In a stunning display of petty vindictiveness, the screws are being tightened once again on that blight of humanity known as smokers:

More than 90 per cent of smokers are barred from renting a property, new figures have suggested.

Actually, having read the article, that is not what the survey is actually saying, although I can’t quite figure out how a respectable journalist from the mainstream media could make such a stupid mistake. However, I digress.

Just 7 per cent of landlords allow smoking in their property while 38 per cent said they will evict lodgers who smoke indoors, according to the survey by easyroommate.co.uk.

So what they’re actually saying is that 93% of landlords won’t allow smoking, rather than 93% of smokers being unable to find a rented home.

But really, 38% would evict a smoker? I would certainly charge them heavily for cleaning services at the end of the rent if there was a smell in the house, but throw someone out?

How on Earth did we get a reputation for tolerance in this country?

Myrtle September 7, 2010 at 18:03

I am a light smoker, around 5 a day on average (like my fruit and veg), and
have been for over a decade. Now, I know that I could easily stop (I have gone
off it for days in the past -just didn’t fancy it) but the fact is I enjoy
smoking and want to keep it a pleasure. A lot of people who don’t know me or
have just met me are surprised when they see me light up. Apparently I don’t
look like a smoker (??) -but I suppose being a light-weight smoker makes a
difference, but to be honest I don’t really care.

The problem is I am now victim of my non-smoker’s appearance. I am about to
move into a new flat that I will be renting. It has been weeks since I have
paid a holding deposit and everything was fine until I was sent the tenancy
agreemement in which it is stated that I am not allowed to smoke in the flat.
I was never asked at any point over the last weeks whether I was a smoker or
not, so I find this unfair as I don’t think I would have taken the flat had I
known it was non-smoking. Obviously it is too late now to back down. I think I
will ignore it, and before I start smoking indoors I will assess the type of
neighbours I have -smoking intolerant/tolerent or smokers themselves. The fact
is even in my current place I smoke maybe one or two cigarettes in the
evening, and that’s it. I am more worried about the occasional guest with a
strong nicotine addiction. I will give smoking outside a go, but I think this
will put me off altogether, but at the same time make me angry that I can’t
have one tiny fag in my home, so I will need a ciggie, and off I am putting my
shoes on and looking for my coat and checking I’ve got the key a dozen times.
Smoking out of the windows is not great either, as the smoke might go straight
up the neighbour’s windows above me and they might be the type (the
neighbours, not the windows), you know… So, what should I do -anyone’s got any
idea? Surely my little smoking can hardly be a nuisance? This is giving me so
much stress just thinking about and I fear I will become a chain-smoker -talk
of reverse psychology! I was sort of OK about the smoking ban and crap but now
I feel positively bullied and really if it wasn’t for all that non-smoking
nonsense I would probably have given up by now. I can’t help but the more I’m
being told “you can’t smoke here, you can’t smoke there, you gonna diiiiiie,
you stink and I smell of rose, you filthy fresh-looking demon -the more I want
to smoke myself to death.

Hellraiser September 4, 2010 at 17:47

I REFUSE to be denormalised.
I DON

Hellraiser September 4, 2010 at 17:44

I REFUSE to be denormalised.
I DON’T want to quit smoking.
I DON’T
wan’t any help to quit.
I DON’T

Underwhelmed
September 3, 2010 at 13:08

I’m a bit late joining this debate, but wish to contribute.

I used to be a strongly against smokers as a 20-something, but now as a
30-something and having looked hard at what I believe, have realised that I am
a liberatarian and therefore have no right to tell someone whether or not to
smoke.

However, I’m also a landlord and will NOT be permitting smokers to stay.
Why? Redecorating when they leave is usually necessary, as is more frequent
replacement of damaged furniture etc. Moreover, the insurance costs of
allowing smokers to stay (on what are, for me, very slim margins) even if one
doesn’t claim is higher. And the smell (despite deep cleaning) does remain and
puts off many future tenants. So for me it is purely financially driven but, I
suppose, that doesn’t matter anyway. It’s my property. And my choice.

