved out, Saridakis said. She is still trying to find out whether the owner of the smokers’ unit has received a bill for all the violations.

Now, the condo nuisance clause has an addendum, noted here in italics: 

Avoid Disturbing Other Residents: Condominium living requires that each resident regulate the occupancy and use of his or her Unit so as not to unreasonably or unnecessarily disturb any other resident. Drifting secondhand smoke is one example of an unreasonable disturbance. Units causing drifting secondhand smoke that disturbs other residents may be subject to a fine for each occurrence.

What’s more, in future, any owner who rents out a unit must include a nonsmoking clause in the lease. That means that all rental units in the building will now be smokefree.

 It shouldn’t have been so hard.

As Saridakis pointed out, secondhand smoke is harmful to people’s health. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. It has 4,000 chemicals, 69 of which are known or suspected carcinogens. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and heart problems, and it aggravates respiratory conditions.

People who live in condos and apartments must abide by a lot of rules – rules imposed to ensure that everyone who lives there can do so peaceably and safely. There are noise rules to ensure that people don’t have band practice at 3 a.m., for instance, because that will wake up the neighbors. Some condos have rules relating to odors, so no foul or obnoxious smells disturb others. Still others don’t let people grill on their balconies because that is a fire hazard. Even the number and the size of pets is regulated and enforceable.

But rules are generally devoid of any mention of secondhand smoke, a toxic substance that can make people sick and require the suffering homeowners to incur remediation costs. If pervasive enough, carpet, wall coverings, bedding and window treatments often carry the remaining toxins and smell of cigarette smoke, which is difficult to fully remediate without replacement.

Condo boards and apartment property management companies need to understand that secondhand smoke is not just a nuisance – it is a health hazard.

While many tenants can bring complaints about secondhand smoke under nuisance clauses, some condos and apartments have really weak rules. Rules should be adjusted to address secondhand smoke problems directly – and to protect everybody’s health.

If you thought that a smoker’s secondhand smoke couldn’t pose any more of a health hazard to the smoker compared with the smoking itself, think again.

A new study in Environmental Health finds that secondhand smoke is indeed dangerous for those creating it – if the smoker is in an enclosed space. A person who smokes [...]]]> As if smoking weren’t hazardous enough …

If you thought that a smoker’s secondhand smoke couldn’t pose any more of a health hazard to the smoker compared with the smoking itself, think again.

A new study in Environmental Health finds that secondhand smoke is indeed dangerous for those creating it – if the smoker is in an enclosed space. A person who smokes 14 cigarettes in a day in close quarters generates secondhand smoke whose damage is equivalent to smoking 2.6 cigarettes, researchers estimate.

Yet another reason for smokers to quit …

The case went through the condo board and then to court. In what is believed [...]]]> We’d like to tell you about a D.C. woman had so much secondhand smoke in her apartment that she hired a lawyer. The tale could be helpful to those of you who are dealing with smoke coming into your dwelling from another unit.

The case went through the condo board and then to court. In what is believed to be a precedent-setting case in the District, the woman won. The parties settled the case upon the smoker’s promise – enforceable by the court – to not smoke in her apartment or on her balcony ever again.

“This case represents the first known recognition by a District of Columbia condominium association of a non-smoker’s right to be free from the unhealthy effects of secondhand smoke in a multi-unit dwelling,” said J.P. Szymkowicz, the attorney who handled the case. ”It’s been a long fight, but it ended well, with the right to breathe clean air trumping the right to smoke.”

No money changed hands, but under the settlement, the smoker risks monetary penalties should she smoke in her unit or on her attached balcony in the future.

The case began in October 2008, when the resident filed a complaint with
her condo board, saying that her neighbor’s practice of smoking cigarettes in her unit and on her attached balcony caused secondhand smoke to enter her unit and constituted a nuisance in violation of the condominium’s rules and bylaws.  In December 2008, the resident filed a complaint for monetary damages in the District of Columbia Superior Court against the smoker.

In February 2009, the board held a hearing and decided that the smoker
had violated the nuisance section of the condo bylaws.  After the board rendered its decision, the smoker refrained from smoking in her unit or on the attached balcony.

After the judge declined the smoker’s request to dismiss the Superior Court case in November 2009, the parties agreed to settle the case in order to foster good neighborly relations after the smoker promised to abide by the condo board’s decision. Had the case not settled, it would have gone to trial in February on the issue of the resident’s monetary damages.

If you are having a problem with secondhand smoke in your apartment, you can try to work it out by talking to the smoker (I did this once and the woman was really accommodating and started smoking outside), going to the condo board or apartment management, invoking the nuisance clause in the rules governing your apartment or condo, and finally going to court.