So HUD is angling to ban smoking in public housing? What the Fuck??

[Stinky The Clown]

That is a TERRIBLE idea.

I am a reformed smoker and like many reformed smokers am very much anti smoking. I hate the smell. I hate the effect. I wish tobacco were illegal.

But its not. And to cause people in public housing to become criminals if they smoke IN THEIR RESIDENCE is nanny state run amok.

This is one of the stupidest things I have heard in a long time.

And we wonder why lots of people hate liberals.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. As a former smoker...

Good....they mostly have children..they can go outside...

[Fumesucker]

114. No, smoking is already banned in most common spaces

So they would have to leave the entire property every time they smoked a cigarette.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/nyregion/public-housing-nationwide-may-be-subject-to-smoking-ban.html

Smoking, which is already prohibited in the lobbies and hallways of authority buildings, has already caused friction between tenants and police officers, who have a large presence in many housing projects and are expected to watch out not only for crime but also for violations of authority rules.

[Eleanors38]

193. Problem: In 2 CA cities you can't smoke on public property, even outside.

This is rectilinear, orthodox doctrinaire prohibitionism. With all the corruption, expense and abuse thereunto appertaining.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. This not the first time the non Smoking

thing with public housing. This has been around since the sixties.

[randys1]

3. This isnt why they hate liberals. They hate liberals because liberals dont hate Black people

to the extent that they do.

That is pretty much the whole reason.

Or Gay people, or Women, etc.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. or Hillary Clinton!!!

[yeoman6987]

128. Isn't Castro in charge of HUD?

Perhaps he needs to be asked some questions.

[Tanuki]

198. I heard him being interviewed about it yesterday.

He said the majority of public housing residents are children and the elderly, both groups that are particularly likely to be harmed by the effects of second-hand smoke. He also said that such bans are already in place in many locations.

[yeoman6987]

209. I don't know how people survived the 50-60 generations

[KittyWampus]

232. a lot didn't and died from lung cancer and emphema

[pnwmom]

203. You mean like: "How come you're following the recommendations of the CDC

and the American Cancer Society?"

Both of which warn about the dangers of second hand smoke in multiunit housing, especially the danger to children.

[KamaAina]

4. I was just on a call about that this afternoon

There's a half-hour of my life I'll never get back.

[madinmaryland]

40. Heh!

With El Supremo, joeybee12, and trumad. Yet you didn't send me a meeting invite to it!!

[KamaAina]

90. Julian Castro and I have you on Ignore

[KamaAina]

181. Someone brought up on the call that many people with mental illness smoke to self-medicate.

HUD is "looking into that".

[cwydro]

5. I agree, this is ridiculous.

Just another possible infraction they can charge people with to hold against them.

[pnwmom]

17. Yeah it's so ridiculous that poor children whose parents are non-smokers

should be able to breathe clean air in their HUD apartments. Not smoke-filled air traveling through the air ducts from the apartments of smokers.

[former9thward]

62. HVAC systems are not set up that way.

Darn facts!

[pnwmom]

78. The research shows that they are. Darn facts!

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-elusive-smoke-free-home/

Many parents have a no-smoking rule when it comes to the home. But if you live in an apartment and the neighbor upstairs lights up, is your child exposed to cigarette smoke?

Yes, says a new study that analyzed a marker of tobacco exposure in children’s blood samples. The study tested for cotinine, a tobacco metabolite used to assess exposure to secondhand smoke, and found that children living in apartments had higher levels of the chemical in their systems than those who lived in detached houses, even though their own units were smoke-free zones.

Children living in town houses with shared walls had the same problem, the study found, though to a lesser degree. Average blood levels of cotinine for these children were lower than for children living in apartments but higher than for those living in detached houses.

The study is the first, the authors say, to provide evidence not only that cigarette smoke flows from one unit to another through vents and air ducts, but that children living in multiunit housing are exposed to smoke involuntarily, on a regular basis, even when their parents are trying to protect them. It didn’t matter how wealthy the families were — if they lived in an apartment, their children were exposed to more tobacco.

SNIP

[former9thward]

123. I guess you didn't read your link.

Typical.

There are limitations to these data.
First, we only were able to examine the
association between apartment living
and tobacco-smoke exposure; there
are other unmeasured potential confounders.
Population density and current
smoke-free housing legislation
are 2 factors that likely play a role;
these will need to be examined in future
research. In addition, the NHANES
data set has no information about
home smoking bans or outside smoking
behavior, so we cannot know how
many of these children have parents
who smoke outside or if they are exposed
at daycare centers or relatives’
homes. We hope that future research
will be able to separate out the individual
contributions of apartment smoke
drift, outside-smoker “off-gassing”
and thirdhand smoke, occasional inside
smoking by visitors, or exposures
outside of the home.

Another BS "study"

And who funded it?

Again, Apartment HVAC systems are not set up this way.

[pnwmom]

124. It's better research than the nothing you posted. Please demonstrate

how you know that "apartment HVAC systems are not set up this way."

http://www.heatsourceak.com/blog/bid/95499/Cigarette-Smoke-and-Your-HVAC-System

It’s also something you should be aware of if you have neighbors that smoke. Sometimes the HVAC system is linked between apartments, which means that that smoke can come into your home and cause you to “smoke” even when you don’t!

[former9thward]

125. Oh so you want me to post drawings of HVAC systems in buildings

Get real. Which you won't.

[pnwmom]

126. No. Where's the research showing that seepage isn't a problem ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44322/

The factors in the mass balance model vary across different kinds of buildings. Buildings can be ventilated using natural or mechanical methods. Air can be supplied naturally through windows, louvers, and leakages through building envelopes; air is supplied mechanically through a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) system that usually includes fans, duct work, and a system for delivering air in a controlled manner throughout a building (Figure 3.1). In most homes, ventilation occurs by a naturally occurring exchange of indoor with outdoor air. Commercial and public buildings generally have HVAC systems that move air through buildings to accomplish the exchange of indoor with outdoor air. Important considerations are variations in the range of surfaces and their characteristics across different kinds of buildings and microenvironments. For example, most HVAC systems incorporate a component for air cleaning that typically removes large particles but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke. The central air cleaning systems in homes and in many commercial buildings generally are not designed to remove smaller particles or gases (Spengler 1999).




And here's a legal analysis about the issue.

http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-syn-condos-2009.pdf

[Eleanors38]

195. Hell, "seepage" is a problem after eating Mexican food. Flammable, too.

[pnwmom]

196. The CDC and the American Cancer Society don't say people shouldn't be eating

Mexican food because of the risk to others, especially children.

But they both say people shouldn't be smoking in multiunit buildings because of the risk to children and other non-smokers.

[MADem]

177. And that's why you can never, EVER smell the cooking of your neighbors from your own apartment.

Please.

At least TRY to acknowledge reality.

Speaking of "darn facts" and all....

[former9thward]

212. I can smell cooking from my neighbors and I don't live in an apartment.

The smells do not come through the vents as the poster alleged.

[MADem]

213. You wouldn't want to live next to a meth lab for that reason, either.

We share the same damn air. It doesn't matter if the cigarette smoke wafts up through the floorboards, or under the crack in the door. That shit is Bad For Little Kids.

Smoke 'em outside. Go stink up the car if you're chilly. But keep that crap away from little kids.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

63. Just remember - every law is backed up by a gun.

Are you prepared to have someone killed for this (much like Eric Garner in New York was killed for selling single cigarettes).