So I support the decision for the landlord to make a decision over his own
property as he sees fit. Just as the smoker is free to choose whether or not
to smoke in their own property.

But let’s stop demonising people for choosing habits that we don’t like,
eh?

Formertory September 3, 2010 at 09:53

It’s a shame, really, that smokers have followed homosexuals, sex-changers,
bisexuals, immigrants, emigrants, Glaswegians in particular and Scots in
general, disabled, benefit claimants, English Nationalists, NIMBYs and a host
of others down the “Waaaahhh! We’re Victims!” road.

Like all those other whingers, you’ve given up the moral high ground for
the transient joy of being able to bitch about how badly done to you are.

Do grow up and get a life. I don’t believe the smoking ban was a good idea.
I’m a ex-smoker and one who believes that people should be free to make their
own choices about allowing smoking in their own premises (whether licensed or
private) and about whether or not they’ll frequent places that allow smoking.
But the howl of self-righteous puffery that follows anyone who even suggests
that smoking is in fact a
stinking-and-unpleasant-for-those-around-you-habit-that-makes-your-clothes-stink-and-your-teeth-unpleasantly-yellow
is becoming really wearying.

Magnetic September 3, 2010 at 14:35

Formertory, it

Formertory
September 3, 2010 at 18:29

Looks like a direct hit, then.

Have a nice day, Magnetic

Magnetic
September 3, 2010 at 21:45

Formertory, I do want to be of assistance. If it helps you
rationalize your dysfunction, then let

Tom September 3, 2010 at 03:25

Somewhere there I was going to argue the toss with kevin , jon and co… and
then I thought nah.. it’s like trying to reason with George Monbiot –
pointless – they’re not listening.

Will you just stay in the non smoking area – because coming out into the
yard and complaining about the smell of smoke is going to elicit no sympathy –
actually, it’s going to really annoy people.

Indulging the trivially offended and the pro grade stupid whingers is what
got us into this pickle in the first place. Swallowing a load of made up
poisonous bilge from righteous paid stooges didn’t help matters either.

It isn’t just smokers – pretty much everything’s disliked by somebody and
as they say – the squeaky wheel gets the grease – it’s only a matter of time
for you car driving airplane riding fat (BMI measure there…) sweet toothed
meat eating non recycling white sock wearing salt addicts – you’re up for
denormalisation too.

All I’ll say is fuck off and mind your own business. – and while you’re at
it learn some arithmetic.

Pat September 2, 2010 at 18:16

To judge by the experiences of my daughter, and a few friends, who let
property a landlord needs to make allowance for redecorating after a let-
indeed if it were known in advance that the worst thing a tenant would do was
smoke they would be extremely welcome. Of course a landlord has the moral
right to impose whatever conditions he likes provided they are stipulated in
advance: it is his property.
It is always a bit of a puzzle how honest
people are in responding to a survey, where their only motivation is to please
the surveyor and show themselves in a good (fashionable) light. I recall a
survey back in Maggie’s day to the effect that a majority wanted a rise in
income tax- though the majority didn’t vote that way at the next election, and
I never heard of any significant amount of voluntary remittances.

Daedalus X.
Parrot September 2, 2010 at 15:27

The persecution continues, this is from our local lefty biased
newspaper:
Taxi driver Simon Meeke fined for smoking in his own cab.

Some will say he deserved it because he did it outside a council building,
so he “was asking for it”, he also ignored several reprimands.

However the bare fact remains that someone is being fined for doing
something that did not harm anyone, in his OWN vehicle. If people object that
strongly to a taxi that has an occasionally-smoking driver, surely they can
choose to get another taxi.

And can anyone honestly say, with their hand on their heart and with
medical proof to hand, that sitting for 20 minutes in a taxi that once had a
smoker in it, will really harm their health? Seriously, I challenge anyone to
show some proof.

