Discussions

more asthma attacks from someone wearing too much perfume or scented products than smokers. At least I can see a smoker and walk around or away from them.  
My neighbour has so much scenties (or whatever) that when they open their windows, I have to close mine.  
But that is their business, that is life.

Happy1986 said "    Diogenes said "It's really none of the landlord's business whether you smoke or not. You also don't have to disclose that information to them, but just don't smoke on the property and dispose of your butts properly.     I've had neighbours that smoke and I've left home with the windows open, and I've come home to a house smelling of cigarettes. It's not pleasant at all, especially with kids in the house.     Clean air is a basic thing we need to survive. Smoking contaminates the air and causes discomfort and sickness to the people subjected to inhale secondhand smoke. It isn't always in a person's power to avoid secondhand smoke. For example, drivers that are smoking and driving drive past me while I'm walking or biking and I inhale their smoke. I can smell it. People stand on the sidewalk and I have to walk past them. I inhale the smoke. I think smoking is highly inconsiderate since we know the harm it does to a person and the public cost of health care for cancer and lung disease treatments.     In my opinion, smoking should be banned. Though these aren't the reasons landlords forbid smoking. They do it damage from smoking and butts could lower the property value of a place. " Careful you don't fall off of your high horse there. You are saying you are upset that people smoke in their cars and drive by you. you might just want to stay in you house because the exhaust coming from that same car is probably going to do you more harm... you best bubble wrap yourself and stay inside you house with a air purifyer and the windows closed if you are upset by something like that. "

Are you ok? That .5 seconds that takes for a car to go buy you? That .5 seconds that you have to walk past someone smoking? What harm that must do!  
 
I think you are highly inconsiderate to not even try to understand the addiction of smoking. By the way, don''t think you are better than smokers, cause you are probably not.....I am sure there are things in your home just as bad. Taxes from cigarettes certainly pay for healthcare- neither my parents smoked and dad died from colon and my mother is in acute care, did not smoke.  
 
By the way, smoking will never be banned because of the taxes collected on cigs.  
 
Diogenes you need a little attitude adjustment from your SMOKER (who respects the laws) Brenda. Be careful out  
there tonight. I can help you find an acreage way, way out in the country where no one smokes?  
 
also get rid of the scented candles they give me a headache.  
 
Edited by Brenda, 2016-05-03 18:41:12

Do I think it is wrong to have that stance against smokers? Absolutely, if a person is able to conduct himself or herself without smoking within the residence then it should be no concern to the Owner whether his/her tenant smokes.  
 
In addition, whether or not it falls under a disability I believe depends if you are actively pursuing treatment for that disability. Like an employer cannot fire you for being an alcoholic if you are AA and admitted to the problem. I believe it is similar for illegal drugs.  
 
That being said what matters is what is going to be enforced. Sadly, people do not have the time to go through ads and find the Owner and tell him to take down ads... This is just like a student trying to find an apartment. "Room for rent (Women Only)” is a very common. This is much worse in my opinion but nobody is policing it because there are bigger fish to fry.  
 
Life if going to give you lemons, you will have to deal.  
 
Those being said, why not just buy your own place... it is like 10% more than renting in Brandon's market. Then smoke inside or outside until the cows come home.

well I just went through page after page of listings, and never saw one that said "non smokers only" almost all said "no smoking". not singling anyone out at all.

The title to the ad was 'non smokers only' and I don't see it now so they either found their non smoker or took the ad down.

If I was a smoker and wanted to rent a house or an apartment that didn't allow smoking inside, I would declare I was a non-smoker and I would abide by whatever is specified in the lease about smoking, whether that be no smoking in the unit, no smoking in the building, or no smoking on the property. I think a landlord would find it a bit of a struggle to evict a person for smoking elsewhere.

kaylagurl21 said "I was just looking through the apartments and so many say non smokers only. This is discrimination at its finest. I believe we all have human rights and to discriminate because someone smokes is distasteful and also against our human rights. I agree that apartments should be non smoking but if smokers are going outside why do they care so much? Do we not have any freedoms left? "

You have the freedom to quit smoking.  
 
You have to ask yourself if smoking is more important than having a place to live.  
 
What people say they'll do, and what they actually do when noone's looking are two different things. When it's -30 out and you're required to be a specific distance away from the building when smoking, suddenly abiding by the rules becomes a little less likely. I know because I've dealt with this.  
 
As a landlord I'm going to try to remove that risk entirely and rent to non-smokers.  
 
