"We're standing just where he stood
It was chain lightning
It feels so good"
We're in the presence of an elitist Fonzie!
(Don't forget to ask him about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.... 
)
Posted on 01/24/2004 9:17:05 AM PST by mylife
Couple demands halt to neighbor's smoking Restraining order sought over nuisance to health By Phil Trexler Beacon Journal staff writer
Robert Zangrando has had it up to his chest, nose and eyes with his neighbor's smoking and he's taking her to court to get her to quit.
Zangrando, a retired University of Akron history professor who lives in Stow, was in Summit County court Thursday with his wife and lawyer.
Together they are seeking a restraining order against his next-door neighbor, Nicole Kuder, 28, that would prohibit her from smoking outdoors within 30 feet of her condominium.
Zangrando, 71, and his wife, UA instructor Lisa A. Pace, contend the smoking affects their health and has become a nuisance.
Before the hearing, Kuder said, ``I have tried to accommodate them, and this is the result.''
The couple's attorney, Ed Gilbert, called the situation an emergency and wanted Common Pleas Judge Marvin Shapiro to rule immediately on the restraining order request. Shapiro declined because Kuder came to court without an attorney.
Akron attorney Tom Adgate was retained by Kuder just before the hearing and was unable to attend. Shapiro delayed ruling until the hearing resumes Tuesday with Kuder and her attorney.
Kuder and Zangrando have been neighbors in a condominium complex on Higby Drive for about two years. Their two-story units are separated only by a shared wall. They share a front porch, and a wooden fence separates their back doors.
Zangrando said his neighbor's cigarette smoking is apparent whenever he opens a window or steps outside his home. He said the fumes compromise his health, causing him to wheeze and cough.
He said he suffers from lung problems, including emphysema, and has had asthma in the past. He said the smoking is such that he is reluctant to let his dog or two cats outside.
``It hits you right away, the minute you walk out the door. It catches me, I start coughing, I know she's smoking, I can see she's smoking visually, and I can get the effects of the smoke when I inhale what should be fresh air in my own back patio,'' Zangrando told the judge.
Kuder rents the condo she and her family live in and is not permitted to smoke inside the unit. Zangrando and Pace have owned their unit since marrying in 1996.
``It's a constant reality. She's out there smoking, and I have been appealing to her since she first moved: Please, if you're going smoke, would you move away from the house because the fumes come in our house, and we no longer have discretionary use of our house,'' Zangrando told the judge.
He said he has tried for more than a year to convince Kuder to smoke elsewhere, to no avail. He said he tried to reach an agreement in October, but Kuder and her husband, who does not smoke, refused to sign.
Kuder said Zangrando wanted her to walk to a nearby parking lot to smoke. She said he snoops on her, photographs her movements and has yelled at her to ``go, kill my family'' with her cigarettes.
``I tried to be nice and go out back and compromise, but they constantly harass us,'' Kuder said outside court. ``There have been times when I've had friends over, and he comes out screaming at us. It bothers me, but at the same time, I try to be a respectful smoker.''
Let me ask a question:
What is the highest formal training in mathematics you have had? (Mine is a graduate-level course in Statistical Thermodynamics, I have had other formal training in statistical methods and analysis, but that was the highest one.). When I give you responses I am assuming you have a background which allows you to understand the mathematics behind the conclusions reached in this type of research. If you don't , we are not going to communicate effectively.
We have not seen a decline in birth defects that is consistent with the decline in the smoking population. If the statement you point to was fact, we should be able to see the correlation. Instead you spew propoganda as fact.
We would only expect to see the one-to-one correlation you describe if smoking were the only cause of birth defects. No one has ever made that claim. The reality here is that a lot of things change over time. The correct analysis of the different factors is complex and difficult, but this is not an indication of invalidity. The simplistic questions you demand answers for lead me to believe that you do not understand the science or the mathematics behind these studies.
You provided the link as an answer, I provided additional information on that link that would end up with ALL WOMEN RECEIVING PRENATAL CARE.
