I can understand an adoption place having a right to restrict who they adopt pets out to, it's their right.

I don't agree with it personally.

I, hubby & my mom have all smoked with pets in the house, we've had Dusty for 11 1/2 years (she'll be 17 this summer) and the only main thing she's suffering from is severe osteoarthritis (she does have some respiratory problems, but she showed up with them and are very minor). We've had Jack for 6 years and his only problem is constipation. We've had Pooky & Bear for 5 years and they have no problems. Cami we've only had 1 year and the kittens less than 6 months, but neither of them have any health problems.

I do realize that smoking can cause cancer and even allergies/athsma in pets, but I personally think that limiting pets to only homes without higher risks for some things that are long term is a little overboard. What's next, do they test our homes for radon, carbon monoxide, mold, and lead paint? Do they test the air quality if we live too close to a factory? There has to be a limit.

I understand the concern, but as has already been pointed out there are already too many animals unwanted dying in the streets and euthanized in shelters to be picky to a fault about adoptions. No two people are going to agree on the absolute best care for an animal and I think just finding someone that fits the major catagories for proper care (space, time, money, proper vet care, etc) would be sufficient.