Why do non-smokers often display hostility towards smokers?

[Evo]

It is when it's done in a hostile tone..

What? "Shame on them"? Double shame on them. They are abusing people with their smoke.

You think it would be ok for people to spray you with noxious chemicals? You would just allow it?

They have a right to smoke; you have a right to avoid them.

Wrong, they do not have a right to smoke if it is in the presense of people that don't wish to be abused by it. No one has a right to assault another person in this manner.

 

[negitron]

You think it would be ok for people to spray you with noxious chemicals? You would just allow it?

Do you drive a car?

Also, can you point me to the relevant statute(s) which remove a persons right to smoke in non-prohibited areas? If not, you need to stop using that word. Thanks.

 

[Evo]

Do you drive a car?

Also, can you point me to the relevant statute(s) which remove a persons right to smoke in non-prohibited areas? If not, you need to stop using that word. Thanks.

As you yourself stated smoking is banned in more and more places. There is a reason for this. People are starting to assert their rights to not be physically assaulted by another person's vices. In my town I don't know of a publicly accessible building where smoking is allowed anymore. It is finally being recognized that smoking is an assault on non-smokers and smokers do not have the right to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people. That's just the way it is.

Oh, and I don't drive a car inside of a closed room. If they make driving illegal, that's not a problem, my office is 4 miles from my home and all of my shopping can be done with 1-2 miles of my house. I very rarely drive.

 

[Lacy33]

It is when it's done in a hostile tone..



They have a right to smoke; you have a right to avoid them. They're already prohibited from smoking inside public buildings, bars and restaurants in many areas. They've been prohibited on aircraft for years. There's just no pleasing some people.

NOPE! a non smoker does not have the right to avoid smoke. I also have asthma and live in a big city. I can NOT walk down to the corner without breathing in someones smoke. I even walk in the street to avoid the sidewalk smokers. Which is more dangerous for me? A cab in a hurry or an asthma attack?

 

[Evo]

I can NOT walk down to the corner without breathing in someones smoke. I even walk in the street to avoid the sidewalk smokers. Which is more dangerous for me? A cab in a hurry or an asthma attack?

Advocates for smoking don't seem to understand or care that their smoke causes pain and even serious side affects for people that have to inhale it. It is inexcusable that they they remain ignorant of this. I say if they want to smoke that they should complete a course that makes them suffer through what they inflict on others. Like they say, ignorance is no excuse. Smokers need to get a clue. I have no sympathy for someone with a vile addiction that hurts people they come into contact with. Why should I? I can't believe that they would even expect to be tolerated in public.

 

[Chi Meson]

It is when it's done in a hostile tone..

I understand exactly what you mean, and I agree with you completely.

 

[Evo]

I understand exactly what you mean, and I agree with you completely.

It's not hostile to protect your rights to not be hurt in a common area by another person and point that out. It would be hostile to walk into a cigar bar and threaten the people smoking there.

God forbid I try to protect my health in common public areas.

 

[SticksandStones]

Me and my buddy like to have the occasional smoke when we're stressed. We'll go outside away from anyone that doesn't want to smoke and enjoy our smokes in peace. No harm no foul.

 

[Loren Booda]

What is the difference between the pollutants of an idling Toyota Prius and those of a lit cigarette?

Cigarette butts seem to be the only form of litter tolerated by many smokers.

 

[Bratticus]

I do not have asthma... why pay for people who do? If you have no mental health issues, why pay for treatment of people who do? If you have no children, why pay for schools and healthcare for children? If you never used cocain, meth, or other illegal drugs, why pay for the treatment of people who do? No one lives in a bubble, everyone pays for something they themselves do not need.

 

[Evo]

I do not have asthma... why pay for people who do?

My asthma only bothers me when I come into contact with someone that smokes.

 

[Bratticus]

If they make driving illegal, that's not a problem, my office is 4 miles from my home and all of my shopping can be done with 1-2 miles of my house.

I see, and to hell with all the fools that do not live in walking distance to work or stores... suffer... apparently those people do not matter either

 

[Evo]

I see, and to hell with all the fools that do not live in walking distance to work or stores... suffer... apparently those people do not matter either

Take that up with negitron, he's against driving. My reply was that it wouldn't affect me.

