[ta92929]

By certain places I meant New York City.

Do a lot of people in NYC have "outdoors" on their own property? I suspect not. Do a lot of people in NYC even own their own homes? Because most rentals disallow smoking. So in order to smoke, you have to outright buy a house or condo. Yeah, that's a reasonable compromise.

[mikeash]

What about the sidewalk?

In any case, there are a lot of activities that are impractical in a large city. Try finding a place where you can have a bonfire in NYC, for example. Yet nobody is up in arms about that.

Do you know why most rentals disallow smoking? Because smoking ruins properties. It's not some vendetta against smokers, it's a pure financial consideration. It's the same reason they don't want you taking a sledgehammer to the walls, or putting sandpaper on the soles of your shoes.

Given that, why should anyone let you destroy their stuff in this way?

[seanp2k2]

You have to go to the curb to smoke in some cities now (I've seen it in the Bay, don't know the specifics).

While I don't disagree re: property destruction, they'll make you pay for any damage anyway, so it would probably make more sense as a choice. "$2000 carpet replacement + cleaning + re-painting fee for smoking in this apartment" would surely dissuade some, but if it was the actual cost of labor + materials to restore the apartment to pre-smoking conditions (including smell), I think that's reasonable. Having pets, they sure do make you pay for any bit of messed up carpet, so as long as it's not leaking through the floors / into the hallways / billowing out the windows, why not give people the choice to pay for what they're messing up instead of outright banning it?