Supposing they created a ban on anyone over 300 pounds with a body odor problem?
By applying it only prospectively, they probably make it litigation-proof: if you buy there now, you agree to this clause.
Someone stinking up your home is not detrimental?
I am surprised these morons didn't make it retroactive.
You think that's not coming?
P.S: I wouldn't call them morons. I'm an ex-smoker--but unlike other ex-smokers, I adore tobacco, and I often debate whether it's better to enjoy life even if you die young. But this is not about smoking. It's about the loss of freedom that comes from crowding people together.
The problem is not about rules you consider stupid or about habits that others consider annoying--it is about people wanting to live differently while living on top of one another.
Can't be done.
You seem to be forgetting that smokers accidentally start a significant number of home fires annually (falling asleep with a lit cigarette, etc.)
Smoking in a condo/apartment raises the risk of burning your neighbors to death.
I'm not sure if that's good enough reason to ban it, but it *is* a consideration, and a proven danger.
NFPA Fact Sheet
Smoking material-related firesSmoking materials (i.e., cigarettes, cigars, pipes, etc.) are the leading cause of fire deaths and the third leading cause of fire injuries in the United States. Roughly one of every four fire deaths in the 1998 was attributed to smoking materials.
Facts & figures*
In 1998, there were 140,800 fires associated with smoking materials, resulting in 903 deaths, 2,453 injuries and $412 million in property damage. Of the fire deaths, 865 occurred in residential properties.
The leading cause of residential fires associated with smoking materials was abandoned or carelessly disposed of smoking materials.
The most common material first ignited in residential smoking material-related fires was mattresses and bedding, followed by upholstered furniture.
(*From NFPA's The U.S. Smoking-Material Fire Problem, April 2001, by John R. Hall, Jr.)