 

[Bratticus]

Take that up with negitron, he's against driving. My reply was that it wouldn't affect me.

Of course not, and if it bothers someone else, what's it to you, eh? So long as people accommodate you, you are fine

 

[Evo]

Of course not, and if it bothers someone else, what's it to you, eh? So long as people accommodate you, you are fine

Now you're not even making sense. Are you out of coherent debate? It wouldn't affect me because I don't need to drive, or did you completely miss that?

 

[Bratticus]

Evo, you have asthma, so you think that no one should be allowed to smoke. (your words, not mine). I have hayfever.. so should I request everything that creates pollen to be burned to the ground? I am allergic to seafood... so should I ask to outlaw fishing and prohibit the sale of seafood? I am allergic to a large variety of perfumes.. so, should I expect people to be prohibited from wearing perfumes, colognes and aftershaves in public?

Of course not, those are my pers problems, and I deal with them. They make anihistamines for hayfever, I carry an epi pen in case someone contaminates my food with seafood, and if people wear perfumes I am allergic to, I get upwind of them.

I do not care who does what, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Everyone will have to deal with the consequences of their actions at some point in life.

But, as I stated before, no one lives in a bubble. We all pay for things we do not need. So, if anyone has a problem with the healthcare cost of smokers, keep in mind, that there are a host of healthproblems that are not related to smoking, and everyone pays for those as well.

I do not argue for smoking or against it. It is a personal choice people make. I do not care one way or the other.

 

[Evo]

Right, people that put wads of anything combustible into their mouths and set them on fire inside a room of people are crazy, and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[Zantra]

Wow heated debate

As an ex-smoker I will say that anyone who used to smoke, then lecutures other smokers is a hypocrite. I'm extremely sensitive to smoke, and I get irritated when someone smokes. But I don't go off on them. I may POLITELY ask them not to smoke. Being rude just makes you a jerk, nothing more.

However, as an ex-smoker I can say a few things about non-smokers:

1. You're wasting your breathe. No one's going to quit on your word. If you think your "social pressure" will convince someone to quit when billions in anti-smoking hasn't, you're nuts. If someone wants to quit, they will. Otherwise they just find you annoying.

2. I can understand the sensitivity to smoke and breathing issues, but I take issue with those who go out of their way impose their will on someone else. Smoking is LEGAL, and until that changes, those who smoke are making a choice, bad though it may be, and this is America people. I see people drinking themselves into a stupor all the time, but if went up to everyone who drinks and lectured them about the evils of drinking I'd probably get punched in the nose, and I wouldn't blame them. Would you?

I guess people who get self-righteous tend to throw manners out the window

Just some thoughts...

 

[Bratticus]

Thank you Zantra, I wholeheartedly agree.

Anyway, this has been an interesting experiment, and what I read seems to prove the original post.

To those of you that advised me to kill myself... sorry folks, I am not suicidal.

And to those of you that got all riled up because the subject was smoking... calm down, you'll give yourself a stroke and then have to look for someone to blame for it.

Peace... live and let live.

 

[Evo]

Wow heated debate

As an ex-smoker I will say that anyone who used to smoke, then lecutures other smokers is a hypocrite. I'm extremely sensitive to smoke, and I get irritated when someone smokes. But I don't go off on them. I may POLITELY ask them not to smoke. Being rude just makes you a jerk, nothing more.

However, as an ex-smoker I can say a few things about non-smokers:

1. You're wasting your breathe. No one's going to quit on your word. If you think your "social pressure" will convince someone to quit when billions in anti-smoking hasn't, you're nuts. If someone wants to quit, they will. Otherwise they just find you annoying.

2. I can understand the sensitivity to smoke and breathing issues, but I take issue with those who go out of their way impose their will on someone else. Smoking is LEGAL, and until that changes, those who smoke are making a choice, bad though it may be, and this is America people. I see people drinking themselves into a stupor all the time, but if went up to everyone who drinks and lectured them about the evils of drinking I'd probably get punched in the nose, and I wouldn't blame them. Would you?

I guess people who get self-righteous tend to throw manners out the window

Just some thoughts...

I work with smokers, love them and they respect my rights.

It's the people that don't respect my rights.

The fact is that there aren't many public places that they can legally smoke.

