Public housing will go smoke-free by the end of the month, even in private spaces

[Swordsmyth]

By July 30, residents of public housing will have to leave their homes and even housing authority property if they want to smoke.

“It’s driving people crazy,” said former smoker John Lewis, 52, of the new federal rule. Lewis said he appreciated the ban because it was still difficult for him to be around the smell of smoke.

Thelma Hellems, 68, said banning smoking was reasonable in common areas, but added, “We pay rent, I don’t know why we can’t do what we want in our apartment.”

As the deadline approaches, public housing authorities are balancing the tasks of educating residents, connecting them with health resources, and preparing to enforce the new rule. While the ban is contentious among some residents, proponents say it has significant public health and cost-saving implications.


The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rule requires each public housing authority to adopt a smoke-free policy, banning cigarettes, cigars, pipes and hookahs from being smoked anywhere inside public housing residences or offices, and within 25 feet of these buildings. The policy must be integrated into tenants’ leases and added to the housing authority’s policies, which necessitates public meetings and input from residents. Smoking policy violations can then be enforced similar to other lease violations.

The St. Louis Public Housing Authority intends to treat smoking like other lease violations, such as nonpayment of rent or disturbing the peace, both of which can lead to lease termination, said Cheryl Lovell, executive director of the authority.

The Housing Authority of St. Louis County has opted for a slightly longer process including counseling about resources. Both organizations emphasized that they intend to work closely with their residents to avoid more serious consequences.

The CDC estimates that public housing agencies will save $153 million every year because of the new rule. HUD has encouraged voluntary smoking bans in public housing since 2009, but those have primarily been adopted in areas with lower overall smoking rates in the northeastern and northwestern U.S.

Details on how to inform residents about the new ban, connect residents with smoking cessation resources and enforce the policy have been left up to each public housing authority.

The St. Louis Public Housing Authority has about 4,000 residents, and the Housing Authority of St. Louis County has about 1,000. Both began rolling out lease addendums with the smoke-free policy for residents to sign in January.

“Before we changed the policy, we visited every development and passed out information,” in addition to holding a public hearing, Lovell said. There was some push-back from residents, she said, but “we don’t have the option of not complying with the regulatory requirements.”

More at: https://www.stltoday.com/business/lo...0ecdf613c.html


Anything that makes it more uncomfortable to leech on the taxpayers is fine by me, in addition smoking can ruin an apartment or start fires.

[Anti Federalist]

Only a matter of time before tobacco is banned.

[Danke]

“We pay rent, I don’t know why we can’t do what we want in our apartment.” Your are being subsidized from my paycheck.

Move?

[oyarde]

“We pay rent, I don’t know why we can’t do what we want in our apartment.” Your are being subsidized from my paycheck.

Move?

I think so , for a few years anyway , later on the police will hunt the urban smokers .

[timosman]

Weed only for home owners.

[Brian4Liberty]

Shocking. You want to live like rats in a multi-level cage, you have to abide by the preferences of your neighboring rats.

Socialism! Everyone lives "free".

[timosman]

Shocking. You want to live like rats in a multi-level cage, you have to abide by the preferences of your neighboring rats.

Socialism! Everyone lives "free".

Freedom index - straight line distance in yards to another, non-family rat while sleeping. For most urban dwellers it is less than 1.

[tod evans]

There should be no 'public housing'.

[CaptUSA]

There should be no 'public housing'.

Exactly. How can you have "private spaces" in "public housing"??

This is like complaining about the policies of the government school system. Uh, why do you send your kids there to begin with?!

[angelatc]

I hate everybody in this story. It's a no-win for me.

[Anti Federalist]

I hate everybody in this story. It's a no-win for me.

Yeah, pretty much where I am on this...but too many people are playing this short sighted.

The public housing ticks will screech and wail that this discriminates against colored people, who smoke at higher rates than whites do.

Once the Internet Outrage Squads get spooled up over this, whatever apparatchik that is charge of such things will quickly back down and rescind this "policy".

But it will set another precedent, which ultimately will lead to people housed on your dime will be allowed to smoke, but you, on your own property that you pay your shire reeve rents on, in a timely basis like a good little serf, will not.

[DamianTV]

Just an excuse for govt to validate its existence. "You need us to protect you from yourselves."

But taken a step further, how about "Homeowners"? If you actually own your own home, should you "be allowed" to smoke in your own home? Remember, the goal is to convert Rights into Permissions, then DENY those Permissions. Now, before you answer, define "Homeowner". Is it a person that took out a loan from a bank to buy their house? If that is the case, then those people are NOT technically the "Homeowner", the Bank is. Would the Bank have the Right to decree you "may not smoke" in the home they own? Should only people who have paid off their houses be allowed to smoke? Taken a step further, if the Bank owns your home, what other Behaviors will they have authority to regulate? If there are children in the home of a person who owes money to the bank for the purchase of their house, will the Bank have Authority to decide whether or not you may or may not Homeschool? At what point is the line drawn? Not only do we apparently need Big Govt to "protect us from ourselves", do we also need Banks and Corporations to regulate peoples behavior? Would they validate that by "just protecting their investment"? Why not add in to Employers? Since Employers pay the Owners / Renters, would that not be misconstrued to be the same as Public Housing since essentially the Employer is paying the Rent / Mortgage? Should an Employer also have Authority to tell ALL employees how they may or may not behave? By the exact same token, why not Insurance Companies? Why not EVERYONE except the individual to have any self authority what so ever?

Socialism is the Great Lie by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else. By extension, it gives everyone authority over everyone else, until everything is illegal.

[opal]

banning cigarettes, cigars, pipes and hookahs

how did they miss vaping?

batteries, clearos, tanks... mods.. not on the list

[DamianTV]

They obviously learned nothing from Abolishing Alcohol.

[kpitcher]

They are renters, there is a contract. The contract now states no smoking. How is this being viewed as bad by libertarians when it's about contracts?

[Anti Federalist]

They are renters, there is a contract. The contract now states no smoking. How is this being viewed as bad by libertarians when it's about contracts?

See post 11.

It sets a dangerous precedent.

This could, and in fact has been, used to restrict gun ownership, for example.

Just because it's in a contract does not make it right.

[nobody's_hero]

“We pay rent, I don’t know why we can’t do what we want in our apartment.” Your are being subsidized from my paycheck.

Move?

Kind of how I see it. Play government games, win government prizes.

I hate everybody in this story. It's a no-win for me.

Most reasonable. + rep. lol

[DamianTV]

See post 11.

It sets a dangerous precedent.

This could, and in fact has been, used to restrict gun ownership, for example.

Just because it's in a contract does not make it right.

What happens when those in Public Housing are not allowed Gun Ownership?

Yes, there is two sides to this...

[Swordsmyth]

What happens when those in Public Housing are not allowed Gun Ownership?

Yes, there is two sides to this...

Public housing needs to go but the 2ndA should prevent the government from disallowing gun ownership while living in it, smoking is not a Constitutional right and anything that makes it more uncomfortable to leech off the taxpayers while preventing property damage that the taxpayers will have to pay for is fine by me.

[tod evans]

Public housing needs to go but the 2ndA should prevent the government from disallowing gun ownership while living in it, smoking is not a Constitutional right and anything that makes it more uncomfortable to leech off the taxpayers while preventing property damage that the taxpayers will have to pay for is fine by me.

It's not fine by me.

As much as I detest government free-$#@!, I detest the nanny-state more.

Everything government gets involved in it $#@!s up...

I can see lengthy prison sentences for this newest form of scofflaw that would surpass the financial burden of any perceived 'property damage'....