A Bill to Protect Smokers? Say It Ain't So

Unfortunately, smokers encroach on the health of their neighbors when living with common walls and common balconies and common courtyards.

If someone's bad health habits like smokers permeate the lives of everyone around them in a living situation, then how can the smoker be protected from the continual harm they have inflicted on everyone around them?

A better approach would be to get smokers help, and stop enabling their bad health habits by "protecting" them and encouraging them further.

In my apartment building, there is a smoker who has a really bad smoker's bronchial cough. He hacks all day and all night long—at 1 a.m., 3 a.m., 6 a.m., and leaves his windows open. It's comparable to a dog barking.

It's wrong to want to protect this tenant from his constant nuisance, annoyance and loud noise of his barking cough and his constant smoking. And we as his neighbors need peace, quiet and our sleep. We know when he is coming and going from this apartment building, because of his constant loud heavy cough.

So why is our own city now trying to protect smokers' bad health habits when obviously smokers like this one need to stop smoking entirely and get respiratory therapy?

Our state of California made a smart decision to protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke, and now our city wants to undo this?