If they smoke in their own space and not around other people, I have no problem with that.

But then I corrected the OP that said that smokers, if they smoked in their own homes did not effect other people and I showed him that they cost non smokers almost $200 billion a year.

I'm not preaching to smokers, I am telling this OP he's wrong.

 

[Andre]

We are very kind to our smokers here. Granted, they take more breaks and keep the health ensurance relatively expensive. However, they also pay for the collective pensions funds and usually never get to collect that money, so our pension funds are very strong financially. That outweights the higher ensurance fees.

 

[Evo]

We are very kind to our smokers here. Granted, they take more breaks and keep the health ensurance relatively expensive. However, they also pay for the collective pensions funds and usually never get to collect that money, so our pension funds are very strong financially. That outweights the higher ensurance fees.

LOL, yes, one of the benefits is that smokers die, on average, 10 years sooner than non smokers. But that's not really soon enough, 20 years would off set the costs.

 

[Zantra]

$200 billion a year.

I'm not preaching to smokers, I am telling this OP he's wrong.

I wasn't just directing m comments at you Evo. Don't think I don't get it. I'm asthmatic myself

But smokers have to save themselves. They know the consequences and they choose to do it anyway.

I understand the behavior. I don't condone it, but I understand it.

 

[Chi Meson]

You mistook my intent, Evo, I should have done it with multiquotes. Here's the thing...

[referring to OP:]I found an example of a hostile attitude toward non-smokers. See above.

You have an extremely bizarre personal definition of hostile.

-snip-

So it doesn't matter if you only smoke in your own home and nowhere else. If you smoke anywhere near another person, SHAME ON YOU! You're disgusting to non-smokers. How would you like it if every time you went out in public people around you started spraying you with noxious, foul smelling and carcinogenic chemicals? Smoking is exactly that. If you haven't figured that out yet, get a clue.

Ignorance of what you are doing is no excuse.

If you promise to never smoke near other people and promise to never use medical insurance or medicare or medicaid, go ahead kill yourself, you have my blessing.

Now that's a hostile nonsmoker. Makes me almost want to take up smoking again, and I quit 6 years ago.

Nothing hostile about it, I have asthma, people smoking around me cause me physical pain and breathing problems. You think stating the truth is hostile?

-snip-

It is when it's done in a hostile tone..-snip-

I understand exactly what you mean, and I agree with you completely.

Evidently negitron and I agree on the how easily stating the truth can appear hostile to others who observe a different truth. I was trying to be humorous here; I thought the irony was too good to pass up. The "hostile tone" is nearly always a tone that the reader projects onto a post. I personally projected this "hostility" onto the OP while negitron did not. Then negitron projected it onto your post, while others might've not.

My own position on smoking was posted a while ago:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2261586&postcount=28

 

[negitron]

Evidently negitron and I agree on the how easily stating the truth can appear hostile to others who observe a different truth. I was trying to be humorous here; I thought the irony was too good to pass up.

Nothing of the sort. Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

It never ceases to amaze me. Mention tobacco and all the anti-tobacco gurus line up to crucify you. Just ask about the history of tobacco, and boom, here come the preachers. The interesting thing is that actual smokers appear to be far less hostile. Never saw any smokers go off an a tirade if someone asked about quitting. It makes me wonder why pople get so hostile about decisions of people they do not even know. Don't you all think there are better ways and better causes to unleash all that energy?

Smokers are a financial blight on society.

So it doesn't matter if you only smoke in your own home and nowhere else. If you smoke anywhere near another person, SHAME ON YOU! You're disgusting to non-smokers. How would you like it if every time you went out in public people around you started spraying you with noxious, foul smelling and carcinogenic chemicals? Smoking is exactly that. If you haven't figured that out yet, get a clue.

Ignorance of what you are doing is no excuse.

If you promise to never smoke near other people and promise to never use medical insurance or medicare or medicaid, go ahead kill yourself, you have my blessing.

Note the lack of UPPER CASE SHOUTING and multiple exclamation points! in the OP. Note the lack of insults ("you're disgusting...") and the complete disdain ("...go ahead kill yourself, you have my blessing.") Sorry, but there is a big difference in tone between the two posts. If you aren't capable of seeing it, I guess I can't help you.

