I used to smoke. Started when I was 19, quit for good at 26.

All it took for me to quit was two major lung infections within a year. I'm an idiot, but I'm not dumb.


Even though cigarettes are taxed like crazy in Minnesota (which actually did help people quit smoking), that doesn't mean the Smoker vs Non-Smoker battle has ended.

This latest battle deals with Smoking Homeowners vs Non-Smoking Homeowners. The scene? A St. Paul, MN, condo building.

The Gallery Tower board banned smoking in the building, thrilling non-smokers but energizing smokers to the point of taking over the board and ending the smoking ban.

Condo politics...it's like Country politics!


Anyone who's lived in an apartment building that allowed smoking knows that - despite your best efforts - the smell of cigarettes will seep into your own apartment.

Lest we forget: smoking is still legal. Expensive and terrible for your health, but legal.

Also terrible for one's health: secondhand smoke. It's something that cigarette smokers share with the world.

At what point does the freedom from collateral damage (secondhand smoke/smoke smell in your non-smoking home) outweigh the freedom to puff?

It's a tough question to answer. My knee-jerk answer is: freedom from secondhand smoke/smoke smell in your non-smoking home ALWAYS and COMPLETELY outweighs the freedom to puff.

My thought-out answer: same.

To me it's a health issue. I don't believe that I should have to sacrifice my health while living in my own home so someone else can sacrifice theirs.

I'm also fortunate to live with a non-smoker.

What are YOUR thoughts? Ned@MinnesotasNewCountry.com

H/T: Fox News

More From 98.1 Minnesota's New Country