My right to my property trumps your entitlement to your addiction. Simple.

SMOKING AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE  
JANUARY 13, 2011 JOHN 3 COMMENTS  
From a human rights perspective, smoking in apartment buildings can be very challenging.  
 
Ideally, the fact that a resident smokes in his/her unit should not have any bearing on the health and quality of life of another resident. But it does. Buildings and apartments leak, ventilation systems don’t work as well as they should, and second-hand smoke regularly moves from one apartment to another. CERA has many clients with asthma, environmental sensitivities and other conditions who are being made ill because of smoke coming from other apartments.  
 
Where a resident has a health condition that is being made worse by second-hand smoke, landlords and/or property managers will have to take steps address the problem. These can include ensuring that corridors are properly pressurized so that smell and fumes from apartments do not enter hallways, sealing any openings in the resident’s unit (such as openings from plumbing, electrical outlets, fans, etc.), and ensuring that kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans are working properly. Unfortunately, this is often not enough.  
 
If steps to eliminate the transfer of second-hand smoke fail, can a landlord request that the resident stop smoking in his/her unit? What are the smoker’s rights?  
 
In all likelihood, smokers’ rights are protected to some degree under the Human Rights Code. Strong arguments can be made that addiction to nicotine is a disability protected by the Code and, as the Ontario Human Rights Commission states in its Policy on Human Rights in Rental Housing, some people smoke to control the symptoms of other medical conditions. The Commission’s policy also notes that people with mental illness are disproportionately likely to be smokers.  
 
However, even if smoking is considered a disability and associated with other Code-protected characteristics, such as mental illness, landlords are only obligated to accommodate smokers if it is safe to do so. If a resident who is smoking is making other tenants ill, the landlord could argue it would be an unreasonable health risk to permit the resident to continue smoking in his/her unit (assuming the landlord has already taken appropriate steps to minimize the transfer of second-hand smoke between units).  
 
What about smoke-free apartment buildings? This is more problematic. In our view, an all-out smoking ban – which could significantly limit the housing options of people with this addiction – would have serious human rights implications. And unlike the example above, it would be difficult for a landlord to demonstrate that it is an unreasonable health or safety risk to permit residents to smoke anywhere in the building.  
 
Is there a way to balance the rights of smoking and non-smoking tenants other than on an individual, case-by-case basis? One option worth considering would be to have a separately ventilated common-room for people who smoke. This could address the problem of second-hand smoke migrating from unit to unit, while maintaining the housing options of individuals who smoke.  
 
Balancing the sometimes competing rights of individuals can be challenging – but it’s not impossible.

1) If they own the place they can set whatever rules they wish.  
 
2) Unless you're smoking 100 feet away from the building, the smoke drifts easily in, meaning others outside of with their windows open still have to put up with it.  
 
3) regardless of whether or not you smoke inside, smoke still clings to your person, and over a long term the smell still seeps into furniture, and the walls and carpet.  
 
4) This is a blanket statement, but I've landlorded for smokers in the past and there has always been problems. Smoking is indicative of the personality of the person, much like someone with an arm sleeve or facial tattoo. If I had a clean, 100,000 dollar condo I wanted to rent out, I would not want someone in there who intentionally poisons themselves on a near hourly basis, with a poison that affects everyone around with within a 100 feet.  
 
You have the right to smoke, but land lords also have the right to refuse to rent to you because of it. Your rights don't trump other's. This is a tit for tat world. No one forces you to smoke.

your statement:  
" Smoking is indicative of the personality of the person, much like someone with an arm sleeve or facial tattoo."  
 
 
Please explain the above statement?

Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore. Then come winter and it gets to be very cold, the smoking moves indoors, perhaps a bathroom or basement because they don't wanna freeze but still need their fix.  
Landlords have their reasons for non smokers and being as it is THIER property, it is their RIGHT to decided who they allow.  
Don't care who you are, you don't have the right to say who the landlord puts into his or her own property.

cliffy said "Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore. Then come winter and it gets to be very cold, the smoking moves indoors, perhaps a bathroom or basement because they don't wanna freeze but still need their fix.   Landlords have their reasons for non smokers and being as it is THIER property, it is their RIGHT to decided who they allow.   Don't care who you are, you don't have the right to say who the landlord puts into his or her own property. "

So should this landlord also stipulate that tenants aren't allowed to purchase packaged goods to avoid a littering problem?