Keep in mind there are abusive police out there that would love to bash some heads in for any rational you are willing to give them.

[pnwmom]

204. Second hand smoke also kills people. n/t

[TampaAnimusVortex]

224. Says nothing related to my comment.

So are you ready to create more Eric Garners on this issue?

[hifiguy]

6. Absurd.

It's a legal activity.

[pnwmom]

19. Do you disagree with all non-smoking laws? Or do you just think

poor children shouldn't be protected from other people's cigarette smoke in their own apartments?

[hifiguy]

30. Public places are one thing.

You are a guest there.

The place you PAY to RESIDE in should remain open to all legal activities. Period.

[pnwmom]

37. You shouldn't be able to send your smoke into the apartment next door.

Maybe smokers should wear special smoking hoods.

[hifiguy]

38. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life.

But I am assuredly not a fan of an authoritarian nanny state.

[pnwmom]

137. Are you against no-smoking laws in the workplace, too?

Or is it just people in their homes that shouldn't be able to breathe clean air?

[LittleBlue]

133. Don't you risk a dual standard with a rule like this?

People with the financial means to own a home can smoke inside, but those without money are prohibited.

I get both sides of this debate. It just seems like we'd be unintentionally creating another rule that solely affects the economically disadvantaged.

[pnwmom]

136. People with the means can rent apartments or houses where they can breathe clean air.

Should poor children be forced to live in buildings with polluted air, for the convenience of some adult smokers?

Is it fair to needlessly subject them to a risk middle and upper income children aren't exposed to? It's not like the adults can't go outside to smoke.

[snooper2]

168. If you had it your way you would ban smoking except in the bottom of the Grand Canyon LOL

[pnwmom]

183. If you had your way you'd allow smoking in the maternity wing of a hospital. Especially

if it were a public hospital full of patients who had no other choice.

[snooper2]

186. negative, I go for the common sense approach-

My castle I do what I want in it-

20 feet from the entrance of a business-


Easy peasy- case closed- no more laws needed-


NEXT!

[pnwmom]

187. I go for the scientific approach. Both the Center for Disease Control

and the American Cancer Society say that no one should be smoking in multi-unit housing because of the risk to others -- especially to children, who are the most harmed.

[snooper2]

188. So when I smoked pot in my apartment for YEARS before buying a house

Would you have been the neighbor complaining to mgmt I SMELL WEED!

LOL

[pnwmom]

190. If my apartment were full of smoke, yes, I'd complain. I have asthma

and the particulate in smoke is a trigger.

[snooper2]

191. and vapor right?

[pnwmom]

194. I don't know. As I understand it, different vapors differ in their composition. nt

[get the red out]

156. I agree

If smoking needs to be banned for one social class, it needs to be banned for all. Just make cigarettes illegal and be done with it. Smoking is quickly turning into a class issue.

Yes, I know making smoking illegal would open a viscous can of worms, I actually hate most drug laws. But we need to be aware when removing people's rights literally based on class.

[kcr]

225. Economically disadvantaged non-smokers are in the worst position

They can't afford to go buy or rent a detached home of their own, so have no choice but to inhale smoke if these rules aren't in place. They have no escape. Smokers can go outside.

[Travis_0004]

47. I think the guy in the next apartment has a right to a smoke free residence

Also, I own a house that I rent out. I have a no smoking clause. I had a heavy smoker before, I have had to replace the carpeting, primer and paint every wall and ceiling, clean out the ducts, etc.

I quickly racket up a 2,000 cleaning bill, and had to take them to court to collect.

I think everybody has a right not to deal with smoke, and there is no way to contain it in an attached apartment.

[NCTraveler]

50. The list of legal activities...

The list of legal activities all renters and even many home owners can't do on their own property is very very long.

[onenote]

83. As a landlord I'm perfectly in my rights making no-smoking a condition of the lease

[TipTok]

166. I'm a home owner who rents out our home...

... And no smoking is written into the contract.

If they don't own the home they have to abide...

[madville]

80. So is firearm ownership in many areas

where public housing has forbidden their tenants from possessing forearms. If they can do that with a right the SCOTUS has determined is generally protected by the Constitution I would imagine they have the authority over smoking in their properties as well.

Do many public housing properties also forbid pets?

[Eleanors38]

197. Better check Doe v. Wilmington Housing Authority....

No "ifs." The government can't deny RKBA in public housing.

[loyalsister]

211. Not true

The NRA has been on the case and has came down on their side vs San Fransisco Housing Authority and elsewhere.


They can't forbid animals because many people with disabilities rely on service animals.

[geek tragedy]

7. poor people suffer from asthma at extremely elevated levels compared

to those who are more fortunate.

Having human smokestacks nearby doesn't help that.

[upaloopa]

8. I work with several HUD grants that provide housing

to homeless and the poor. HUD has a rule that is called the "housing first model."
It means that you can't deny housing to qualified people because of drug use or alcoholism or just about any other reason a landlord would use to deny housing. You must house them first then treat the problems. My guess is they would not deny housing to a smoker but would expect them to get into a stop smoking program.

[maxsolomon]

39. or walk outside to smoke

its really not that hard.

[pnwmom]

138. They wouldn't need to deny housing to a smoker. But they could legally ban smoking indoors.n/t

[pnwmom]

9. Children, especially, are at risk. If people are sharing common air ducts,

it isn't fair to make non-smokers breathe in the dirty air.

And there is also a higher risk of fires.

Lots of people smoke outside these days, even when they own their own houses.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-elusive-smoke-free-home/

Many parents have a no-smoking rule when it comes to the home. But if you live in an apartment and the neighbor upstairs lights up, is your child exposed to cigarette smoke?

Yes, says a new study that analyzed a marker of tobacco exposure in children’s blood samples. The study tested for cotinine, a tobacco metabolite used to assess exposure to secondhand smoke, and found that children living in apartments had higher levels of the chemical in their systems than those who lived in detached houses, even though their own units were smoke-free zones.

Children living in town houses with shared walls had the same problem, the study found, though to a lesser degree. Average blood levels of cotinine for these children were lower than for children living in apartments but higher than for those living in detached houses.

The study is the first, the authors say, to provide evidence not only that cigarette smoke flows from one unit to another through vents and air ducts, but that children living in multiunit housing are exposed to smoke involuntarily, on a regular basis, even when their parents are trying to protect them. It didn’t matter how wealthy the families were — if they lived in an apartment, their children were exposed to more tobacco.

SNIP

[HuckleB]

61. +1

[raccoon]

135. I second that. As one who's lived in multi-unit housing and

had to deal with smoking neighbors. The smoke doesn't just stay
in the apartment of the smokers.

[HuckleB]

179. Yeah, friends who lived "communally" never allowed indoor smoking.

And most of them smoked. Why should it only be available to those who can afford to avoid it?

[panader0]

10. It's unenforceable.

[getagrip_already]

13. unfortunately, it is...

I work for a company that tests for nicotine in the blood among other things.

Not saying hud will do this, but really, it just opens the door to the whacko's to test for all kinds of things.

I think they should back off. Too intrusive.

Public areas; fine. Your smoke finding its way into other units; fine. Poor lifestyle choices? Not so much.

Castro may end up the VP nominee. He should be keeping his head down and making sure his vast organization is clean and running smoothly. All this does is write kochmercials.

[pnwmom]

25. The smoke DOES find its way into other units. That's the problem. nt

[maxsolomon]

42. that's not the point

the point is to have a policy that encourages healthy behavior and preservation of the housing stock for the next tenants.

