U.S. to ban smoking in Public Housing

The Obama administration on Wednesday announced new regulations banning smoking in public housing. In New York, this will affect more than 400,000 tenants in 178,000 New York City Housing Authority apartments. U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro said the new rules will go into effect next year, but agencies have 18 months to implement the ban. The use of any lit tobacco product — including cigars, cigarettes and pipes — would be prohibited in all apartments, indoor common areas, offices and outdoor areas within 25 feet of entrances. Electronic cigarettes are not banned under the new rules.

HUD first revealed it was considering a smoke-free rule a year ago as a way to eliminate second-hand smoke and to improve tenant health. But in consulting with housing authorities over the past year, HUD was warned the ban could be impossible to enforce. “This policy is not intended to force anyone to move out of public housing, but instead to offer safe, decent and sanitary housing for all populations,” HUD officials said.

www.nydailynews.com...

I'm torn. On one hand it's wrong to expose people to unwanted smoke that's dangerous for their health. On the other, I can see this being used as nothing more than a means to evict people who are already down on their luck and living in public housing. As someone who lived in the projects in different places growing up trust me when I say that second hand cigarette smoke is the last of your worries. So the little blurb about it being for everyone's health doesn't hold much weight to me.

It seems more like just another regulation that will be used against poor people by the government, when needed. E-Cigs will still be allowed inside though. Wonder if they have a lobby yet?

I think its more of a ploy to get people that are living in these units on Dick and Jane Taxpayers dime to spend what little money they do have on something other than cigarettes.

Thanks Obama.Now please leave!

originally posted by: Syphon
I think its more of a ploy to get people that are living in these units on Dick and Jane Taxpayers dime to spend what little money they do have on something other than cigarettes.

Such as E-Cigarettes?

The problem is the smoke doesn't just stay in the smoker's apartment. If someone wants to be an idiot and smoke cancer sticks, I could careless. However, they don't have the right to stink up their neighbors apartments or pollute their neighbors air. Having lived in an apartment building with smokers, you can absolutely still smell their smoke outside their apartment and in some cases, in your own place.

Also, I'm sure this helps the insurance rates since smokers can burn down their unit.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem is the smoke doesn't just stay in the smoker's apartment. If someone wants to be an idiot and smoke cancer sticks, I could careless. However, they don't have the right to stink up their neighbors apartments or pollute their neighbors air. Having lived in an apartment building with smokers, you can absolutely still smell their smoke outside their apartment and in some cases, in your own place.

Also, I'm sure this helps the insurance rates since smokers can burn down their unit.

That's why I'm torn on it. Given how much E-Cigs are exploding these days it won't be long before a block of apartments goes up in a blaze from that too.

I don't have an issue with this. I think it's good policy. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Obama. For the record, I smoke, but haven't smoked indoors since 2001. I used to smoke about 3/4 of a pack a day, but now only smoke half that because I don't always feel like going outside to smoke. Perhaps the same trend I followed will apply to others?

I lived in a condominium for several years. The thought of someone falling asleep with a lit cig or whatever and burning the place up crossed my mind more than once. I'm an ex-smoker and ex-vaper FWIW.
Banning cigs from public housing isn't a that bad of an idea considering the hazards of second hand smoke health problems and cig fires.

...no idea of the 'real' motives behind the ban, but it has it's health benefits. I could say something about those prescription and OTC "quit smoking" items but I'll refrain and wait for someone more knowledgeable to comment.

E-cigs are still less of a fire/health risk IMO.

They should probably worry about the drugs and booze before anything else. Smokers can still obtain and hold down gainful employment if they're discreet about their habit. Not so much for the chronic alcoholic or run-of-the-mill crackhead.

Because, after all, the point of public housing (generally) is to assist the downtrodden temporarily while they find the means to provide for themselves and become self-sufficient, right?

Right? To provide a leg up until the time when they can afford their own home and do whatever the hell they want in it, right?

Right?

But. Prohibition of anything never works.

Except, perhaps, public housing. Maybe if they prohibited public housing they wouldn't have this stupid problem to begin with, no?

a reply to: underwerks

If ever there was a definition of unenforceable that would be it.
What a silly man.

a reply to: underwerks

I briefly read the article and am not sure how it's going to be enforced but sounds like a possible cash cow. Maybe my interpretation is incorrect but I bet there will be ticket fines for any infraction and I have no doubt that it's all about the money.

Personally, I believe anyone should have the right to ingest any substance that they want. What boggles my mind is that cigarettes are legal yet are a known killer, meanwhile other things such as MJ and other harmless herbs are being regulated, at least they squashed the kratom legislation.

In a perfect world, this would be to protect people from second hand smoke as the article suggests but if they really cared about us, they would ban these things instead of regulating them with stupid bylaws...is that NYC sugar tax real? This seems like the next step in that direction. Don't tax it, if it's really that bad for you ban it...if you care about us as you claim

I find it hard to accept that this decision was made with purely benevolent intentions.
HUD cannot even effectively enforce the existing regulations.
It seems like more erosion of personal liberties and possibly another attempt at bypassing
the fourth amendment.

I don't think many commenters are understanding. Obama isn't banning smoking. He is banning indoor smoking.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: underwerks

If ever there was a definition of unenforceable that would be it.
What a silly man.

That was my first thought too...then a lightbulb went off above my oddly shaped head...

If there were fines in place for violating these laws, just employ a few bylaw enforcers who have a scheduled route whether it be daily, weekly and even monthly, the proceeds from these fines would far outweigh the cost of the enforcers.

Another way to suck the poor out of their money.

Wall Street Joe will be smoking his fat cubans without a care in the world.

originally posted by: NthOther

Because, after all, the point of public housing (generally) is to assist the downtrodden temporarily while they find the means to provide for themselves and become self-sufficient, right?

Right? To provide a leg up until the time when they can afford their own home and do whatever they hell they want in it, right?

Right?

Yes, that's the point, but in reality it is a way of life for generation after generation. Produce baby. Get additional money from government. Repeat.

a reply to: DigitalVigilante420

That's a really good point.

It's hard to believe anything the Obama administration does could be benevolent. After all these years, we know how nasty cig smoke is, how it harms people around it that aren't even smoking, and it's still legal. Money runs this stuff, not compassion, that is something pretty clear to see.

a reply to: servovenford

Most modern condo/apartment buildings, at least in my city, are steel and concrete construction. The risk of fire damage to adjacent units is minimal. Water damage to the lower units is another story though.

a reply to: underwerks

I agree with this if these ghetto rats want to smoke they should buy their own house and not stink up one I pay for. Besides they should be out looking for work not watching judge Judy chain smoking all day. Disgusting people.

This isn't just some hot take I worked in department that dealt with this HUD trash and they are scum.

Actually, it is pretty easy to enforce this. Most gov. sub. housing have maintenance people. They can come in your apartment. They smell smoke, see any signs, Bye Bye.

a reply to: AlphaIron

Oh, and thanks for calling me trash. Real nice.

I get that all people that live in these housing units aren't great.

But I had to, until I got on my feet.

Some of us just really needed a hand up, not a hand out.