Man to pay fine for smoking cigar in his own apartment: Why?

By: Bailey Johnson
Topics: News ,; Disease

NY man must pay $2,000 fine every time he smokes a cigar in his apartment

That's $2,000 up in smoke

(Credit: AP)

(CBS) - Have the health police gone too far this time? Ask Harry Lysons. The 70-year-old New Yorker has to pay his neighbors $2,000 every time he smokes a cigar - in his own apartment.

According to papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Lysons will have to pony up every time his neighbors smell cigar smoke in their apartment. If he doesn't pay within 15 days, he'll be on the hook for an additional $1,500 per stogie, the New York Post reported.

Despite all that, it's possible Lysons is getting off cheap. The court order brings to an end a $2 million lawsuit Lysons' neighbors brought against him for stinking up their home. Russell and Amanda Poses complained of "foul and noxious odors," telling the Post, "It's pungent enough that you can't eat dinner."

And interrupted dinner plans aren't the biggest downside of someone else's cigar habit.

The American Cancer Society says secondhand smoke causes 46,000 deaths a year from heart disease among nonsmokers who live with smokers. In addition, the society says, secondhand smoke causes about 3,400 deaths from lung cancer each year among nonsmokers, as well as hundreds of thousands of respiratory and ear infections.

The Poses claimed in their lawsuit that Lysons' fumes were giving their six- and three-year-old children breathing problems and ear infections.

Both sides acknowledge that Lysons isn't going to change his habits anytime soon. Lysons' lawyer, Jeffrey Marcus, told the Post, "I think when you're in your 70s you're entitled to some of the remaining pleasures in life. He's earned the right to smoke a cigar and have some brandy at night. He'll just have the cigar on the street."

WHAT DO YOU THINK? Should Harry Lysons be free to indulge in his own home? Or should he be on the hook for turning his neighbors' apartment into a chimney?

32 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 32 Comments


by bacteria_annihilation March 13, 2011 8:18 AM EDT: People shouldn't be harmed by smokers. The man is old and should be wise enough to know that second hand smoking causes cancer. But he should be forgiven as a person since the bacteria sitting in his intestines and that control his body are the ones causing so much problem. Bacteria are the culprit. The man is just a "temple" or a "puppet" of bacteria. Bacteria are killers and their main goal is to kill not only the host but as many people as possible because they think by doing so they get rewarded with heaven or Earth. The insects you see around you are bacteria living in their jacket. Whether it is a butterfly, moth, roach, or such, you are seeing bacteria that have kill mankind. They think that they own the planet and they do. We don't have man on the planet. As we can see, we as people are not protected. Bacteria use people whose body they hijack to protect themselves. Man of the human species are lower than dog's poop. They don't exist. So, when you you think that you see a man getting a gold medal for swimming or baseball or skating, you are not in reality seeing a man according to bacteria. Bacteria think that they have evolved into humans and are the ones getting these trophies. So, there is no men, women, or children in the animal kingdoms. There are only bacteria that think that they have evolved into animals and plants by entering the hosts of these kingdoms.
So, bacteria in the man are the ones trying to deliberately kill these people and the judge and the lawyers know it.; Reply to this comment


by rf35 March 1, 2011 11:00 AM EST: by EllaRobbins February 27, 2011 3:52 PM EST
Ah, the old "She was asking for it" argument. If someone exhales smoke, they are "asking for it." This undoubtedly explains why certain state and local governments are also doing their damndest to outlaw e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. If you force people to exhale smoke, this continues to mean they are "asking for it."

I have no idea what point you're trying unsuccessfully to get across besides you're obvious hatred for pleasure, but I wanted to point out a couple things. First, e-cigarettes are causing a loss in revenue from tobacco taxes because they do not contain tobacco and therefore are not subject to those taxes. This is why governments, state and federal, are trying to ban them. As for smokeless tobacco, the only type I'm hearing about as far as attempts to ban it is snuss. This is because it seems to be less harmful that other forms of tobacco and may actually help people stop smoking cigarettes, the primary source of tobacco tax money. If you want to get to the bottom of anything, just follow the almighty dollar.

P.S. I don't use tobacco...I just find the attack on the segment of our society that does a frightening preview of what can happen when people get a bee in their bonnet over someone's personal choices. The fat taxes are coming next as attempts to tax soda are already showing up.; Reply to this comment

by bobp64 February 28, 2011 4:53 PM EST

>Lysons' lawyer, Jeffrey Marcus, told the Post, "I think when you're in
>your 70s you're entitled to some of the remaining pleasures in life.

What would this scumbag lawyer said if his client was a Pedophile, a rapist, murderer, or some other type of crook?!

Good thing I didn't live in that building because my kids would NOT have to put up with it for long. There's justice and there's justice and justice WOULD prevail.