Classified said "    cliffy said "Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore. Then come winter and it gets to be very cold, the smoking moves indoors, perhaps a bathroom or basement because they don't wanna freeze but still need their fix.   Landlords have their reasons for non smokers and being as it is THIER property, it is their RIGHT to decided who they allow.   Don't care who you are, you don't have the right to say who the landlord puts into his or her own property. " So should this landlord also stipulate that tenants aren't allowed to purchase packaged goods to avoid a littering problem? "

How does that "analogy" even compute in your own mind?  
 
Who exactly is telling people to stop buying cigarettes?  
 
Lol, Yeah, those darn people who have addictions to unwrapping packages in front of their rentals. Then dropping them directly at the entrance.  
 
Some will unwrap up to 20 packages a day or more. We need to respect the rights of these chronic package un-wrappers...  
 
Edited by Torque, 2016-05-10 11:36:22

Personally, I don't mind the smell of cigarette smoke at all...  
 
I have lived in a "non-smoking" apartment, with balconies on which smokers would smoke. Whether or not that's allowed, I don't know.. nor did I really care enough to look into it. Fact of the matter is - the smoke often wafted in and around my apartment window. People would smoke outside the main door, in the parking lot, wherever. While it wasn't a huge issue for me, it definitely could be for some who dislike the smell.  
 
I think the thing that bothered me most was the butts flicked of balconies, flicked wherever throughout the winter... the ground was covered once the snow melted. Why have ashtrays outside for a non-smoking apartment, right? Yuck.  
 
It's not a "human right" .. get real. lol  
 
Dare I ask what your thoughts are on a 55+ apartment? ......

Here is my opinion. I am sure you have your own....  
 
The owner should have some rights too.  
Both sides, landlord/lady and tenant, are entering a contract. If the landlord wants a non-smoking (or no pets) tenant, then they should be able to rent to someone they prefer.  
 
I don't think this is a matter of first come, first serve.The Landlord/lady should be able to select the best tenant based on their own criteria for suitability.  
 
As others pointed out, smoking causes damage and affects the value of the property. Perhaps smokers should pay higher damage deposits or pay more monthly rent.

Diogenes said "It's really none of the landlord's business whether you smoke or not. You also don't have to disclose that information to them, but just don't smoke on the property and dispose of your butts properly.     I've had neighbours that smoke and I've left home with the windows open, and I've come home to a house smelling of cigarettes. It's not pleasant at all, especially with kids in the house.     Clean air is a basic thing we need to survive. Smoking contaminates the air and causes discomfort and sickness to the people subjected to inhale secondhand smoke. It isn't always in a person's power to avoid secondhand smoke. For example, drivers that are smoking and driving drive past me while I'm walking or biking and I inhale their smoke. I can smell it. People stand on the sidewalk and I have to walk past them. I inhale the smoke. I think smoking is highly inconsiderate since we know the harm it does to a person and the public cost of health care for cancer and lung disease treatments.     In my opinion, smoking should be banned. Though these aren't the reasons landlords forbid smoking. They do it damage from smoking and butts could lower the property value of a place. "

You hit the nail right on the head - I absolutely AGREE with everything you stated - I too agree that smoking should be banned. Well said - !

right to slowly kill yourself and others around you? I agree with the apartment owners! Cigarettes are the most vile thing ever and if they are smoked inside or outside a door and left to smoulder is no difference... we as tax payers are going to have to pay for smokers health issues so why would we have any sympathy for someone who chooses to hurt themselves and others. way to go owners! if there are smokers who feel their rights are being abused buy yourself a big house and fill if full of your smoking buddies...

 
 
Edited by Classified, 2016-05-11 07:42:59

SparkyJones said "    Classified said "    cliffy said "Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore. Then come winter and it gets to be very cold, the smoking moves indoors, perhaps a bathroom or basement because they don't wanna freeze but still need their fix.   Landlords have their reasons for non smokers and being as it is THIER property, it is their RIGHT to decided who they allow.   Don't care who you are, you don't have the right to say who the landlord puts into his or her own property. " So should this landlord also stipulate that tenants aren't allowed to purchase packaged goods to avoid a littering problem? " Really? "

"...cliffy said "Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore..."  
 
......  
 
Cliffys logic seems to be that the way to avoid cigarette butts being thrown on the ground is to not allow smokers to live in the building. That's ridiculous.  
 
People don't litter like that simply because they are smokers. They litter because they don't respect the landlords property (ie: their own home).  
 