I'm really shocked that knickers are in a twist over this. do you all live in Georgia where you can still smoke indoors?

[X_Digger]

107. Not allowing processed meats or trans fats would 'encourage healthy behavior', too. Sound good?

How about we set up bag checks for everyone bringing in food. Hot Dogs? Don'tcha know those things cause cancer! Cigarettes? Verbotten!

When the landlord is the state, there are obligations that other landlords wouldn't face. Namely, a whole slew of rights.

[RichVRichV]

121. You're must have missed out on the trans fats.

The FDA takes step to remove artificial trans fats in processed foods

[maxsolomon]

180. Wellness initiatives are very big in Public Housing.

As well as Asthma reduction programs - to the point of building with low VOC materials, landscaping with low-allergen plants, providing walk-off mats, HEPA-filter vacuums, and no-carpet homes. Look: https://www.seattlehousing.org/redevelopment/high-point/breathe-easy/

You want to allow smoking in that home? Or just SOME units, down the street from that family?

HUD Stormtroopers are not going to raid a pensioner's 1 bedroom flat and throw him in the street for smoking. Seriously, most residents are on board with this.

[pnwmom]

205. When you eat processed food you're not putting people in the next apartment at risk.

Only yourself. That is not true of cigarette smoke, which can travel among the units of apartment buildings.

[loyalsister]

208. Actually it is enforceable

when it is part of a lease agreement. In the case of the units I am personally fmiliar with, smoking inside is grounds for eviction.

[kelliekat44]

11. I am ok with this. Smoking drunks burn down home. The two family members i have who live in

public housing are banned from smoking in the home by their spouses. Good call.

[The Straight Story]

12. It's all about controlling the choices of others

And folks have seen this coming from the time people worked to ban it in bars "Oh, no, we don't care what you do in your home! We just care about what you do in a bar. Trust us."

If you don't fight the little things they become bigger.

Same with abortion. Your body, your choice, but some people want it outlawed and will gnaw away at it bit by bit.

[pnwmom]

15. It's all about allowing non-smokers, many of whom are children, to breathe clean air.

Children in public housing have high rates of asthma and one of the problems is the air they're breathing.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-elusive-smoke-free-home/

Many parents have a no-smoking rule when it comes to the home. But if you live in an apartment and the neighbor upstairs lights up, is your child exposed to cigarette smoke?

Yes, says a new study that analyzed a marker of tobacco exposure in children’s blood samples. The study tested for cotinine, a tobacco metabolite used to assess exposure to secondhand smoke, and found that children living in apartments had higher levels of the chemical in their systems than those who lived in detached houses, even though their own units were smoke-free zones.

Children living in town houses with shared walls had the same problem, the study found, though to a lesser degree. Average blood levels of cotinine for these children were lower than for children living in apartments but higher than for those living in detached houses.

The study is the first, the authors say, to provide evidence not only that cigarette smoke flows from one unit to another through vents and air ducts, but that children living in multiunit housing are exposed to smoke involuntarily, on a regular basis, even when their parents are trying to protect them. It didn’t matter how wealthy the families were — if they lived in an apartment, their children were exposed to more tobacco.

[mentalsolstice]

73. My body, my choice

And when your dirty habit infringes on my choice to healthfully eat in public places, to healthfully lodge in public places, etc., then my body, my choice is superior to your rights to pollute my breathing space.

[The Straight Story]

76. Like, uh, I dunno

Your choice to drive a car, take a bus, use a computer that uses electricity generated from coal, perfume, cooking something that bothers me, etc and so on?

People choose an easy target they don't like, it's like 'sin' and fundies and the old testament. Gays are an easy target but when it comes to shrimp that they like they suddenly don't care what their bible says.

If you know a bar allows smoking you can choose to not go there and go to one instead that doesn't - but you don't want people to have a choice, you want the world to revolve around you.

That isn't how it works.

[pnwmom]

139. An HUD apartment isn't like a bar that you can choose to go to.

People with means to get a private apartment or house can choose to live in one with clean air. People who are dependent on HUD housing should also be able to breathe clean air.

Anyone who smokes can do so outside. The right of children and other non-smokers to breathe clean air trumps the right of smokers to smoke indoors.

[beevul]

82. Right you are.

Change the particulars from smoking to vaping, and many if not most of those in the "don't let them smoke" camp would be right there in the 'don't let them vape' camp.

Seen that MANY times in discussions over the years, in GD.

[The Straight Story]

85. Yep. People don't want others doing a 'sin' they don't approve of. It's like a religion to them

Which they prop up with "It's for the children!" as they putt around in their polluting cars buying things not locally grown (which cause more pollution), etc and so on.

It's why I don't think I will defend people anymore when they say things like "Vote for a pro-choice candidate!" when those same people are against choice - and this issue here affects poor people the most.

It's all about consistency, and both the far right and far left suck at it.

[beevul]

87. Well said Sir.

And spot on, every word.

[pnwmom]

140. Indoor air pollution and asthma affect poor people the most.

And they deserve the same clean air that people who can afford private apartments and houses have access to.

[Eleanors38]

199. Are you opposed to vaping, then?

[pnwmom]

200. I don't know. It would depend on what the vapor contained and whether it

could be transmitted into other apartments.

[NutmegYankee]

14. Classic social libertarian vs social authoritarian debate topic.

I'm in the social libertarian camp. I think government should stay out of nanny state issues and focus on regulating the economy.

It concerns me that people support being told what to do in their own home.

[pnwmom]

16. "Their" indoor air is being shared by non-smokers, including children. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

18. So you believe that it can be banned in any home with children?

Even a private free standing dwelling?

[maxsolomon]

21. If you OWN the home, smoke yourself sick

If it's a rental unit, the landlord can set the terms of the lease, no?

[pnwmom]

22. No. Only in multi-unit buildings where the air pollution can affect other units.

But in the families I know where there is a smoker, the smoker smokes outside. When my husband's smoking relative visits, he always smokes outside. We never had to ask him to. It's common courtesy these days.

[NutmegYankee]

60. You based your reply on "For the Children™"

I was curious if you would place this restriction on a parent who did smoke inside with his family.

For the record, I don't smoke though my parents did while I was growing up.

[pnwmom]

79. I don't think anyone, parent or not, should be smoking inside a multi-unit building. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. This isn't "their own home". It's owned by all of us and rented to poor people cheaply...

... because homelessness is not in the public interest.

And in fact the wellbeing of the neighbors and subsequent tenants deserve at least equal consideration.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2015/10/smoking_caused_fatal_apartment.html
http://www.wzzm13.com/story/news/local/grandville/2015/11/07/careless-smoking-reportedly-causes-grandville-apartment-fire/75368048/
http://fox13now.com/2015/11/11/hurricane-woman-killed-in-fire-believed-to-have-been-on-oxygen-smoking-in-bed/

The neighbors of all those tenants are now all homeless because of deference to the rights of the smokers.

This spring, I helped move a friends family from an lown income apartment which burned through negligence. Smokers rights are in conflict with the rights of others. I side with the latter.

[Gormy Cuss]

54. It's their own homes, just like all other renters.

They don't own it but it is their home, their residence, and their tenancy. That comes with rights and privileges.

While a ridiculously bad habit, smoking is legal in private spaces. If HUD wants to provide healthy living spaces, they should first correct the structural defects that allow air to circulate between units. Also helpful would be a ban on public space smoking, free on-site smoking cessation programs and perhaps some positive incentives for households with no smokers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Owning a dog is also legal.

