A smoker's home should be his castle

I recently read an article regarding the recent decision by a Colorado Appellate Court regarding restricting unit owners in a Colorado condominium association from smoking in their own unit.

With all due respect to the courts, I find it appalling. Although I am not a smoker, nevertheless, I have a law degree and feel that one's home is their castle.

Since such bans were not part of the original constitutional condominium documents, I do not feel that it is fair to a purchaser to prohibit their personal activity within their own unit. It is no different than banning certain foods because they create an odor someone else doesn't like.

If community associations are permitted to ban individuals from smoking in their own homes, where will these people live? Are we going to have to create public housing to house only smokers? Since the scientific evidence concerning secondary smoke is subject to scientific attack, I suggest that community associations, and the courts of this state, do not walk down this path.

It is one thing to ban smoking in a place of business, where employees have no choice but to experience the direct effect each day, but it is quite another when you ban smoking in a privately owned home, because someone else decides it is a nuisance. We deal with nuisances all our lives, and the Colorado decision only confirms there is no limit to political correctness. What is next, someone's strong perfume?

If there is a solution, it is with the ordinances of the villages and cities where condominium and/or homeowner associations are authorized. Those villages should have building codes that require an absolute impervious barrier between units so that there is no invasion of odors, etc. It is unfair to the purchaser of a community association unit to be penalized because the village did not do its due diligence by enacting appropriate building requirements. It is a fraud upon those unit owners who purchase thinking that their personal lifestyles, whether they be smoking, or cooking, would be subject to restriction because of deficient building codes.

In conclusion, since the legislature of this state, as well as others, refuses to make smoking cigarettes and/or cigars etc. an illegal act, because they cherish the tax revenue generated by such products, it is immoral that they should prohibit people from using legal products within their own home.

Steven R. Heuberger

Libertyville