Also, with regard to a recent outburst by another life-style fascist which
went something like “smoking with children in the car is vicious, cruel and
tantamount to child abuse” (I may have exagerated). Well, as a proof of the
counter argument, I submit the following evidence milud, namely:

When my four siblings and I were knee-high toddlers, we were driven by our
parents all over the place while they lit up fag after fag. With the windows
closed, sometimes for stretches of hours when we drove on hols or to
relatives. Mum smoking her Silk Cut and Dad puffing out thick blue clouds of
untipped Gauloises smoke.

So what appalling medical harm befell me and my siblings? None, nothing
whatsoever. I’ve just turned 50 and I still cycle 20 miles in a go and
occasionally jog for an hour with ne’er a cough, splutter, or any other bad
side effect of parental smoking.

Full article about Simon Meeke follows:

“Taxi driver Simon Meeke
picked the wrong place when he stopped for a cigarette break in the cab of his
vehicle

Hellraiser September 2, 2010 at 13:00

This is an opportunity for a property renting company to make a fortune by
RENTING TO SMOKERS ONLY and corner the market.

John Pickworth
September 2, 2010 at 17:31

Okay, here’s a game we can all play… in the interests of research you
understand.

Call up your local newspaper and try placing, or asking if they would
carry, an advert for an imaginary property stating “For Smoker’s ONLY”.

Go on, dare you?

The
Apostropher-General September 3, 2010 at
09:40

With or without the dodgy apostrophe?
Smoker’s what, exactly?

rnm101
September 3, 2010 at 15:03

Smoker’s Grunties, perhaps?

Magnetic September 2, 2010 at 11:39

electro_kevin
You may want to consider what propaganda/brainwashing
mean. Antismoking is not new. It has a long sordid history.
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1981/2/1981_2_94_print.shtml
(note
that Dillow, 1981, does not account for the fact that antismoking in
early-1900s USA was legitimized by eugenics

electro-kevin September 3, 2010 at 09:15

It’s not propaganda.

I come from a family of smokers (now mostly ex) but never took to the
habit. For years I suffered it dutifully. Hours upon hours in a car as a kid
with two parents smoking – the combination of motion, leather seats,
cigarette smoke inducing me to vomit and this being put down to ‘travel
sickness’.

The real propoganda is that ‘… you need to smoke because it’s cool
because all of your mates are doing it.’ This is what you’ve all fallen for.
That’s why you all took it up- not because your body couldn’t exist without
it. It’s not ‘normal’ to be a smoker. If fags hadn’t been pushed your way
behind the bike shed – against the will of adults and against the law – the
majority of you wouldn’t be doing it today.

I detest leftist interventions btw. But on this my only disaproval with
them is that they have pushed it a bit too far and that they don’t seem so
keen to stand against canabis.

As far as Anna Raccoon’s article is concerned – we’re talking private
sector landlords. And they are – in the main – against smoking of no other
volition but their own. That ought to be telling you something.

Magnetic
September 3, 2010 at 10:04

Kev:

Chuckles September 2, 2010 at 11:13

I was going to suggest that your headline should rather include ‘attempted
denormalisation’ but having read some of the comments, it is close enough.

I think however that the source of such focus is rather in the contracts
supplied to the landlords by estate agents and/or lawyers?

Specky September 2, 2010 at 11:12

I rent out my old flat have done for years.
Like the other chap above I
always redecorate after the last tenant .
Besides I’m not going to stop a
third of prospective tenants from renting just because they smoke.
I want a
paying tenant in there.
Banning smokers ?
Only pratts do that sort of
thing.
Especially now that the market is quiet.

St Moritz-Patron saint
of smokers September 2, 2010 at 14:02

Good man Specky!