But landlords exercise their own rights to authorize their presence in their units.

Dogs have at least one advantage over smoking; they don't burn down the neighboring units.

[Gormy Cuss]

59. Tenants have rights too but that's beside the point.

HUD subsidized units serve people who for the most part have no affordable housing alternative. Banning smoking is excessively punitive in this case unless HUD works to eradicate smoking over a period of years and informs all new tenants that not smoking is a condition of tenancy.

Most smokers don't burn down their buildings and the risk of fire is low on the list of reasons for this proposed change in rules.

[loyalsister]

210. Smoking is always choice

Craving it may not be, but where and if to actually light up is.
No one is told they cannot smoke at all. They just have to take it into space that does not pollute the air, space, and property of others.

[Gormy Cuss]

249. Addiction: it's what's for dinner. n/t

[loyalsister]

251. I've been there

And even if I was childish enough to claim on that basis that I had "no choice," it was impossible to deny that I had a choice when it came to where I smoked.

[Gormy Cuss]

254. Again, it's addiction not choice

and if you've "been there" you probably know people who are still there, not able to quit nicotine as easily as you, not living a life where there are plenty of choices about where to smoke.

I loathe tobacco smoke and hate the level of nicotine use that persists in the face of all the negative health information but a flat out ban without years of remedial action will increase homelessness. Some choice.

[DawgHouse]

148. Think again!

http://time.com/4110637/dog-pizza-fire/

[onenote]

86. Landlords can opt to make the properties they lease smoke-free

and they can even screen for and refuse to rent to smokers.

Smoking isn't a protected class. It's perfectly lawful to "discriminate" against smokers.

[Gormy Cuss]

117. Yes, but for very low income tenants it's not a simple choice of moving elsewhere.

Subsidized housing is often housing of last resort so if the tenants can't quit smoking they become homeless.

[TipTok]

172. You can smoke (and spend money on smoking)..

... Or you can have housing.

Seems like an easy choice...

[pnwmom]

206. The same thing is true of low income tenants with asthma or with children.

They can't simply move out if they have a problem with a smokey apartment.

But the smokers CAN move outside, just as they do during work.

[Gormy Cuss]

248. I just love authoritarians on DU.

[pnwmom]

255. I just love air-polluters on DU. n/t

[kcr]

226. Or they can step outside to smoke n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

252. Sure, but HUD isn't in the business of increasing homelessness

and that's what will happen when people who don't have the means to enroll in cessation programs or who are unsuccesful in same will face when the housing of last resort is removed from them.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

53. So what do libertarians do when they have a problem with smoke wafting in to their unit?

Do they have a duel in the street?

[NutmegYankee]

64. I don't know, I'm not a libertarian.

I'm a liberal who falls under the left-libertarian portion of the "compass". I was commenting on the social (vertical) axis in politics.

[maxsolomon]

20. This is standard for market-rate rental housing.

Tobacco smoke permeates the carpet and PAINT in the units.

Public housing IS rental housing, just income-qualified. Just because you can't collect or seize damage deposits from low-income tenants doesn't mean it's "nanny state run amok". It means you're treating them just like any other renter.

Smoking has been banned in Seattle Housing Authority units since 2012. The sky hasn't fallen.

If this makes public housing tenants elsewhere take it outside, or quit, so much the better for their children. Frankly, it's overdue.

[pnwmom]

23. And poor children need just as clean air to breathe as middle and upper income children. n/t

[maxsolomon]

26. you and i agree on everything, pnwmom!

it's not just about the kids; HUD/the feds/the taxpayers are subsidizing the rents, and the units are owned by housing authorities, not the renters. they have maintenance costs, and smoke mitigation is a cost they should be able to eliminate, or reduce.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Agree. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

24. "Shared air intruding in other apartments"

As if that's not the case in private apartment buildings.

Stop it. There is ZERO reason to support this shit. Stop trying to make the case based on bullshit assumptions of fact.

[pnwmom]

29. And most private apartment buildings have these rules already.

Research has shown that smoke travels through air ducts and seeps through walls into other apartments. This isn't an assumption. It's a fact.

[beevul]

130. "Research has shown that smoke travels through air ducts and seeps through walls..."

So does perfume, exhaled breath, and fumes from cooking.


The worst of them, however, seems to be smug self righteousness.

[MADem]

159. Many private apartments have gone "non-smoking" too.

http://www.mnsmokefreehousing.org/documents/Smoke_free_addendum.pdf

It's coming. Probably in ten years it will be the paradigm.

[maxsolomon]

28. Here's a real-world implementation story:

http://www.seattlehousing.org/news/releases/2012/non-smoking-implementation-complete/index.html

"surveys of residents that showed a majority of both smokers and non-smokers prefer freedom from second-hand smoke within their apartments"

[pnwmom]

32. Thanks! Seattle has always been at the forefront of smoking regulation.

When we moved here, decades ago, it was such a relief for this asthmatic person to not have to encounter smoke wherever I went. Before then, in another state, I had to work in a room with 12 people, half of whom were chain smokers. Fortunately, I think the law has been changed so that doesn't happen anywhere now. But Seattle helped lead the way.

[BlueJazz]

31. It would be better if they DID smoke outside but I'd never approve a law forbiding it.

It's their place.

[pnwmom]

34. What about the children who live in the unit next door and have to breathe that dirty air?

Poor kids have higher rate of asthma and this is one of the reasons. Don't they need clean air as much as middle and upper income children?

[BlueJazz]

67. Yes they do. Actually they deserve a lot more. I'm torn between both sides but I have to ..

...rule on the side of no more rules for smokers. (No, I don't smoke)
Not happy with my decision but I feel it's a no win scenario.

I'm afraid the next step would be "All parents receiving food stamps must only buy approved food that will never harm children"

[maxsolomon]

35. what makes them different than market rate renters?

are they special because they're low-income?

I'd like to understand your logic.

[BlueJazz]

70. I don't approve of the No smoking rule for them either.

[Travis_0004]

48. Its not their place

They are renting it, and sharing walls with others. Others who have a right to breathe smoke free air.

I would guess well over 90% of landlords ban smoking in rentals. As the owner, that is their right. If the government owns the properties, they also have the right to ban smoking.

[BlueJazz]

71. Keep in mind, I'm just saying how I would rule. What others do is their own right.

[TipTok]

174. It isn't their place...

... They are temporary occupants.

Maybe they could just defecate in the corner and smear it on the walls then?

It's their place right?

Smoking inside causes damage and frankly it isn't theirs to damage.


If I smoke a big ol cigar in almost any hotel or in a rental car I can expect to pay damages.

Same for the rental property...

[tularetom]

33. Tobacco is slowly dying as an addiction

If they leave it alone it will be a thing of the past in the next generation.

Besides how the fuck are they gonna enforce it? Smoking police?

I agree, dumb idea.

BTW reformed smoker here as well.

[Jesus Malverde]

149. They will write citations...

Then if not paid, they will arrest you. It's money for the courts, the lawyers, the public and private jails and another tool for law enforcement to harass poor people. The criminalization of normal behaviors is a cancer on our society, encouraged by the legal/prison industrial complex.

[thucythucy]

171. "...a cancer on our society..."

As someone who has recently lost several loved ones to smoking induced cancer, I find the use of the phrase "a cancer on our society" in a post defending smokers' rights to be highly ironic.