I fully understand a landlord having rules regarding smoking in their buildings, or even anywhere on their property.  
 
Stipulating that a tenant must BE A NON-SMOKER (which I believe was the point the op was making) wouldn't fly with me. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if I were a smoking tenant and I wanted to rent an apartment, house, etc, I would simply claim to be a non smoker. If I never smoked on the rental property where I live, I can't imagine getting an eviction notice because my landlord saw me smoking elsewhere... Or perhaps the landlord would issue me a warning letter telling me to quit smoking?

Torque said "    Classified said "    cliffy said "Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore. Then come winter and it gets to be very cold, the smoking moves indoors, perhaps a bathroom or basement because they don't wanna freeze but still need their fix.   Landlords have their reasons for non smokers and being as it is THIER property, it is their RIGHT to decided who they allow.   Don't care who you are, you don't have the right to say who the landlord puts into his or her own property. " So should this landlord also stipulate that tenants aren't allowed to purchase packaged goods to avoid a littering problem? " How does that "analogy" even compute in your own mind?     Who exactly is telling people to stop buying cigarettes?     Lol, Yeah, those darn people who have addictions to unwrapping packages in front of their rentals. Then dropping them directly at the entrance.     Some will unwrap up to 20 packages a day or more. We need to respect the rights of these chronic package un-wrappers...     Edited by Torque, 2016-05-10 11:36:22"

"...cliffy said "Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore..."  
 
......  
 
Cliffys logic seems to be that the way to avoid cigarette butts being thrown on the ground is to not allow smokers to live in the building. That's ridiculous.  
 
People don't litter like that simply because they are smokers. They litter because they don't respect the landlords property (ie: their own home).  
 
I fully understand a landlord having rules regarding smoking in their buildings, or even anywhere on their property.  
 
Stipulating that a tenant must BE A NON-SMOKER (which I believe was the point the op was making) wouldn't fly with me. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if I were a smoking tenant and I wanted to rent an apartment, house, etc, I would simply claim to be a non smoker. If I never smoked on the rental property where I live, I can't imagine getting an eviction notice because my landlord saw me smoking elsewhere... Or perhaps the landlord would issue me a warning letter telling me to quit smoking?

I also see plenty of ads that say non-smokers only. My interpretation of that is that the landlord doesn't want smoking on their property, not that they are only willing to rent to someone that doesn't smoke.

WinstonChurchill said "right to slowly kill yourself and others around you? I agree with the apartment owners! Cigarettes are the most vile thing ever and if they are smoked inside or outside a door and left to smoulder is no difference... we as tax payers are going to have to pay for smokers health issues so why would we have any sympathy for someone who chooses to hurt themselves and others. way to go owners! if there are smokers who feel their rights are being abused buy yourself a big house and fill if full of your smoking buddies... "

you have any idea how much tax is paid on a pack of cigarettes. Smokers are funding their own health care and probably some of yours so stop you complaining. A pack a day smoker is likely paying around 5000.00 plus a year in taxes alone after the base cost of the tobacco itself. They are also paying all the other taxes that you pay too.

If you can afford to smoke and we should all be grateful for you paying for cigarettes because it funds our healthcare, and since money doesn't appear to be an o:bject then there's a myriad of options for you.  
 
1. Buy your own apartment building and rent it out to only smokers  
 
2. Buy your own house and do whatever you want  
 
3. Hire a great lawyer and fight for your perceived rights all the way up to the supreme court. With the righteous tone from the OP, surely this is a fight worthy of a great deal of money, no?  
 
I still haven't seen any documentation signifying smoking as a human right. I'm actually surprised this topic still has legs.