Randy Hack September 2, 2010 at 10:56

I smoke a bit
But there’s no question of me being de-normalized
I’ve
never been normal in the first place!
Randy

Jon September 2, 2010 at 10:30

Smokers shouldn’t be banned. They can be charged for the
cleaning/redecoration/repairs afterwards, just the same as hoarders or
families with unruly children. Market forces. The same happens when a smoker
sells their nicotine stained house – the price is lower to reflect the repair
costs.

woodsy42 September 2, 2010 at 10:00

Candles are often banned too, how much of this is down to insurance
conditions?

Clarissa September
2, 2010 at 09:11

My last lodger was a smoker and I certainly never considered throwing him
out because of this. Being a non-smoker myself I simply asked when he moved in
that he didn’t do so in the common areas and he was happy to oblige.

All told he was the best – and longest lasting (at 3 years) – lodger I’ve
ever had.

faulksd September 2, 2010 at 08:50

As someone who doesn’t smoke – but has done so – I have every sympathy for
smokers. I don’t miss smoky buses (but who does?), but my resentment of Those
Who Know Better Than The Majority has reached saturation point. The only way
to deal with this kind of officiousness is to simply ignore it. We Brits have
an inbuilt respect for the rules and fair play – which the elite exploit to
their advantage and our detriment. A less principled, Continental approach to
rules and regulations is needed here. For example, smokers who want to rent
property should simply humour the landlord by ticking the ‘Non smoking’ box on
the application form, but carry on smoking regardless – even if it’s only
outside the property. If enough people do this, the restriction will become
unworkable.

electro-kevin September 2, 2010 at 07:41

It wouldn’t be a cleaning bill now, would it. A redecoration bill more like
it, particularly the ceilings.

I was listening to a radio program the radio the other day about landladies
of old – 1950s era. Back by 10pm or you’d be locked out. No visitors. No noise
after 9pm. If anything things were far less tolerant then.

Landlords are able to pick and choose tennants in a property letter’s
market. When the economic conditions change in favour of the renter (and I
find it hard to envisage when) then smokers, who can pay a steady rent, will
have greater leverage over what they can do in the privacy of their rented
property.

So here we have market forces at work and not just busy-bodies of the
dead-handed state. And the indications are that most property owners would –
when market forces are in their favour – prefer that people didn’t smoke in
their accommodation. I know this goes for private householders to – many of
them smokers as it happens.

There’s are simple reasons which have nothing to do with people trying to
demonise the habit:

– it stinks (even before and after lighting up)
– it damages.

PT Barnum September 2, 2010 at 08:06

– it stinks (even before and after lighting up)

Well, that’s a new one – before lighting up? With that logic, holding an
unlit cigarette is going to be banned.

As a smoker who worked away from home for two decades and lived in
several rented flats, I think landlords have a perfect right to choose if
they allow smoking in their properties, just as I have a choice whether or
not to agree to the terms of the letting agreement. It’s a shame the same
logic can’t be applied to other kinds of private property, like, I dunno,
pubs?

electro-kevin September 2, 2010 at 08:21

There should be smoking areas in pubs.

The smell is on the clothes. You can tell when a smoker is in the room
even without a fag on.

Rog September 2, 2010 at 08:39

You can also tell when someone’s been standing in the car park for a
while, if someone just dropped in from a farm, if someone not bothered
showering on a hot day, if someone has cats, if someone’s an engineer,
if someone got halitosis, if someone got incredibly cheap vomit inducing
perfume on, etc etc. Why just pick on one set of people when you can
hate everyone?

electro-kevin September 2, 2010 at 10:42

Some of those are hated, Rog. It’s not victimisation we’re talking
about here.

In answer to the original post I’m stating that there are very good
reasons why non-smokers (and many smokers for that matter) don’t like
it. Now this has clearly the point that it has become commercially
unacceptable. Where landlords (of their own volition) are stating in
large numbers that they don’t want smokers.

Not because of rules. Not because of laws. But because smoking is a
minority persuit which can be really unfair on those who don’t do
it.