I provided the link as part of an answer. You lept to conclusions on my position on prenatal health care. My real beliefs are that women who can not afford health care should either keep their legs closed or use contraceptives. This does not require state funding.
You don't even bother to claim harm anymore. Instead you claim that the person that believes in liberty and private property is the leftist. You claim that the use of government force to ensure that you don't have to encounter a nuisance is conservative.
According to our concept of law, my having to encounter the nuisance that smokers leave behind is harm and I am allowed to seek relief. Since you don't see it as harm, the government is going to have to intervene to decide if it is or not. As I have repeatedly said, the harm seen has been rising over the years. If I were a smoker my objective would be to take every measure possible to assure that I did not create a nuisance for others rather than take the chance of government imposing a solution which I might like even less than what I have now.
What rights were trampled upon? Were they forced to go onto any privately owned property?
You seem to have ignored my point that when your smoke drifts onto my property, that is the trampling of my right to have my property smoke-free.
You would rather control the behavior of all others to the point that they would not be allowed to smoke.
I would rather that smokers be allowed to smoke, but be responsible enough to keep their smoke off of my property. Since a sizable number of smokers, as exemplified by your arguments, may very well be uneducatable as to the extent of my rights, total prohibition of smoking may be the only effective means of accomplishing that end.
I don't want that solution. I would vastly prefer that smokers learn to respect my right to have my property be smoke-free. But, since this hasn't happened for the past 50 years, and every time the topic comes up instead of promising to be more respectful, smokers demand the right to infringe as they please, it pains me to recognize that more government intervention may be required. This doesn't make me a leftist, just a defender of my own rights.
If you don't , we are not going to communicate effectively.
This was not posted to me, but I just *have* to comment. This is one of the most pompous, arrogant, condescending statements I've heard since Charles Emerson Winchester, (the snooty doctor on MASH) would get on a tangent. Thanks for the comic fodder!!!!!
"We're standing just where he stood
It was chain lightning
It feels so good"
We're in the presence of an elitist Fonzie!
(Don't forget to ask him about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.... )
It's called the, (ahem), Second Law of Thermodynamics!
An extremely succinct expression of the truth.
These people have absolutely no concept of the meaning of "statistically significant" evidence. And the CDC, the EPA and all of the alphabet soup of the anti-smoker groups know this and therefore know they can parade out their statistically insignificant gobbledy gook and it will be taken as gospel truth by those that believe the sky is falling.
You can considered it anything you want, but I am very tired of being insulted by people who have no idea what they are arguing over and who have strongly-held, but erroneous beliefs.
I considered just asking the question of CSM's background, but felt it wasn't fair to ask someone else's background without at least offering some clue as to my own. (If I gave you my whole background, you would think I was even more pompous...) If any of these people understood the science behind what we are arguing over I would be happy to engage them in a considered discussion. Instead, when I cite a reputable organization on the number of excess deaths in a year, I get insulted plus a demand to: "name them!, I won't believe a word of it until until you name names of those who died."
Well, the truth is ethical guidelines prevent the research organizations from releasing individual names, even if they were available. Plus, the nature of statistical analysis is such that we may never know which individuals died from the cause stated, only that there were excess deaths in a particular group.
You can claim it is pompous of me all you want , but if I am trying to have a reasoned discussion with someone who understands neither the nature of statistical analysis, nor the ethical guidelines for research on human subjects, it is just plain not going to be a very enlightening for either one of us.
And, if that person is a dedicated smoker who firmly believes that statements like: "my mom smoked and had 5 healthy babies" are sufficient to refute the data we have on smoking and birth defects, then we are just not going to get anywhere.
Fonzie Mengele. 
This is from your first paragraph in your post. You are making my point for me. Who are you to say that my, or anyone else's beliefs are erroneous? I may not always have statistics to back up my statements, but I defy you to tell me that my beliefs are "ERRONEOUS".
I think you need to come down to earth for a moment, and throw us mere mortals a crumb. As lowly as you may think we are, we do still have a right to our beliefs. Maybe that will be the next liberty we lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.