Classified said "    Torque said "    Classified said "    cliffy said "Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore. Then come winter and it gets to be very cold, the smoking moves indoors, perhaps a bathroom or basement because they don't wanna freeze but still need their fix.   Landlords have their reasons for non smokers and being as it is THIER property, it is their RIGHT to decided who they allow.   Don't care who you are, you don't have the right to say who the landlord puts into his or her own property. " So should this landlord also stipulate that tenants aren't allowed to purchase packaged goods to avoid a littering problem? " How does that "analogy" even compute in your own mind?     Who exactly is telling people to stop buying cigarettes?     Lol, Yeah, those darn people who have addictions to unwrapping packages in front of their rentals. Then dropping them directly at the entrance.     Some will unwrap up to 20 packages a day or more. We need to respect the rights of these chronic package un-wrappers...     Edited by Torque, 2016-05-10 11:36:22" "...cliffy said "Landlords don't want smokers is not discrimination. That's ridiculous. My ex is a good demonstration of why people don't want smokers in their buildings. House is non smoking. So they smoke outside, but walking up to the house, the yard is littered with butts. Landlords won't want their properties being an eyesore..."     ......     Cliffys logic seems to be that the way to avoid cigarette butts being thrown on the ground is to not allow smokers to live in the building. That's ridiculous.     People don't litter like that simply because they are smokers. They litter because they don't respect the landlords property (ie: their own home).     I fully understand a landlord having rules regarding smoking in their buildings, or even anywhere on their property.     Stipulating that a tenant must BE A NON-SMOKER (which I believe was the point the op was making) wouldn't fly with me. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if I were a smoking tenant and I wanted to rent an apartment, house, etc, I would simply claim to be a non smoker. If I never smoked on the rental property where I live, I can't imagine getting an eviction notice because my landlord saw me smoking elsewhere... Or perhaps the landlord would issue me a warning letter telling me to quit smoking? "

Cliffys logic seems to be that the way to avoid cigarette butts being thrown on the ground is to not allow smokers to live in the building. That's ridiculous.  
 
Why is it ridiculous? If I, as a landlord can't control what a smoker does on my property, then I'm going to try to remove them as prospective tenants entirely. Of course they can lie about being a smoker, but in my experience that deception generally becomes evident fairly quickly (ie cigarette butts on property/smell/staining etc) and if it doesn't then there's no problem. Wanting a non smoker is me covering my bases right from the get-go.  
 
People don't litter like that simply because they are smokers. They litter because they don't respect the landlords property (ie: their own home).  
 
And yet, cigarette butts are disproportionately the majority of litter i've had to deal with outside my rental, and other non-smoking rentals i've seen. Is it because the smokers are disproportionately more disrespectful of the landlords property? Probably not.  
 
There are respectful smokers and there are disrespectful smokers. How do I as a landlord differentiate? I don't. I try remove the group as a whole. I'm sorry if that seems unreasonable.  
 
Your analogy with packages doesn't apply because:  
a)There isn't a segment of the population that has an addiction to unwrapping packages several times a day.  
b)Littering from packages is generally not a problem that we see common to rentals and not something we can control beyond general littering rules.  
 
If it was, I'd act on this as well, but it's generally a non-issue.  
 
Stipulating that a tenant must BE A NON-SMOKER (which I believe was the point the op was making) wouldn't fly with me. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if I were a smoking tenant and I wanted to rent an apartment, house, etc, I would simply claim to be a non smoker. If I never smoked on the rental property where I live, I can't imagine getting an eviction notice because my landlord saw me smoking elsewhere... Or perhaps the landlord would issue me a warning letter telling me to quit smoking? "  
 
I don't mean this to sound rude but it doesn't really matter what "fly's" with you if it's not your property, does it? Paying income tax doesn't fly with me either but I either pay it, or find elsewhere to live. Hopefully I didn't misunderstand you.  
 
As a landlord, it's my perogative to mitigate my risk when it comes to a new tenant. If that means being selective based on smoking habits, then so be it.  
 
Of course you could lie about being a smoker and never smoke on the property. And of course I wouldn't try to evict you if I saw you smoking in public elsewhere, but that just means that my approach is working, doesn't it? I mean, if you lie about being a non-smoker when in reality you are, but you then never smoke on my property as a result, then there's no problem.  
 
Usually what ends up happening is the claimed non smoker smokes on the property anyways and tries to get away with it. Smoking, it seems is as difficult a habit to hide as to break.  
 
The point is, I'll take the risk of someone lying about being a smoker over the substantially more likely risk of a smoker lying about not smoking on my property, because in the latter, there''s already an admission of an addiction, that''s already a losing battle.  
 
This might be anecdotal in nature, but I've never had someone lie about being a non-smoker when they were a smoker while renting from me. I HAVE had a smoker lie about not smoking on my property, many times.  
 