What part of “I do not want your smoke in my nostrils” do you not
understand ?

PT Barnum
September 2, 2010 at 11:34

“What part of

Fascist
Hippy September 2, 2010 at
13:47

Hear hear PT, there are too many of the, “I don’t like it so it
must be stopped brigade”

Daedalus Parrot September 2, 2010 at 14:31

Rog, don’t forget people who eat smelly foods at their desk.

I once worked opposite someone who ate a liver pate with sliced
onion sandwich every day. Trust me, the smell was pungent and
vile.

However, your point is a good one. Are smokers being victimised
because of a REAL danger to public health?

Or is it because, in reality, the jobsworths and lefty life-style
fascists just want any reason to ban a smell they don’t like.

I’m not a smoker by the way, never have been, but I support their
right to light up in a reasonable way.

Rog September 2, 2010 at 14:31

electro-kevin I would not smoke in your nostrils, I have always
smoked ‘sensitively’ so to speak.
But this reminds of a incident I
watched on TV some time ago where a passenger on a plane had a allergy
to peanuts, not only did he demand that no peanuts came near him he
also was adamant that the passengers seating nearby him were also
denied peanuts.
How he worked out the ‘range’ of peanut penetration
foxed me. At least he had an allergy, not just a dislike to a smell.

BTW I have spoken to many many landlords/managers/owners of pubs
and have yet to meet one that wants a no smoking ban. Every single one
of them has seen a massive drop in customers and not one of them has
seen an increase in non smokers, hence the daily closing of pubs.

By far the best and most sensible ruling would have been both
smoking and non smoking pubs. If that had happened I bet the non
smoking pubs would all be closed by now:)

The Nosey
Mole September 3, 2010 at 02:34

Is that a bit like a peeing area in a swimming pool?

Jersey
Girl September 3, 2010 at 19:34

I assume you don’t go swimming ANYWHERE because of your apparent
awareness of the health risks involved. (Or maybe you just never
learned to swim?)

Bucko September
2, 2010 at 09:55

It is very much about demonising the habit. I’ve rented a couple of times
in the past and been welcome as a smoker. When a renter vacates a property
(smoker or not) the landlord redecorates. Even if its just a fresh coat of
whitewash.
Landlords don’t threaten to evict people who cook curry or
have bad personal hygeine.
Im all for landlords having the right to
choose their tennants (in pubs too) but this view about smokers in down to
the current trend of denormalisation, not because they give the landlord
more of a problem than non smokers.

electro-kevin September 2, 2010 at 23:52

Just been called a Nazi c*** on my own blog. Nice.

Smoking got banned because it’s bloody awful for those who don’t
partake in it. A twenty-a-day smoker will spark up more than once an hour.
That doesn’t compare to someone eating a smelly lunch. Nor does a rare
food allergy compare in terms of the general nasty effect of smoking on
the majority who don’t do it.

I’m no lefty ban-it-all-because-I-don’t-do-it merchant. But I (along
with the majority of people I know) say that one of the few things good
about the Graudian state is the fresh air.

Argue with me all you like. I’ve won you’ve lost. I don’t think you’ll
ever be reclaiming the offices, pubs, buses, rented flats, restaurants
…

PT Barnum
September 3, 2010 at 09:48

“I’ve won you’ve lost.”

Dear Zeus, you sound like a child in the playground going Nah nah
na-na nah. And, given you are so blissfully victorious, why are you
bothering to demean yourself defending your position?

JuliaM September
2, 2010 at 07:25

Because once upon a time, ‘tolerance’ meant just that. You might not have
liked what someone did, said or thought, but you agreed that they had a right
to do, say or think it.

That, however, wasn’t enough for some – they wanted, needed, acceptance and
celebration and full-throated support.

And once that percolated down, all bets were off! Now, if it’s not just a
case of ‘tolerance’, it’s much, much harder to agree that people doing thinks
YOU don’t want to do should be left alone.