Strangely enough, you’re wrong in your first clause but right in your second.
When one owns property, one has the right to do anything legal on that property, subject to nuisance and annoyance laws and applicable zoning regulations. (If I played the tuba, my neighbor cannot object to my practicing at 10 AM or 7 PM, but does have a legal objection to my practicing at 3 AM. I cannot build a 24-foot wall along the property line that cuts him off from all sunlight. If I’m in a residential neighborhood, I cannot build a convenience store on the front of my house, etc.)
When one rents or leases property, the terms under which one rents or leases are in the lease or rental agreement, and may not be changed unilaterally without mutual consent. And subject to those rules, the prohibition on illegal acts (whether illegal everywhere or as applied to that property, as in zoning), and certain common-law rights of landlords (whether codified or not) such as the right of entry under certain circumstances or in emergency, I have the right to use that property as I choose. If he does not want me to have pets, or wishes to limit the number of nailholes in the wall, or needs to restrict the number of house guests at any one time due to septic system problems (all of which I’ve encountered), these things must be spelled out in writing, and agreed to, before he gives over possession.
So yes, a landlord can require that a premises be non-smoking. By including that in a lease. But if he fails to do so, the right to smoke, or to have smoking guests, becomes a part of the property rights of the tenant, and may not be imposed ex post facto by the landlord, the tenants association, or any other entity whatsoever.
I have to concur with a lot of the posters up above, I’d love a non-smoking apartment building. The building I rent was built in 1898 and the ventilation system is the windows. The previous tenant was a smoker and a get the oh-so-pretty yellow ooze from the walls whenever I shower too long. I also replaced the bathroom floor because I didn’t like to look at all of the cigarrette burn marks in the floor.
My building does ban smoking from the common areas and balconies, has signs but up to that affect on every floor right above the 3 foot tall ashtrays. I guess if you’re going to discourage smoking you put ashtrays around.
I wonder if landlords could just insist upon a deposit from smokers or extra rent as they do for pets. Since smokers aren’t a special class I can’t see this being too problematic.
Sure, it’s their property, it just needs to be clearly stated in the lease. Just like Polycarp pointed out. (In fact, Poly’s points pretty well end the “debate” part of the OP.) The no smoking everywhere vs no smoking in the building issue should also be made clear.
There are tons of smoke free apartments and apartment complexes here. It’s not a huge issue for me, but thinking about it, I don’t think I’ve ever lived in a smoking apartment, and I’ve lived in lots of apartments. If any of my roommates smoked, they smoked outside. I’m also reasonably certain this isn’t just a Utah trend. The issue of where you can and can’t smoke outside has come up on occasion, and each time it would have helped if the lease had clearly dealt with this issue.
The no smoking clause is very common in apartment ads. But when you see " NO Smoking/Drinking/Pets", you know you sure as hell don’t want to live there. That’s one uptight landlord.