[Superman]

It just depends on your perspective. On the abortion issue, there are those who are not concerned about the rights of the unborn fetus. Their focus is on the rights of the pregnant woman. As if the fetus were another organ, like a spare gall bladder or something. From that perspective, abortions should be legal. But from the other perspective, the rights of a child/fetus were taken away.

With this smoking thing there are the rights of smokers. Here, the gubmit is not trying to stop people from smoking. They are simply viewing this from the perspective of the other person. A non-smoker might feel they are entitled to breathe air, in their own home that has not been, moments ago, filled with cigarette smoke. This legislation protects somebody's right to live in a home without cigarette smoke. Sure, Joe has a solution. Heck, why don't we have 3M come in and design a filtration system? The homeowner should (in theory) not have to go out and buy equipment that cleans the neighbor's cigarette smoke out of the air in HER apartment. Neighbor's cigarette smoke should not be in her apartment in the first place. In theory. (also, there could be a smoker on the negative-pressure side of the apartment fitted with Joe's solution-fan. In that instance, you get cigarette smoke regardless of which window you open. Two cigarette smokers, one on either side, could essentially render someone's apartment uninhabitable by them.

I'm not concluding this is good legislation. Somebody asked how this is American. In America, we protect peoples' rights up to the point where it infringes on someone else's rights. You wouldn't agree that your neighbor has the right to come over and cut down your tree. But I'll bet I can find a million Americans who would protect their right to breathe clean air in their own home FAR more vigorously than they would protect their tree.