Edited by Torque, 2016-05-11 11:12:07

I would most certainly say non-smokers only. Are you going to smoke away from the house when it's 50 below? I take pride in my well-maintained home. Even if you do smoke outside, are all butts being disposed of properly? I've visited people who "only smoke outside" and, maybe I'm sensitive, but their house still stinks. Blah!

https://www.google.ca/search?q=:butt+can&biw=:1347&bih=:615&tbm=:isch&tbo=:u&source=:univ&sa=:X&ved=:0ahUKEwi-vNbbwtLMAhUF6IMKHZm0BCMQsAQIJw  
 
 
if smokers are allowed to smoke outside get a but can for them. I know all will not use it, but most will1

Torque has the nail on the head. I was more simply saying that some smokers have a tendency to just flick the smoke wen done. Yes there are many that will use a can and only smoke outside, but if your the landlord, do you chance that they will only smoke outside and clean up the butts or do you just try to save yourself time and money and avoid smokers all together?

cliffy said "Torque has the nail on the head. I was more simply saying that some smokers have a tendency to just flick the smoke wen done. Yes there are many that will use a can and only smoke outside, but if your the landlord, do you chance that they will only smoke outside and clean up the butts or do you just try to save yourself time and money and avoid smokers all together? "

You evict the litter bugs, don''t allow smoking on your property, that's all. It's about the backbone. People that are cut out to be landlords have that. I've raked both tenants and landlords over the coals when they are wrong, and insist they aren't. Something to think about... money is being spent by a group of people in Brandon to challenge slum lords and others that are clueless about being landlords. If I, as part of that movement, seek to rent from you, I'll be an ideal tenant as far as you know. And if you keep your nose clean, it's all good.  
 
Edited by Classified, 2016-05-11 21:55:00

Classified said "    cliffy said "Torque has the nail on the head. I was more simply saying that some smokers have a tendency to just flick the smoke wen done. Yes there are many that will use a can and only smoke outside, but if your the landlord, do you chance that they will only smoke outside and clean up the butts or do you just try to save yourself time and money and avoid smokers all together? " You evict the litter bugs, don''t allow smoking on your property, that's all. It's about the backbone. People that are cut out to be landlords have that. I've raked both tenants and landlords over the coals when they are wrong, and insist they aren't. Something to think about... money is being spent by a group of people in Brandon to challenge slum lords and others that are clueless about being landlords. If I, as part of that movement, seek to rent from you, I'll be an ideal tenant as far as you know. And if you keep your nose clean, it's all good.     Edited by Classified, 2016-05-11 21:55:00"

All hail the arbiter of truth on renting in Brandon, Classified!  
 
Landlord and don't know if you're justified in evicting someone? Ask Classified!  
Renter and not sure if your landlord is being a meanie? Classified will know!  
 
Seriously though, and this is just a hunch, but you sound like you've never rented a piece of your property to a stranger, ever.  
 
When you've rented your non smoking unit to a smoker who swore up and down he'd go outside to smoke, then spent thousands in time and money to clean everything else no non-smoker would set foot in the place, all the while watching your profits evaporate, then you can tell me to have a backbone.  
 
I know a few landlords, but I don't know any who would simply throw up their hands and act like having some smokers ruin their investments should be part of renting out their properties and "having backbone".  
 
Lol, tell any investor that they shouldn't care about mitigating their risk as much as possible and they'll laugh at you.  
 
Actually, I wish renting to smokers WAS like a risky investment, at least if successful the payout would be big. Unfortunately the best you can get from renters, smokers or not, is have the rent on time and not have your place ruined when they leave. But I digress, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining, I've made my choices and I'm fine with them.  
 
As far as the "slumlords" in Brandon, I can't comment on that. I'm not one, and don't know any.  
 
What I do know is, as long as there are more people looking for a place to live than there are dwellings available, this is going to be a landlord's game. I'm well within my rights to be selective as long as it's not based on something people can't change about themselves and being a smoker doesn't fall into those categories.  
 
I've never had complaints from my renters about how I treat them, and some have been renting from me for years.

My two cents.. I smoke. The place I live now is technically a no smoking place but I go outside, put my butts in a can with water to extinguish it and never toss it on the ground. The landlord has no problem with that and I have no problems going outside. It seems fair for both of us. My place doesn't stink like some people claim happens and I know this cuz when the landlord comes in to fix something or whatnot, I ask. Some people are such whiners, just because they don't smoke they think they are better than someone who does and that they have the right to b!tch and complain about the smell. Well the thick cloud of perfume a lot of women wear makes me gag and really bothers me but I don't complain, I just move away from it if at all possible. And as far as smoking being a 'right' covered by discrimination that's bs, although I also think that alcoholism being covered is pure bs as well. You aren't born with a bottle or smoke in your mouth. It's a choice you make to start. If you are brought up around it you might be more inclined to do it but you still have to start. My mom smokes and I do too, but my little brother doesn't. It's a choice.