Reply to this comment


by rf35 March 1, 2011 11:03 AM EST: Let me make sure I understand. You would move into an apartment and if a neighbor that already lived there did something legal but that you find annoying, you would violently attack that person. I hope you don't live in a state with a "make my day" law. Try that with me and your kids would be growing up without their father.

by marswat February 27, 2011 10:09 AM EST

To by Fatesrider February 27, 2011 4:41 AM EST

While your point is taken, here is the Webster definition of the word that seems to upset you. Notice the word rape you are referring to is meaning number b and 2.Also, while the constitution may not actually give some one the right to smoke, I think most level headed people get the meaning here. You come across as a person with some serious issues that need attending to!

2rape verb
rapedrap·ing
Definition of RAPE

transitive verb
1
a archaic : to seize and take away by force
b : despoil
2
: to commit rape on
- rap·er noun
- rap·ist noun

Reply to this comment


by EllaRobbins February 27, 2011 3:52 PM EST: Ah, the old "She was asking for it" argument. If someone exhales smoke, they are "asking for it." This undoubtedly explains why certain state and local governments are also doing their damndest to outlaw e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. If you force people to exhale smoke, this continues to mean they are "asking for it."

Good point!

by WillowSunstar February 27, 2011 7:45 AM EST

He should find a house...it would be cheaper in the long run for him.

Reply to this comment


by EllaRobbins February 27, 2011 7:44 PM EST: In the days when he first started renting there, people used to prefer living in Manhattan to the suburbs to avoid having nosy busybody encroaching neighbors. It would now appear that Manhattan has become the capital of nosy busybody encroaching neighbors, so your suggestion he move to a house sounds about right.


by 1980armygirl February 27, 2011 12:50 AM EST: that is why I live on a dead end road no neighbors I can go outside naked if I want lol! Poor guy :-( more things in life to worry about like the meth heads!; Reply to this comment

by michellesuzanne February 27, 2011 12:04 AM EST

This is no longer about health at all. It is about the non-smoker's right to financially rape a smoker. In this ruling, a smoker is being ordered to compensate a non-smoker financially for having created a nuisance.

This is not about protecting the health of non-smokers and is not intended to prevent the smoker from smoking.

So does that mean that people who cook stinky food can also be raped financially by their neighbours? Maybe its a case of smokers first, but you are next!

Reply to this comment


by Fatesrider February 27, 2011 4:41 AM EST: Have you ever been "raped"? Given the utter lack of understanding you display of the implications of the word, I sincerely doubt it. Try using a more appropriate word to describe a lawfully conducted civil suit against a common threat to the health and welfare of others.

Secondly, smokers have no "right" to smoke. Period. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. If you think otherwise, try reading a few constitutions (the US and every state). Not one grants anyone the right to smoke.

Society has the right to protect itself (those are constitutionally protected rights, by the way) from people who inflict harm, either intentionally or unintentionally. And society is reacting to it, taking people to task over habits which endanger the health and quality of life of others.

You won't get this, of course. Anyone who equates what happened here with "rape" is beyond the reach of anything resembling reality.

I'm just minded that one in three smokers will die from the habit. That means fewer smokers to screw up the planet for the rest of us.


by rf35 February 28, 2011 12:41 PM EST: Fatesrider,
Financial rape was a completely appropriate term for what these money-hungry bandits did to this 70 year old man. They are extremely stupid robbers, however, because they could have gotten more by suing the apartment owners for the substandard construction that allowed them to smell smoke from another unit.
Any activity not restricted by law is an implied right. By your logic, you don't have the right to breed because it isn't spelled out by any constitution. I recommend you do not avail yourself of that right in any case.
Last point: who lived in the apartment complex first? If it was the smoker, the plaintiffs should never have been allowed in court to begin with. They would have known about the issue and could have found a more acceptable place to live like a box in an alley. If they lived there before the smoker moved in, then the smoker should now be able to sue the building owners every time he has to pay as a result of this injustice.


by michellesuzanne February 26, 2011 5:27 PM EST: This is no longer about health at all. It is about the non-smoker's right to financially rape a smoker. In this ruling, a smoker is being ordered to compensate a non-smoker financially for having created a nuisance.

This is not about protecting the health of non-smokers and is not intended to prevent the smoker from smoking.; Reply to this comment

by raybilcliff February 25, 2011 2:13 PM EST

Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves. Smoking should be banned completely everywhere.

Reply to this comment


by andrewsangel February 25, 2011 4:26 PM EST: that is your opinion coming from a non smoker just as my opinion is from a smoker, the government has way to much control over this issue already. he should be allowed to smoke in his own home, instead of spending 2000 each time why not put in an air cleaning system, how dumb can you people be??


by jiminnyc February 25, 2011 4:54 PM EST: Or, let smokers all go onto an island with each other and have a blast.


by lacheraqui February 25, 2011 2:12 PM EST: hmm; which stinks more? losing the right to smoke wherever you wish or involuntarily, unwillingly ingesting a smelly (at best) dangerous (at worst) substance that can lead to all manner of illnesses and diseases?; Reply to this comment