Public Housing Smoking Ban

[Belsnickel]

Apparently, HUD announced today their intent to ban smoking in public housing.

Here is the article from the Washington Post on the announcement: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/12/hud-proposes-smoking-ban-in-public-housing-citing-dangers-of-secondhand-smoke/

Quote:The government is seeking to ban smoking in all of the nation’s 1.2 million public housing units, the latest step in a decades-long crackdown on tobacco products that help kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.

In its proposed rule, announced Thursday, the Department of Housing and Urban Development would require more than 3,100 public housing agencies to go smoke-free within several years. The agencies must design policies prohibiting lit tobacco products in all living units, indoor common areas, administrative offices and in all outdoor areas near housing and administrative office buildings, HUD officials said.

“We have a responsibility to protect public housing residents from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, especially the elderly and children who suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases,” HUD Secretary Julián Castro said in a statement announcing the measure. “This proposed rule will help improve the health of more than 760,000 children and help public housing agencies save $153 million every year in healthcare, repairs and preventable fires.”

So, what do our regular forum goers say on this front? Please refrain from the "HUD shouldn't exist!" banter and discuss this as a HUD does exist, public housing is going to continue, and this is a new stipulation on living there. Should this or should this not be a law?

I know that our local public housing authority has already banned smoking on their premises. They even have cameras for enforcement in the outdoor areas. While I know there was a lot of grumbling, it has been a good move and has reduced costs for our housing authority in cleanup as well as reduced insurance rates.

[BmorePat87]

It's a safety issue, both with health and damage, so it makes sense. We've done a really great job in the last few decades with discouraging and stigmatizing smoking

[GodHatesBengals]

Pretty reasonable.

[Vas Deferens]

90% of private residential rentals are smoke free at this point. Unless you own your home, you're SOL when it comes to smoking indoors these days. Not sure they can't just have a designated area for smokers to go light up instead of forcing them to the streets or something. But whatever. Big tobacco won't to win this battle unless they try to use the same ploy they're using in Uruguay and trying to impart in the TIPP. Even then, not a court battle they want to parade in front of the public without the TIPP already on the books.

[StLucieBengal]

Smoking has been run out so this isn't surprising. I wonder if they lose housing benefit if they smoke inside?

As long as the government is paying your way then you are subject to their demands.

Not sure anyone ever said HUD should be abolished. I know I have advocated for it to be ran at the state level. It's important to have.

[StLucieBengal]

This is gonna end up costing a lot. How will they enforce this and if they expect accomodations for those who smoke then what will that cost?

How about if they smoke they lose Medicaid and housing benefit this way we don't have to pay for their poor choices.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Their(our) money, their(our) rules.

Hell, I own my home and I don't even smoke inside.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-12-2015, 09:13 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Their(our) money, their(our) rules.

Hell, I own my home and I don't even smoke inside.

Haha I am not allowed to wear shoes in mine. I have a pair of inside flip flops because I need something on the tile.

[*michaelsean*]

To be honest I'm tired of this nonsense. Second hand smoke has been blown all out of proprtion. Outside second hand smoke? Second hand smoke that travels through walls? This has nothing to do with health and everything to do with people who hate that other people smoke.

[GodHatesBengals]

(11-12-2015, 11:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: To be honest I'm tired of this nonsense.  Second hand smoke has been blown all out of proprtion?  Outside second hand smoke?  Second hand smoke that travels through walls?  This has nothing to do with health and everything to do with people who hate that other people smoke.

Bitter smoker alert.

Newsflash to everyone still crazy enough to inhale burning tobacco: it's bad for you, it's bad for others, and contrary to what your damaged nasal passages tell you, it smells absolutely terrible.

[Belsnickel]

(11-13-2015, 03:58 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: and contrary to what your damaged nasal passages tell you, it smells absolutely terrible.

I've been tobacco free for about two and a half years now and this is so true. When I smell a smoker anymore it is such a revolting smell.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-13-2015, 08:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've been tobacco free for about two and a half years now and this is so true. When I smell a smoker anymore it is such a revolting smell.

I only smoke cigars, and only on the front porch, never in public, never smoked a cigarette, so none of this affects me, I just find this nonsense beyond ridiculous.

[Au165]

(11-13-2015, 10:35 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I only smoke cigars, and only on the front porch, never in public, never smoked a cigarette, so none of this affects me, I just find this nonsense beyond ridiculous.

The negative effects of second hand smoke are very well documented. Even in outdoor settings research has shown it is still dangerous, the effects are just lessened. If someone wants to kill themselves smoking that is there choice, however if it causes any negative effect to me or my family, even the tiniest, then the burden should always be on them.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-13-2015, 10:39 AM)Au165 Wrote: The negative effects of second hand smoke are very well documented. Even in outdoor settings research has shown it is still dangerous, the effects are just lessened. If someone wants to kill themselves smoking that is there choice, however if it causes any negative effect to me or my family, even the tiniest, then the burden should always be on them.

It's not that well documented, and outside is ridiculous. 

[Au165]

(11-13-2015, 10:44 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not that well documented, and outside is ridiculous. 

The first point really isn't even debatable ( http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/ ) , the second one has had plenty of research on it in the last 10 years and it has been scientifically proven that even outside the carcinogenic chemicals are still more readily present, even a decent distance away from an outdoor smoking area.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-12-2015, 09:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Haha I am not allowed to wear shoes in mine.   I have a pair of inside flip flops because I need something on the tile.

Does she let you wear the pants?

[Se ky bengal]

(11-13-2015, 11:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Does she let you wear the pants?

[*michaelsean*]

https://reason.com/blog/2013/12/16/is-it-safe-yet-to-have-an-honest-convers

http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057

The correlation between these diseases and second hand smoke in these studies is recall. Everyone over 40 can say they have been exposed to secondhand smoke in restaurants airplanes offices etc.

[*PhilHos*]

Makes sense to me. If you can afford cigarettes, then maybe you can afford your own place to live.

Have you SEEN the cost of cigarettes?

[Benton]

Heard about this on NPR yesterday and it sounds good to me. I own rental property. I don't allow smokers or pets. From an owner's stand point, it's just business sense. I don't want to have to pay extra for the necessary extra cleaning. Or the damage (painting over yellowed walls, burn holes in carpet, etc.).