And I doubt "the legal/prison industrial complex" had a whole lot to do with promulgating this particular regulation.

I could say, on the other hand, that the whole libertarian "smokers' rights" movement is just another "tool of the medical industry/big pharma complex" which makes an enormous profit from the treatment of lung, esophageal, throat, oral, and other cancers, not to mention asthma, birth defects, emphysema, chronic pulmonary obstructive disorder, etc. etc. And then of course there's Big Tobacco--remember them? And that these profits are derived disproportionately off the backs of people who are low income, and can least afford not only these illnesses, but the income drain that is tobacco addiction.

But then again I think linking this particular development to some over-arching conspiracy, big government or otherwise, is pure hyperbole.

BTW, I speak also as a former resident of public housing, who would have had no problem whatsoever with a no-smoking rule in my building.

[Hatchling]

164. If they catch you they evict you.

I live in Hud housing that became non-smoking after I moved in. Two tenants were particularly careless and got caught smoking inside and got evicted. It's in our leases as a reason for eviction.

[smirkymonkey]

41. I am a little torn by this. I don't like the paternalism in telling people what they can or cannot

do in their apartments, however I live in an expensive doorman building and they passed a resolution over a year ago to ban smoking in the building or anywhere on the premises. If you get caught, you are fined $100. After 3 strikes, you get evicted. It's a private building and we pay a lot of money to live here.

[doc03]

43. If you are renting an appartment I think the owner has the right to

put restrictions on the renters. If you can't live with the restrictions move.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. I own two rentals. Both are non smoking. But my tenants have a choice of where to live

People in public housing, generally speaking, have little in the way of choice.

[doc03]

49. Public housing is built with taxpayers money. I don't want people smoking in an

apartment I paid for.

[Gormy Cuss]

74. I don't want you driving on the roads I paid for, but it doesn't work that way.

HUD is empowered to make the decisions on subsidized housing rules, not you.

[doc03]

162. Well wasn't this thread about HUD discouraging smoking in

their apartments? I agree with HUD. When I am driving on a public road as long as I obey traffic laws I am not harming anyone. If I am smoking in an apartment it causes damage to the property and forces everyone else in the building to be exposed to the smoke. An apartment owner can put restrictions on smoking if he choses to. I had rental car a couple weeks ago posted on the windows was a warning that it was a no smoking vehicle and you could be charged a $250 cleaning fee for smoking. I can't smoke at the mall. In Ohio you can't smoke in the workplace
except in a designated smoking area. In Ohio we can't smoke in a restaurant. So if HUD wants to make that a rule I have no problem with it. I was a smoker myself and had the sense to quit, it is not that hard.

[Gormy Cuss]

250. 1)you had the choice to rent a different car, shop at other stores, etc.

It's pretty amazing to me how many DUers are treating this as a simple choice and ignoring the realities of nicotine addiction and extreme poverty.

[doc03]

256. If they would quit smoking maybe they would have

the money to move out of a HUD apartment. Don't claim poverty and spend $200 or $300 a month on cigarettes.

[X_Digger]

108. Not your choice.

You get to pay for people on medicare who eat too much and make unhealthy diet choices, too!

*gasp* Yes, with your very own money!!!!111!!

I know, lets drug test everyone in public housing, too!

(Am I on the same site I started on a few minutes ago???)

[hifiguy]

51. This.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. So... the fact that the public subsidizes their rent means they should have *fewer* rules? n/t

[X_Digger]

109. When the landlord is the state, there are fewer restrictions that can be made.

A private landlord can make restrictions that the state cannot.

[pnwmom]

189. The state is well within its rights to make regulations based on health.

And both the CDC and the American Cancer Society say that no one should be smoking in multi-unit housing because of the risks to others.

[X_Digger]

216. Should the government ban processed meats in HUD housing?

I mean, since it's 'health' related.

Think carefully.

[pnwmom]

217. If you can explain how eating processed meats in your own apartment

can affect the residents of other residents, sure.

Meat is not like smoky gas. It cannot travel through heating ducts and other avenues of seepage.

[X_Digger]

218. Who said this? "within its rights to make regulations based on health"?

I mean, if those poor kids could be eating cancer-causing processed meats?!?

FOR THE CHILDREN!! BAN HOT DOGS!!

[pnwmom]

219. Again, eating a hot dog puts no one at risk except for the eater. Smoking cigarettes

puts people in other apartments at risk.

[X_Digger]

220. "within its rights to make regulations based on health" .. did someone ninja your kb?

A parent could be feeding their kids cancer-causing hot dogs, by god!



(If you don't agree with this, then your justification for smoking bans falls mighty flat, dear.)

[pnwmom]

221. That doesn't mean that EVERY possible regulation can be justified. But it is easy to justify,

on the basis of health, protecting the air of non-smokers in apartment buildings, just as it already is at work places.

By your logic, there should be no regulation of cigarette smoking at all.

[X_Digger]

222. Oh, so children in a smoker's home pale next to the non smokers in another apartment?!?!

How nice of you.

Oh, I need a fainting couch, I can't keep my cockamamie justifications for sticking my nose in people's businesses straight.

[pnwmom]

223. Parents who smoke around their children are harming them -- you are right.

And it is true that society can't protect children from every harm.

But at the very least a conscientious non-smoking parent (or one who goes outside to smoke) should be able to protect their child from being hurt by someone smoking in the next apartment.

Everyone has the right to clean air and water -- not just the 1%.

[Logical]

155. And not enough money for cigs. Nt

[alphafemale]

246. So people in public housing have no right to be free from second-hand smoke.

Nice.

Smokers have more rights than them.

Nice.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. Good for them. It's past due.

And public health and safety are both improved in apartments that enforce this rule.

[madinmaryland]

45. Beyond the obvious health risks for non-smokers in public housing, how about taking a look

at the financial issues that smokers cause.

The smoke infiltrates everything in an apartment, just as it does in a car. The only thing to do is completely change all carpets and completely clean everything in the apartment. We've walked into houses and apartments where there was a small hint of smokers and we walked right the fuck out of the place. Same thing with cars. It's always there.

Just charge the smokers a rent that is 50% higher. Fuck them. The damage they do with second hand smoke to other people and to the places the live in, they should be paying for it.

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. Public health is important, but implementing this will be tough.

[MFrohike]

55. Neo-puritan bullshit

It's personal dislike justified by "but think of the children!" That line of argument alone should convince anyone that it's garbage.

[hifiguy]

65. "Think of the children"

was used as the basis for censoring every word and picture printed in or mailed to the US from the time of Anthony Comstock until the Warren Court era.

It is the last argumentative refuge of the authoritarian scoundrel.

[NutmegYankee]

66. It still is the classic catch phrase of the American Family Association.

And other anti-gay hate groups worldwide.

[hifiguy]

68. Nuff Said

as Stan Lee used to put it.

[get the red out]

157. +1

Love your comment.

I just cannot think in an authoritarian way, even if it's supposed to be "good" and my thinking "bad".

[pnwmom]

207. Both the Center for Disease Control and the American Cancer Society say that smoking

should not be allowed inside multiunit apartment buildings because of the harm to second hand smokers, in particular, children.

And they based their recommendations on the research.

[MADem]

56. Children live in public housing.

If it is "liberal" to give a crap about the health of children, that is just one more reason to love those "awful" liberals.

Frankly, "conservatives" would do away with public housing altogether, that solves the problem, certainly--and then those smokers could puff away to their hearts' content, sitting under that bridge abutment in a sleeping bag trying to keep warm and dry. No one's gonna tell THEM what to do!!!!!