 

[Chi Meson]

Oh, I do see the difference, but it's only a matter of scale.

"...anti-tobacco gurus line up to crucify you..."
"...here come the preachers..."
"...never saw any smokers go off on a tirade..."

Some people see it as "being passionate about an issue," others see it as "hostility."

Personally, I am seeing both sides exhibiting passion and hostility; it's hard to keep one from spilling into the other. We all need to own up to that much. We see our own posts as entirely rational, don't we all?

I was not entirely joking when I admitted to being "unhinged." We'd all do a lot better if we at least recognized the point where we personally become unglued. If you read my linked post, and if you read Evo's own recounts of growing up with asthma in the age where smoking was "the norm," you might understand where this passion is coming from.

And let's please all remember that it is not about the "smell," or as smokers call it, the "flavor." It's about the chemicals, the drug, and the particulate infiltration of the lungs.

 

[BobG]

We are very kind to our smokers here. Granted, they take more breaks and keep the health ensurance relatively expensive. However, they also pay for the collective pensions funds and usually never get to collect that money, so our pension funds are very strong financially. That outweights the higher ensurance fees.

Ah, a country has understands sound fiscal policy.

I do find it ironic that a government facing budget deficits and shortfalls in Social Security funding would spend money on things that would extend peoples' lives. At least efforts to stamp out things like drunk driving make economic sense. Drunk driving eliminates people that could be paying into Social Security while smoking and obesity eliminate people that could be drawing Social Security funds.

Now, if there were just a way to target drunk drivers without going to the extreme of banning alcohol altogether or violating protection against unreasonable search and seizures. (And targeting by snipers would not be an acceptable method, since how could a sniper really know a driver's blood alcohol level).

I think the majority of people have some group they're hostile against.

(And it's probably a little too true to be funny. If you eliminate racism and bigotry, it seems those type of emotions have to find an outlet somewhere else.)

 

[rootX]

Wow heated debate

As an ex-smoker I will say that anyone who used to smoke, then lecutures other smokers is a hypocrite. I'm extremely sensitive to smoke, and I get irritated when someone smokes. But I don't go off on them. I may POLITELY ask them not to smoke. Being rude just makes you a jerk, nothing more.

There is a big difference between making an argument (here or in general) and going off on them whenever you see them smoking. If someone does latter, s/he has some anger issues which has nothing to do with non-smokers. I am sure mostly people who make arguments and not dwell into making personal attacks would ask them politely not to smoke.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I really don't understand the arguments about health care costs and smoking. I know the statistics but they are incomplete. Unless a person is really lucky and dies unexpectedly in their sleep, in all likelihood, they will at some point incur huge financial costs for medical care before they die. Smoking will kill you, but SOMETHING is going to kill you whether you smoke or not. That will likely cost lots of money before you die. Smokers also pay dearly for taxes on tobacco products. Also, by dying younger, they will collect less social security.

I have to wonder if smokers aren't a net positive to the system financially. This obviously ignores demographics and economic factors, education, etc, but those are coincidental factors and not the result of smoking. I also notice a lot of assumptions that correlation implies causation. For example, there are certain personality types that are more likely to smoke than others, but I don't see those types of distinctions applied to conclusions about smoking.

Some of the claims about smoking are rather dubious as well. When I read one study that concluded that being in a room with smokers is worse than smoking, I knew we were into the silly season, as Obama says. Anyone smoking is exposed to primary and second-hand smoke, so I see no possible way that the report could be true. The study claimed that since smokers get filtered smoke, the exposure is less than that to non-smokers.

Evo probably has ER costs exceeding the lifetime cost of most smokers.

 

[f95toli]

When I was younger I was very sensitive to cigarette smoke (asthma, still got it but nearly as bad). Now, most smokers didn't have a problem with me asking them not to smoke when I was around (or asking them to go somewhere else to smoke) since they understood the reason.
What some of them did NOT understand was that cigarette smoke sticks to your clothes (and hair) pretty badly and when I was extra sensitive (because of e.g a cold) I could not even be around someone who HAD smoked earlier; and on a few occasions some smokers interpreted my unwillingness to go near them as a form of "anti-smoking" insult.

