The Conference of the Parties (COP) at the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recently published the protocol from its November session, which focused on reducing exposure to tobacco and smoking products in the 183 member states.
Israel, like the European Union (EU), is a signatory to the FCTC.
The recent protocol stresses the risks of second-hand and third-hand smoke in multi-unit housing (MUH), noting that families lower on the socio-economic scale are unfairly impacted by thelack of legislation and enforcement of smoking bans.
A supplementary document published by the FCTC explained: "In Israel, 74% of the population lives in MUH, with 39% to 45% of the population reporting tobacco smoke incursion (TSI) into their home residences. Those in the lowest income group are most severely affected. In Israel, there is very high public support for protection of neighbours from TSI: 83.7% of Israelis, including 64.9% of those who smoke, support legal protection. Because of the need for legal protection to protect people from TSI, particularly those of low equity, in 2021, an administrative case - High Court of Justice case 1416/21 - was submitted to the Israeli Supreme Court on behalf of the nongovernmental organization Clean Air and six individuals. The case was primarily against the Minister for the Environment, but secondarily against the Minister of Health and the Minister for Internal Security, for not enforcing existing environmental laws that could be used to protect people from TSI. There have been three hearings to date, but a final ruling has not been issued as of 14 April 2025."
Meanwhile, "children of non-smoking families living in MUHs have higher cotinine levels than children who live in similar single-family homes. Children living in rental housing have higher exposure to tobacco smoke when compared to those in privately-owned housing," it added.
"Persistent and accumulated third-hand tobacco smoke affects the most vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly and immunocompromised persons, as well as lower-income and marginalized communities living in older, lower-quality and multi-unit housing."
The document mentions the concern that a ban on smoking in apartment complexes or private vehicles would unfairly and unlawfully infringe on smokers' personal rights, but ultimately rejects that argument.
"Extending smoke-free regulations in housing and vehicles is likely to have only minor potential negative consequences which are largely avoidable," it states. "People who smoke generally form a minority of residents and as smoking decreases this is increasingly the case. The majority who do not smoke have a right to clean air, which is reiterated in the human rights treaties. Ensuring protection from exposure to tobacco smoke is especially important for those who have limited housing options and are currently disproportionately exposed to tobacco smoke."
The benefits to smoking bans are many and varied: The introduction of legislative smoking bans improves cardiovascular health outcomes and reduces mortality, pediatric hospitalizations for respiratory tract infections, stillbirths, low birth weight, and neonatal mortality.
The protocol stressed, "From an ethical perspective, public health benefits of prevented harms outweigh concerns about reduced individual autonomy. Further, restrictions to protect children from exposure to tobacco smoke in private spaces are similar to others that are already deemed acceptable with the aim to protect children, such as seatbelt and car seat laws. Legal analyses in the United States context have not flagged any issues preventing the implementation of smoke-free building policies, but rather the contrary - these are likely to protect owners and operators from liability related to exposure to tobacco smoke. Smoke-free policies do not differ from other health and safety regulations for private spaces. For example, smoke alarms are mandatory in private homes in several countries."
Last year, Israel's Supreme Court issued a conditional order calling on the Environmental Protection Ministry, Public Security Ministry, and Health Ministry to take action on the issue of environmental disturbances caused by a person smoking in his home, when the smoke enters the neighbors' homes. In its order, the court instructed the ministries to enact guidelines on the matter, or enforce the matter of cigarette smoke pollution entering other apartments in a different manner.
The Supreme Court's decision followed an appeal submitted by the Avir Naki organization and six individuals who were harmed by cigarette smoke entering their homes and who are represented by attorney Amos Hausner. One of the individuals is unable to sleep in her home due to the neighbors' smoke, another suffered a heart attack and after undergoing catheterization was told by the doctors that the heart attack seemed to have been caused by his heavy smoking - except that he himself is not a smoker; he suffers from the neighbors' smoke, which comes into his apartment. Another of the individuals is recovering from cancer, and a fourth gasps for air due to the cigarette smoke entering his home.
In 2018, then-MK Yehuda Glick put forward a bill which would have prevented smoking in homes. The bill was a response to the court's rejection of a lawsuit filed by an elderly couple from Holon who suffered from secondhand smoke due to their neighbors' smoking. Though the couple's suit was rejected due to the lack of legislation banning smoking in private homes, an appeal to the district court resulted in a compromise under which the neighbors would smoke only in the far area of their balcony.
Glick's bill did not pass, and later that year the Knesset dissolved.