Can't see anyone objecting to this--except someone who feels entitled, who doesn't feel that they need to contribute to the community, who is selfish and uncaring and disrespectful of their neighbors in a building with a common ventilation system.

Do what most responsible smokers do in PRIVATE housing--go OUTSIDE.

[pnwmom]

141. Yes, yes, yes.

My only relative who smokes always takes it outside -- and has never even asked to smoke indoors. No polite people -- with enough education to understand the health risks -- do that anymore.

[HassleCat]

69. It's not just the nanny state

We own those apartments. "We" being the taxpayers. Anything that damages them costs us money, and smoking causes damage. The landlord can specify conditions such as not smoking in the lease or rental agreement, and HUD is the landlord here, so they can ma the tenants go outside for a ciggie. I suppose they're doing it for the health of the kids so, yeah, that's nanny state stuff. However, comma, the justification for much low income housing is the welfare of children, so there is that.

[romanic]

72. I'm not into the whole smoking debate

but this policy reeks of "attacking the poor". jmho

[Nye Bevan]

75. Bad news for Big Tobacco.

Better news for the health and wealth of the tenants and their kids.

[The Straight Story]

77. Will this affect the wealthy or just poor people? Why do so many approve of controlling the poor?

it almost lends credence to the right who say the left wants to make people dependent on government so that they can control them.

[onenote]

89. The Four Seasons is one of DC's most expensive luxury hotels

A room for one night can run from over $750 to over $2000. This is its smoking policy:

Four Seasons Washington is a smoke-free hotel. Smoking is prohibited in guest rooms and public areas such as restaurants, lounges, pool decks and lawns. We appreciate your cooperation. Designated smoking areas will be available outside the property.

[The Straight Story]

95. Hotel VS where someone is living. Ok. (nt)

[onenote]

97. I would bet that some of the most expensive rental properties in DC

such as the Four Seasons Residences, also are smoke free.

It is becoming the norm for apartments condos co-ops -- at all price levels -- to be smoke free.

[pnwmom]

142. Non-smokers who are wealthy are already protected from living in polluted air.

They have lots of options in housing.

HUD people can't just move out to get away from indoor air pollution. It makes just as much sense to regulate smoking in HUD apartments as it does in the workplace.

[Texasgal]

81. Reminds me of the drug testing for

TANF or food stamps.

I am kind of surprised so many posters think this is OKAY. Bothersome.

[X_Digger]

110. Agreed. They think nothing of the same concept, when applied to their particular bugabear.

Principles schminciples!

[pnwmom]

143. I'm surprised anyone would think it's okay to force HUD families comprised of non-smokers

to live in apartments contaminated by the smoke of others.

[Bluenorthwest]

161. I would find your stance far more righteous if you were consistent in standing up for poor children

but you are not. You strongly support and promote Pope Francis here on DU. His teachings and his organization are of course opposed to the use of condoms. In Africa, he hand his Church oppose health and sexual education and the use of condoms. Uganda is 44% Catholic, 13% say they have used a condom at least once, 7.2% have HIV and over 60,000 Ugandans die of AIDS each year. This creates orphans, the number currently in excess of 650,000 in Uganda alone.

So. Francis comes to Congress to comment archly that he is 'concerned with threats to the family' and you go on about the health of poor people and their kids. But Francis' means LGBT are a threat, and you are focused on smoking. I find that to be incomplete at best and at worst an intentional distraction from the actual body count.

[stone space]

173. Does Pope Francis have a position on indoor smoking?

Not sure if he is for it or against it.

But if we are going to inject the Pope into this conversation, I would like to know his views on the matter, first.

Sometimes the Pope is right, and sometimes the Pope is wrong.

[Orsino]

258. Yep. Poor-punching.

Wonder if the usual Rw freedumb-types will protest at all.

[nruthie]

84. This is nothing new.

I see nothing here that merits a controversy.

[onenote]

93. You're actually quite correct.

HUD has been encouraging public housing authorities to implement smoke free policies for a number of years.http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=594

[REP]

88. Hey, if they don't like it, they can rent elsewhere or just buy a house, amirite?

The poor are fun to push around because thy can't push back. And it's for their own good! They're too damn dumb to make their on decisions so us smart rich people gotta do it for them, amirite? And think of the children. C'mon, anytime there's something I don't approve of, I hide behind children because it's classy! And I get to come off all righteous and shit because I'm so so much smarter than those dumb-ass poor people who are obvs poor because of making bad decisions like smoking and being poor.







Because it's necessary:

[onenote]

91. So on that theory, there should be no restrictions on tenant in public housing?

Want to remodel the unit by knocking down a wall? Go for it. After all, people with houses can do that.
Want to invite a dozen people to stay with you. You could do that if you bought a house.

So why make tenants be subject to any restrictions that a home owner isn't subject to.....

There are plenty of very good reasons to ban smoking in public housing, just as there are plenty of good reasons why smoke-free apartments, condos, co-ops are very much on the upswing.

The push to encourage public housing authorities to adopt smoke-free building policies has been around since last decade. http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?id=594

I swear, some of the comments here sound like they could be lifted from what I expect we'll be hearing from Limbaugh, or Drudge, or Breitbart.

[REP]

94. Or HITLER!!!!11

Don't think this is the way to go for low-income housing? Well, mebbe you're a Communiss. Let's check this here list of names ...

You don't persuade people to the merits of your argument by accusing them of being aligned with generally-agreed-as-unpleasant people. HTH, HAND.

[Texasgal]

100. We should piss test them too..

or maybe blood testing for drugs. Oh wait... Hair follicle testing! YES!

[onenote]

102. Kind of a leap of logic eh?

The question is why should public housing be subject to fewer restrictions than are now commonly found in private rentals at all levels? I"m not advocating for more.

[Texasgal]

105. Not a leap at all.

Are you aware that many states are piss testing for TANF benefits now?

Yes, this reminds me of that very much so.

[X_Digger]

111. Because the landlord is the state, and this is housing of last resort for many.

But fuck em, it's healthy and shit! That'll learn em!

[onenote]

122. I'll ask again: should there be any restrictions on what a renter can do

in "housing of last resort."

Should they be able to remodel the unit? Have as many people stay in it as they want?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

229. Yes, it is housing of last resort

And the next tenant after the smokers move out is going to have to live in a place that will stink and will be a health risk. You think the carpets are changed and the apartments are repainted in low income housing every time someone moves?

You think kids should have to walk through a group of five people talking and smoking in the hall?

"No smoking" in rental units is expected of most of us. Why do you have lower expectations for people in subsidized housing?

[X_Digger]

233. If We (the state) don't maintain public housing, who's to blame?

Why do you have lower expectations for people in subsidized housing?

Let me repeat myself- this is the housing of last resort for many.

But fuck em eh, evict those sorry smokers if they can't break their chemical addictions.

I forget what site I'm on when I see authoritarian fucks jizzing over the opportunity to tell poor people how they should live.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

235. No one smokes in my house...including the people I love.

They have to smoke outside.

Is it really authoritarian to recognize that the government is not going to paint and change flooring after every move and that the next tenant deserves an environment free of the stench of smoke?

[X_Digger]

236. OMG, the previous tenants cooked bacon, but I'm a vegan!

That cancer-causing processed meat left the walls all icky!!

I know, lets ban that shit!!11!!



