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?
TJW is an itinerant blogger who lives in East Angular. He grew up as a fascist, mellowed into a Tory and was converted to anarchism in his middle age by the Devil's Kitchen.
{ 41 comments }
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.
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.
- 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?
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.
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?
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 ?
“What part of
Hear hear PT, there are too many of the, “I don’t like it so it must be stopped brigade”
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.
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:)
Is that a bit like a peeing area in a swimming pool?
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?)
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.
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 …
“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?
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.
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.
Candles are often banned too, how much of this is down to insurance conditions?
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.
I smoke a bit
But there’s no question of me being de-normalized
I’ve never been normal in the first place!
Randy
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.
Good man Specky!
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?
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
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.
Kev:
This is an opportunity for a property renting company to make a fortune by RENTING TO SMOKERS ONLY and corner the market.
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?
With or without the dodgy apostrophe?
Smoker’s what, exactly?
Smoker’s Grunties, perhaps?
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
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.
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.
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.
Formertory, it
Looks like a direct hit, then.
Have a nice day, Magnetic
Formertory, I do want to be of assistance. If it helps you rationalize your dysfunction, then let
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?
I REFUSE to be denormalised.
I DON’T want to quit smoking.
I DON’T wan’t any help to quit.
I DON’T
I REFUSE to be denormalised.
I DON
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.