Stipulating non-smokers is discriminatory

Social, economic and environmental issues in our ever-changing world.
Post Reply
davis123
Board Meister
Posts: 634
Joined: Dec 19th, 2005, 7:17 pm

Re: Stipulating non-smokers is discriminatory

Post by davis123 »

Hmmm wrote:
PS I hate smoking and would not live in a place rented or owned by smokers. It's friken 2017 and you still smoke like a zombie slave? Have some self respect and give it up already, for yourself and the people who love you and want you to be healthy.


So even if the house was never smoked in you wouldn't buy or rent it just because a smoker owned it? That seems a bit over the top.

It's flipping 2017 and you still judge people like you're Judge Judy? Have some self respect and give it up already, for yourself and everyone else who can't stand to be around you.
davis123
Board Meister
Posts: 634
Joined: Dec 19th, 2005, 7:17 pm

Re: Stipulating non-smokers is discriminatory

Post by davis123 »

mexicalidreamer wrote:
So, which is it? You admit that the smell of smoke "lingering on everything" is disgusting but you then go on to say that everything does not include you. That's curious, don't you think?

If you smoke, you smell like you smoke. It does dissipate in time but don't kid yourself, you finish a smoke, you smell like it. Every smoker does.

No matter what anyone has to say about smokers, smokers themselves will jump on the righteous bandwagon to defend their habit no matter what. It simply has no place in the world today as we know it. Yes, there are many other things that would fill out that list but we're not talking about obesity or alcohol or anything else right now. It's about smoking and discrimination and if you can't understand why landlords are reluctant to rent to smokers, you're not being honest with yourself.

At least you admit that it is disgusting which is why landlords can specify non-smokers. Even if you specifically wouldn't smoke inside, some would regardless of what they agreed to so as a property owner, why would you take the chance.

And don't split hairs. Whether the ad says No Smoking or Non Smokers, the message is the same and you can cry discrimination as loud and as long as you want but specifying this restriction is legal which is why you see it.


lol nope not 'curious' at all, back in the day when I did smoke in my house I didn't exactly hike the couch, carpeting, mattress, closet full of clothes, etc into the washing machine to get rid of the nasty smell that lingers. But I do throw myself into a shower, and my clothes into a washing machine and a toothbrush into my mouth so there is a little bit of a difference there.

Hey I don't care if landlords say no smoking indoors, I would say the exact same thing. They could set up a little smoking area out in the yard and I would be okay with that, but I WOULD be checking my investment to make sure there is no smoking in the house, no kids trashing the house, no grow ops, etc. Yep, some are going to smoke in the house, even if they say they won't, some are going to have a grow op, even though they say they won't, some will run out without paying rent, even though they have a lease. It all comes down to responsibility. This is why the landlord needs to be on top of it, check the investment regularly and check the tenant rental references and employment references. It really isn't that complicated.

I am not defending my habit, I have not stated anywhere that smoking is good for anyone. I HAVE stated that landlords cannot ASSUME just because someone is a smoker that they will smoke in the house, tell the tenant NO SMOKING, if they do smoke in the house evict the POS. Landlords also tell tenants NO PARTIES, what does the landlord do if the tenant decides to party it up 4 nights a week? THEY EVICT. What does a landlord do when they say NO PETS and they find the tenant brought a cat or dog in? THEY EVICT.

JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SMOKES DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THEM A LIAR. DO YOU GET IT?

I agree with you 110% that smoking has no place in the world today, now just try and convince our government to ban tobacco products and we would be well on our way to ending this crap, but the government isn't going to give up the HUGE tax revenue that they pull in from tobacco taxes.
jetty1965
Board Meister
Posts: 367
Joined: Nov 15th, 2010, 1:22 pm

Re: Stipulating non-smokers is discriminatory

Post by jetty1965 »

whatwhat wrote: But I was just mentioning that all the potential landlords we have met up with have never once asked us if we were smokers or not, even if their ad specified non-smokers only. If the landlords asked, we would of course be honest.


I just use the application form from the web residential tenancy branch. It asks the question about smoking right on the application. I've had a couple of tenants leave off the question. I told them just write yes if you smoke and put beside it outside only where it says describe. I put a clause in the agreement that they must smoke outside only and if they want to rent from me they have to sign the agreement.

http://www.tenantsbc.ca/images/Rental%20Application.pdf
Notmyproblem?
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Apr 2nd, 2017, 7:29 am

Re: Stipulating non-smokers is discriminatory

Post by Notmyproblem? »

Bsuds wrote:
"No but if you quit and put that money towards a down payment it goes a long way.
A 1 pack a day habit is over $300 per month. I was at almost 3 packs a day when I quit 25+ years ago.
At todays prices I have saved over $85,000.00"

Do the math again. At today's prices of $10 pack and the fact that you smoked let's say 2.5 packs a day you have saved $25 day for over 25 years (based on today's costs). This is $25 X 365 days X 25 years. This equals $228,125 ! Enough for a nice (non-smoking apartment) or most of the cost of a townhouse. Or could you spare a loan for a poor smoker...
Dizzy1
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10778
Joined: Feb 12th, 2011, 1:56 pm

Re: Stipulating non-smokers is discriminatory

Post by Dizzy1 »

Notmyproblem? wrote:Bsuds wrote:
"No but if you quit and put that money towards a down payment it goes a long way.
A 1 pack a day habit is over $300 per month. I was at almost 3 packs a day when I quit 25+ years ago.
At todays prices I have saved over $85,000.00"

Do the math again. At today's prices of $10 pack and the fact that you smoked let's say 2.5 packs a day you have saved $25 day for over 25 years (based on today's costs). This is $25 X 365 days X 25 years. This equals $228,125 ! Enough for a nice (non-smoking apartment) or most of the cost of a townhouse. Or could you spare a loan for a poor smoker...

A non-smoker walks ups to a smoker and says "You know, if you didn't spend all that money on smokes everyday for such and such period of time, you'd have enough money to buy a Ferrari". The smoker looks at the non-smoker and replies "So? Where's your Ferrari?"
Nobody wants to hear your opinion. They just want to hear their own opinion coming out of your mouth.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 55082
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: Stipulating non-smokers is discriminatory

Post by Bsuds »

Dizzy1 wrote: Where's your Ferrari?"



I keep it stored in Italy. :D
I got Married because I was sick and tired of finishing my own sentences.
That's worked out great for me!
Post Reply

Return to “Social Concerns”