Is your preference worth backing up at the point of a gun?

Are you willing to make a low income resident homeless over this?

(Checks the address bar-- yup, still on Democratic Underground.)

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

237. Go homeless.

We already have more homeless than we have homes for them to occupy. I'm sure there are plenty of families willing to smoke outside in order to get housing.

And, by the way, the last time I checked, the smell of bacon didn't cause asthma and a host of other illnesses. The poor deserve to live in smoke-free housing just like the rest of us.

[X_Digger]

238. You know what? Your priorities need a serious fucking adjustment.

If you would throw someone out on the street because of their addictions, you're on the wrong fucking site.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

239. Plenty of other people want and need that apartment

You can think with your brain and your heart, you know.

And the residents can smoke all they want - just not in the apartment where the smoke seeps into the carpet, the sheetrock walls, the air vents, etc.

I have asthma and recurring bronchitis, so I could never live in an apartment previously occupied by heavy smokers.

I'd be safer sleeping on a park bench.

[X_Digger]

241. I'm disgusted. Homeless smoker? Fuck em, no housing for you and your filthy habit.

Oh we want the state to house people in dire straits. Cept those damned dirty smokers, out on the street!

*shaking my head*

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

242. You don't read too well?

They. can. smoke. outside.

[X_Digger]

243. I read just fine. "Plenty of other people want and need that apartment"

Did someone ninja up to your computer and type those words?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

244. It's their choice to smoke in a non-smoking apartment.

Is it not? No one is denying smokers a HUD apartment; however, it is their choice whether or not they will smoke in the apartment. If they choose to smoke, then other - more grateful - residents can take their place, since there is always a waiting list.

If you have a problem with that, then too bad. I'm sure the people waiting for an apartment who are willing to abide by the "no smoking" laws have absolutely no problem with that rule.

[X_Digger]

245. Oh don't back away from your words, now. Own em.

Any other edicts against addictions you'd like to enforce with the threat of eviction? At the point of a gun?

Fucking disgusting.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

247. I do own them.

Until we have more HUD housing than we have occupants for them, it's just common sense to give the apartment to someone who will not ruin it with cigarette smoke.

I was sick my entire childhood because I lived with two parents who chain smoked, but they didn't know any better. Well, we now know that tobacco is a serious health hazard.

Bye.

[pnwmom]

144. If they don't like it, they can smoke outside. The right of non-smokers in HUD housing

to breathe clean air trumps the right of smokers to smoke indoors.

[KamaAina]

92. This could have repercussions for a Clinton-Castro ticket in tobacco states

As we just saw, KY is just about hopeless , but NC and especially VA are not.

[onenote]

96. You're not from Virginia are you?

Tim Kaine issued an executive order banning smoking in most government buildings in 2006. The repub dominated legislature passed, and Kaine signed, legislation banning smoking in bars and restaurants in 2009.

http://www.pilotonline.com/news/gov-kaine-signs-smoking-ban-bill-in-virginia-beach/article_81c383f8-3890-5b0f-8eb3-4621d0b4a012.html

And how those actions impact Democrats candidates in Virginia?

Well, Kaine was elected to the Senate in 2012. Warner has been reelected to the Senate in 2008 and 2014. Obama won the state in 2008 and 2012.

Stereotype much?

[KamaAina]

119. In the worst-case scenario, all it might take is a bump in turnout on the Southside

and we could be listening to tRump or TaliBen (and Roberts ) trying to make it through the oath of office.

Obviously, there's no way NoVA falls for this, but, if it's close enough to steal...

[roody]

98. Some new HUD housing in my town

has a handful or less of people smoking on the sidewalk next to the street. Looks like there is no smoking allowed on the premises.

[kwassa]

99. Good for you, HUD!

[Shoulders of Giants]

101. I don't know if legislation is the right idea.

However, only assholes smoke in apartments, because that smoke will end up in other people's homes.

[tzar paul]

103. I've never smoked, but lived with people who have

[whatthehey]

104. Thank fucking Christ Yes!

#1 cause of death in the US by a manifold rate when under 20% of the population are still that fucking stupid to do it. People with insane idiocy try to compare drinking, which 67% of the populace do with less than 1/5 of the deaths - in other words a risk factor about 1/17 as big, NOTHING compares to smoking in health impact. Not even close. Help save people!

[Reter]

106. Smoke away, who's gonna know?

It's impossible to enforce for now.

[smirkymonkey]

112. LOOK, if my private apartment building can ban smoking,

then I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that a Federally subsidized housing unit can't do the same. I really don't see what the hardship is.

[Texasgal]

113. Do you agree with drug testing

and food restrictions for subsidized recipients?

[pnwmom]

145. Neither of the things pollutes the air of other apartment renters, as cigarette smoke does. n/t

[loyalsister]

115. They did in my building

and since there's more than one oxygen tank roaming the halls, I'm glad.
It is saving them a ton of money. There's a very high turnover in public housing. It's faster and more cost effective if they don't have to clean out the tobacco residue.

[dsc]

116. news flash

renters have that in their leases quite often. I have it my current lease and I live in tobacco country.

[Tipperary]

120. I have never been a smoker, but this is

simply ridiculous.

[pnwmom]

127. Here's why it isn't ridiculous. People with enough money to rent private

apartments or houses, or to buy their own places, have a CHOICE about whether they buy in a place where they and their children will be exposed to smoke.

People who are dependent on HUD housing don't have a range of choices as to where they can live. Don't they and their children deserve air as clean as those who can afford private apartments?

[CreekDog]

129. Nanny State Stinky? You should be ashamed of using right wing terminology

I expect better from you.

I don't expect you to agree with the policy, but to suddenly say "Nanny State" is beneath contempt.

It's attempting to protect people in *other* housing units from second hand smoke.

That's not nannying.

Unrecommend.

Take your "Nanny State" nonsense and post it on a right wing website where that kind of nonsense belongs.

[Stinky The Clown]

150. Yeah, right there with "What shall we tell the children?"

This issue is a pure shit sandwich. The bread and the filling.

In many ways, the idea of doing it is right wing.

This one cuts both ways. Read the comments in this thread. Lots of right wing perspectives used to counter my view.

I expect better from people on a left wing message board.

[Warren Stupidity]

214. authoritarian spans right and left.

our authoritarians hate that fact and pretend that they get special exemptions from the authoritarian tag because after all, think of the children, or some other bullshit.

[bbgrunt]

131. Nanny state liberals never know when

to stop. I'm beginning to despise them as much as republicons. Honestly, with climate change, the military industrial complex, TPP, and all the other existential crises we face, they are like little gnats that just can't stop flying in your eyes. What about the medical marijuana patients? What are they supposed to do? Enough is enough of this insanity!

And you are right--THIS is why lots of people hate "liberals".

[pnwmom]

146. Ooh -- nanny state liberals! The horror!

I guess, to the libertarians among us.

[Marrah_G]

132. I agree- being poor is not a crime

People need to stop thinking they have the right to micro manage people lives when they get assistance. It's like people who want a list of approved food stamp foods.

[pnwmom]

147. You don't think poor children and other non-smokers deserve to breathe

clean indoor air, just as other people do?

They don't have the option to just move to another apartment with better air, as a middle or upper income family would.

[Stinky The Clown]

152. Hey, I got an idea for you . . . .

. . . . . how about allowing (helping, even) tenants form a tenant board for each building of complex. Allow the residents to decide if they want the place to be non smoking?

You know . . . all democratic? Majority rules? How 'bout that?