I've seen this more recently when some hospitals etc introduced rules that said that staff were not allowed to smoke during their breaks unless they changed into their civilian clothes; many of them seem to interpret this as some form of witch hunt on smokers (and many of them should know better).

My point is that some smokers seem to be quite oblivious just how badly cigarette smoke can affect some of us.

For the records; smokers are of course not the only problem. If you have asthma you are equally likely to run into e.g. equally oblivious horse owners.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I was younger I was very sensitive to cigarette smoke (asthma, still got it but nearly as bad). Now, most smokers didn't have a problem with me asking them not to smoke when I was around (or asking them to go somewhere else to smoke) since they understood the reason.
What some of them did NOT understand was that cigarette smoke sticks to your clothes (and hair) pretty badly and when I was extra sensitive (because of e.g a cold) I could not even be around someone who HAD smoked earlier; and on a few occasions some smokers interpreted my unwillingness to go near them as a form of "anti-smoking" insult.

We had a grad student who was a smoker. She always went outside to smoke but worked in an optics lab. One day they started having problems with the lab equipment and realized that a fine layer of contaminants had coated the lenses of some of their optics. The claim was made that it was caused by residue on her clothing from smoking. I don't know if that was true but she certainly took the blame for it.

I guess smoking jackets should have never gone out of style.

 

[Bratticus]

Ahh well, the economics of smoking..
Just how many people are employed in the tobacco industry? (They pay income tax and social security).

Now, if one would accommodate the non-smokers and ban all smoking, there would be no need for the employees of that tobacco industry.

So, they would be on unemployment, and when that runs out, on welfare.

Not only will the government get less tax revenue, they will have to shell out a lot of cash. Mind you, all the tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products will be gone as well. And that will cut into all those social programs people have become accustomed to; no money, no service.

And let us not forget the farmers growing that stuff. No market, no income.

No you may argue that they could get other employment. Looking at the latest jobless figures... where would they work?

But, we all would be so much healthier, live so much longer, pay more and more taxes, and the unlucky may simply starve to death.

 

[rootX]

Ahh well, the economics of smoking..
Just how many people are employed in the tobacco industry? (They pay income tax and social security).

Now, if one would accommodate the non-smokers and ban all smoking, there would be no need for the employees of that tobacco industry.

So, they would be on unemployment, and when that runs out, on welfare.

Not only will the government get less tax revenue, they will have to shell out a lot of cash. Mind you, all the tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products will be gone as well. And that will cut into all those social programs people have become accustomed to; no money, no service.

And let us not forget the farmers growing that stuff. No market, no income.

No you may argue that they could get other employment. Looking at the latest jobless figures... where would they work?

But, we all would be so much healthier, live so much longer, pay more and more taxes, and the unlucky may simply starve to death.

Well, there are many other markets like assassinations/human (children) trafficking/supporting insurgents or governments suppressing its citizens. I am taking no interest in drug economies. But, you simply don't let the markets run because otherwise we would be worse off economically.

 

[Saladsamurai]

Is smoking bad for you or something?

 

[Evo]

I apologize for sounding hostile, but I have really good reason to want to vent in this thread. I have to deal everyday with obnoxious cigarette smoke filling my house and preventing me from even being able to sit outside on my own patio.

I moved into an apartment and the people above me and next to me are all chain smokers. The problem is that they don't smoke inside their homes, they come outside to smoke. The weather has been beautiful lately, but if I open my windows, my house is instantly filled with smoke to the point where I have trouble breathing, I'm coughing and my throat gets sore and my eyes start burning. I cannot go outside and sit on my patio for the same reason. This is not right. The people above me also lean over the railing, flicking their hot ashes off so that they cover my plants, burning holes in the leaves. From the layer of cigarette butts covering my yard below them, they obviously do not own an ashtray. Actually the grounds people were so disgusted by their mess, that they sent a warning for them to stop, so now they throw their butts deeper into the ravine.

So, not only can I not sit outside and enjoy my yard, I can't even open my windows and get fresh air. I have to keep the windows closed and run my air conditioner due to their smoke polluting my home.

Happily, it seems the tides are turning and people are pushing through laws making cigarette smoke a public nuisance. I don't mind my neighbors smoking inside their homes, but they should not be allowed to smoke in our common shared outdoor space.