[pnwmom]

154. Nope. Children's health shouldn't be up for their smoking neighbor's vote.

No one needs to smoke inside. People do need to breathe clean air.

From the Center for Disease Control:

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/protect_children/pdfs/protect_children_guide.pdf

Children can’t hide from secondhand smoke at home. Here’s why...

Smoking in another room like a bathroom or bedroom pollutes all the air in your home. In an apartment, smoke in one room can go through the whole building.

• Smoking outside in a hall or stairwell does not protect children inside. Smoke goes under doors, windows, and through cracks.

• To protect the children inside, homes and apartment buildings must be smoke-free.

No amount of secondhand smoke is safe. Even when you can’t smell it, cigarette smoke can still harm your child.

• Opening a window or using a fan does not protect children.

• Air purifiers and air fresheners do not remove smoke’s poisons.

• Smoke from one cigarette can stay in a room for hours. Don’t smoke at home, even when children aren’t there.

From the American Cancer Society:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

At home

Making your home smoke-free may be one of the most important things you can do for the health of your family. Any family member can develop health problems related to SHS.

Children’s growing bodies are especially sensitive to the toxins in SHS. Asthma, lung infections, and ear infections are more common in children who are around smokers. Some of these problems can become serious and even life-threatening. Others may seem like small problems, but they can add up quickly – the time for doctor visits, medicines, lost school time, and often lost work time for the parent who must stay home with a sick child are all costs that can impact a family.

Think about it: we spend more time at home than anywhere else. A smoke-free home protects your family, your guests, and even your pets.

Multi-unit housing where smoking is allowed is a special concern and a subject of research. Tobacco smoke can move through air ducts, wall and floor cracks, elevator shafts, and along crawl spaces to contaminate apartments on other floors, even those that are far from the smoke. SHS cannot be controlled with ventilation, air cleaning, or by separating smokers from non-smokers.

[get the red out]

153. I agree with you

There are PLENTY of people with money who smoke around their kids. If HUD is so concerned about smoke bothering non-smokers, rather than controlling the poor, they should make some buildings or floors smoking and some non-smoking.

I know smoking is dangerous, but controlling the choices of people because they are poor is just damned scary.

[Android3.14]

151. I agree with you

Though as a reformed smoker I still love the smell of cigarettes.

[LynnTTT]

158. I'm a Dem and I agree it's too much

This ruling is an overreach. It implies that government does have the right to tell people what they can do in their own homes. The right wing will scream and say this proves the federal government can come into your home and forbid you to do something that is perfectly legal.
Don't open this can of worms.

[pnwmom]

184. Don't poor children and other non-smokers have the same right to breath decent air

that people with other housing options do? Someone with means can pick and choose among private apartments, and find another one if they want one with clean air. Poor people dependent on HUD housing cannot.

[roody]

160. So what? I live in a senior facility

in which smoking is forbidden and also vaping.

[PersonNumber503602]

163. I've seen this in non-HUD apartment complexes

As a non-smoker, I can understand why they have these sorts of rules, but there is also something that makes me annoyed by the rules. If it were up to me, I'd try to have it so that there are buildings with units that are smoking and others that are non-smoking. That obviously won't work in all apartment configurations, but it would work in situations where the complex has several separate buildings.

[doc03]

165. Is it only those liberals that push for smoking bans? Where I live the

anti smoking Nazi is a conservative Republican. He is a doctor and I think he has legitimate concern for people's health. The one place they can't make any inroads in is the casino they have lobbyists in the state capitol backing them.

[TipTok]

167. Do they own the home?

If not then it is reasonable that the actual owners would want to stave off easily avoidable damage to their property...

[Calista241]

169. HUD actually owns the building and maintains it.

I don't see anything unreasonable with them wanting to maintain the building's value.

Renters are just that, renters. If they want to smoke at home, they can get their own building and ruin its value.

[Zorra]

257. I agree. We should not be obligated to allow renters to deliberately damage public property. nt

[FSogol]

170. In the NPR story on this, they noted that it is already banned in 20% of public housing.

Gee, there was no outrage when that happened, but I guess it is now election season and some people need a reason to bash liberals.

[Stinky The Clown]

175. Yup. Bashing Liberals is exactly my intent

[FSogol]

176. You didn't break the news story, you merely posted it on DU.

Pro Tip: Everything isn't about you.

[Stinky The Clown]

178. Okay. You make a comment to me

But then it isn't about me.

Pro tip?

So you're a professional poster?

Oy, I should have stayed gone.

[Warren Stupidity]

182. Both parties think being poor is a crime and that

welfare is a form of probation.

[pnwmom]

185. I thought Democrats believed that children in poverty

and other poor non-smokers deserved the same right to clean air and clean water as people with greater means.

[Warren Stupidity]

201. The government tells people with greater means

that their children cannot live in a house where people smoke?

I did not know that.

[pnwmom]

202. No, but those adults of means can, if they want, protect their children

from having to breathe smoke-filled air -- by limiting their own smoking to outside and by choosing housing where smoking isn't allowed.

People dependent on HUD housing don't have other options if people in other units are smoking.

[TexasBushwhacker]

230. This Democrat does

and the rights of the elderly and disabled who are the other groups most likely to be in public housing. They deserve cleaner air and a lower risk of fire as well.

[Eleanors38]

192. As I predicted here in DU years ago...

Poor people are su-u-u-uch easy targets when ramping up for total prohibitionism.

Another prediction: Child Protective Service agencies (or rasonable facsimiles) WILL be employed to get into your private residences if you have kids under the same roof, all accompanied by the requisite criminal penalties, centering on both fitness for being a parent and child abuse.

Easy peasie, and you heard it here first.

[Stinky The Clown]

215. I see the same possibility. And that's just one reason I think this is a terrible idea.

[Eleanors38]

228. When pressure groups close down discussion beyond the policy-at-hand...

and don't deal with future plans or measures, basic philosophical approaches, and any limits on current policy; and the measures they do advocate are almost all attached to police powers, it is a strong indicator that basic prohibitionist doctrine is the approach, with no top end in sight.

One of the reasons gun prohibitionists get NOwhere is because in their hubris they regularly telegraph in the clear their prohibitionist doctrines and philosophies; hence not an inch is given by pro-2A groups. The tobacco prohibitionists, however, know enough to keep their over all goals opaque.

[killbotfactory]

227. Have you ever moved in to a house where people smoked inside?

They become toxic. Tar still seeps through the paint in my house and we thought we cleaned all the walls pretty well before we moved in.

[librechik]

231. hah! I finally know why they call you Stinky!

will not weep for the smoking 12 year olds in the public housing. Cut them off so they can have a chance at a full life. (former smoker so grateful I quit)

[jwirr]

234. In the building I lived in most of the residents were women

who did not smoke. But there were also older men who did. I do not remember it causing any problem because they kept it to their own apartments.

I suppose that was a problem when the management had to clean it before re-renting. I was a PCA for several of the men who smoked and when I went in to clean I opened windows so the smell would go out.

[Chan790]

240. I don't have a problem with this.

I've lived in apartments for most of the last 20 years...most of those apartments had lease terms that forbid smoking in the units, making it grounds for termination of the lease and expulsion from the unit.

I think HUD should have every right and responsibility under the law that private landlords have...if they want to ban smoking in the building then they can ban smoking in the building. If you want a cigarette that badly, you can walk outside 50' from the front door of the building, just like many apartment dwellers do.