More California Cities Consider Ordinances Making Smoking a Public Nuisance

The city of Dublin, California, recently charted new legal territory in the fight against tobacco by passing an ordinance that classifies cigarette smoke as a public nuisance, allowing residents to sue if a neighbor’s smoke wafts onto their property. Now other California cities, such as Belmont and Emeryville, are considering passing ordinances of their own classifying smoking as a nuisance, and are using the Dublin ordinance as a reference in forming these ordinances.

The Dublin ordinance protects the rights of those who wish to keep their homes smoke-free and who find that theirneighbor’s cigarette smoke infiltrates their homes and property. Just as nuisance laws do not prevent people from playing loud music at home, this ordinance would not prevent people from smoking in their homes. It would, however, offer a legal remedy for those who are annoyed or harmed by their neighbor’s smoke. To view the ordinance, http://209.172.109.140/weblink7/docview.aspx?id=130668"

Elsewhere in the nation, ordinances and policies classifying cigarette smoke as a public nuisance are gaining in legal acceptance. A Colorado district court judge recently upheld a condominium complex’s bylaws making units smokefree and classifying cigarette smoke as a nuisance. The judge determined that the smoke smell that wafted in-between neighboring condominium units constituted a nuisance, regardless of whether any actual smoke passed between units.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4667551 to learn more about the Colorado decision.

http://www.tclconline.org/documents/LegalUpdate_Nov06.pdf

I think banning soemone from smoking "inside" their own home is a bit much, but seriously, people do not have the right to do anything that can be considered harmful, or a nuisance to others.

Utah has also passed a law making cigarette smoke a public nuisance and addresses the rights of people in their homes to not have second hand smoke in or around their homes.

Section 4. Section 78-38-.5 is enacted to read:
21 78-38-.5. Legislative intent.
22 (1) The Legislature finds:
23 (a) the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that environmental
24 tobacco smoke is a Group A carcinogen, in the same category as other cancer-causing chemicals
25 such as asbestos;
26 (b) the EPA has determined that there is no acceptable level of exposure to Class A
27 carcinogens; and
28 (c) the EPA has determined that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke also causes an
29 increase in respiratory diseases and disorders among exposed persons.
30 (2) The Legislature finds that environmental tobacco smoke generated in a rental or
31 condominium unit may drift into other units, exposing the occupants of those units to tobacco

- 3 -


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 smoke, and that standard construction practices are not effective in preventing this drift of tobacco
2 smoke.
3 (3) The Legislature further finds that persons who desire to not be exposed to drifting
4 environmental tobacco smoke should be able to determine in advance of entering into a rental,
5 lease, or purchase agreement whether the subject unit may be exposed to environmental tobacco
6 smoke.
7 (4) The Legislature further finds that if tobacco smoke regularly drifts into a unit, and the
8 renter, lessee, or purchaser of the unit was not advised in the rental, lease, or purchase agreement
9 that environmental tobacco smoke may drift into the unit, that person should have a cause of action
10 for a nuisance under state law.
11 Section 5. Section 78-38-1 is amended to read:
12 78-38-1. Nuisance defined -- Right of action for -- Judgment.
13 (1) A nuisance is anything which is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses,
14 or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of
15 life or property. A nuisance may be the subject of an action.
16 (2) A nuisance may include the following:
17 (a) drug houses and drug dealing as provided in Section 78-38-9;
18 (b) gambling as provided in Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 11;
19 (c) criminal activity committed in concert with two or more persons as provided in Section
20 76-3-203.1;
21 (d) party houses which frequently create conditions defined in Subsection (1); and
22 (e) prostitution as provided in Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 13.
23 (3) A nuisance under this section includes tobacco smoke that drifts into any unit rented,
24 leased, or owned by the plaintiff and this smoke:
25 (a) drifts in more than once in each of two or more consecutive seven-day periods; and
26 (b) creates any of the conditions under Subsection (1).
27 (4) Subsection (3) does not apply to residential rental units that are available:
28 (a) for temporary rental, such as for vacations; and
29 (b) for only 30 or fewer days at a time.
30 [(3)] (5) An action may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected,
31 or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance.

http://www.le.state.ut.us/~1997/bills/sbillint/SB0049S2.htm