HUD to ban smoking in all public housing

[pixy0stix]

HUD to ban smoking in all public housing starting July 31 - www.9news.com/article/news/nation-world/hud-to-ban-smoking-in-all-public-housing-starting-july-31/572775286

WASHINGTON, DC — Smoking will no longer be allowed inside public housing nationwide starting on July 31.

The ban from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department was announced back in November 2016 but gave Public Housing Agencies until July 31, 2018 to comply.


2015 thread about the subject - pandce.proboards.com/thread/491945/public-housing-nationwide-subject-smoking

[karinothing]

Well that last thread got heated.

All I can say that more and more new condos here are beciming smoke free. And i still think they should just making smoking illegal and at the same time make marijuana legal. It isnt like big tobacco isn't waiting in the wings for that to happen anyway.

[seeyalater52]

I feel like if they really wanted to promote the health and welfare of people who live in public housing they’d be focusing less on this and more on addressing the egregious and chronic issues with mold and other environmental hazards that have plagued public housing residents for generation and are a significant source of childhood asthma and other disease incidence among low-income kids.

[picksthemusic]

This seems 'drug testing for food stamps' kind of dumb and misguided.

[nsl]

Jul 11, 2018 17:14:16 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

I feel like if they really wanted to promote the health and welfare of people who live in public housing they’d be focusing less on this and more on addressing the egregious and chronic issues with mold and other environmental hazards that have plagued public housing residents for generation and are a significant source of childhood asthma and other disease incidence among low-income kids.

And also taking steps to partner with HHS on increasing support for preventative care for Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

[aliciabella]

Jul 11, 2018 17:14:16 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

I feel like if they really wanted to promote the health and welfare of people who live in public housing they’d be focusing less on this and more on addressing the egregious and chronic issues with mold and other environmental hazards that have plagued public housing residents for generation and are a significant source of childhood asthma and other disease incidence among low-income kids.

I don't disagree with this but smoking and second and third hand smoke is a pretty large health issue. Smoke gets embedded in the walls and can be a big issue for the next tenants with small kids or someone with asthma. They can smoke still outside and don't think it is unreasonable to ask not to smoke in the home. You can't smoke anywhere indoors at this point. I understand the concerns but smoke is a health issue and this is coming from a smoker

[seeyalater52]

Jul 11, 2018 19:41:51 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Jul 11, 2018 17:14:16 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

I feel like if they really wanted to promote the health and welfare of people who live in public housing they’d be focusing less on this and more on addressing the egregious and chronic issues with mold and other environmental hazards that have plagued public housing residents for generation and are a significant source of childhood asthma and other disease incidence among low-income kids.

I don't disagree with this but smoking and second and third hand smoke is a pretty large health issue. Smoke gets embedded in the walls and can be a big issue for the next tenants with small kids or someone with asthma. They can smoke still outside and don't think it is unreasonable to ask not to smoke in the home. You can't smoke anywhere indoors at this point. I understand the concerns but smoke is a health issue and this is coming from a smoker

I’m not even saying I necessarily think this is a bad policy, but it is absolutely not motivated by health concerns in any way shape or form. Let’s discuss what it’s really about instead of going along with that facade.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 11, 2018 19:48:02 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Jul 11, 2018 19:41:51 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

I don't disagree with this but smoking and second and third hand smoke is a pretty large health issue. Smoke gets embedded in the walls and can be a big issue for the next tenants with small kids or someone with asthma. They can smoke still outside and don't think it is unreasonable to ask not to smoke in the home. You can't smoke anywhere indoors at this point. I understand the concerns but smoke is a health issue and this is coming from a smoker

I’m not even saying I necessarily think this is a bad policy, but it is absolutely not motivated by health concerns in any way shape or form. Let’s discuss what it’s really about instead of going along with that facade.

Exactly. It's not about smoking. It's about no skittles for poor people. People should be able to smoke in their homes. This is just government mandated restrictions on poor people.

[Velar Fricative]

Jul 11, 2018 19:48:02 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Jul 11, 2018 19:41:51 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

I don't disagree with this but smoking and second and third hand smoke is a pretty large health issue. Smoke gets embedded in the walls and can be a big issue for the next tenants with small kids or someone with asthma. They can smoke still outside and don't think it is unreasonable to ask not to smoke in the home. You can't smoke anywhere indoors at this point. I understand the concerns but smoke is a health issue and this is coming from a smoker

I’m not even saying I necessarily think this is a bad policy, but it is absolutely not motivated by health concerns in any way shape or form. Let’s discuss what it’s really about instead of going along with that facade.

Yup. I could get behind the arguments of prohibiting smoking inside public housing from a public health standpoint, but this is not being proposed because Ben Carson cares about poor people and their health. This is yet another bone to throw to the deplorable base because they love being able to dictate what poor people "that they are paying for with their tax dollars" can do with their lives and money. 

[kadams767]

Jul 11, 2018 19:55:42 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Jul 11, 2018 19:48:02 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

I’m not even saying I necessarily think this is a bad policy, but it is absolutely not motivated by health concerns in any way shape or form. Let’s discuss what it’s really about instead of going along with that facade.

Yup. I could get behind the arguments of prohibiting smoking inside public housing from a public health standpoint, but this is not being proposed because Ben Carson cares about poor people and their health. This is yet another bone to throw to the deplorable base because they love being able to dictate what poor people "that they are paying for with their tax dollars" can do with their lives and money. 

Not that I ever want to give this shitbag the benefit of the doubt, but this isn’t Carson’s policy.

[Velar Fricative]

Jul 11, 2018 20:17:30 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Jul 11, 2018 19:55:42 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Yup. I could get behind the arguments of prohibiting smoking inside public housing from a public health standpoint, but this is not being proposed because Ben Carson cares about poor people and their health. This is yet another bone to throw to the deplorable base because they love being able to dictate what poor people "that they are paying for with their tax dollars" can do with their lives and money. 

Not that I ever want to give this shitbag the benefit of the doubt, but this isn’t Carson’s policy.

Clearly I need to read further. If it's coming from HUD, I just naturally assume it's coming from Dr. Poverbs. ETA: Yes, just noticed the original date, thanks.

[penguingrrl]

It’s funny, I do think the rights of non smokers and children should take the rights of smokers when it comes to housing, as someone for whom cigarette smoke is a huge trigger (I can’t walk past someone smoking without needing my inhaler, and literally couldn’t live in a building where people have smoked in the past without serious remediation), but given the other major breathing related issues plaguing public housing complexes this feels more like a way to tell poor people how to spend their money than something done to help people.

[goldengirlz]

Jul 11, 2018 19:53:34 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jul 11, 2018 19:48:02 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

I’m not even saying I necessarily think this is a bad policy, but it is absolutely not motivated by health concerns in any way shape or form. Let’s discuss what it’s really about instead of going along with that facade.

Exactly. It's not about smoking. It's about no skittles for poor people. People should be able to smoke in their homes. This is just government mandated restrictions on poor people.

Except the tide has turned enough that many* (*probably depending on state) renters, no matter their income, aren’t allowed to smoke in their homes. I can’t recall ever renting an apartment that allowed smoking* (*granted, we rented in NYC and CA which are probably more restrictive than most jurisdictions). And when we bought our last house, we asked the tenants not to smoke in it during the 30 day rent-back period. (They were smokers and they didn’t listen to us, but that’s another story.)

So this doesn’t strike me as a crazy restriction. And given the high incidence of asthma for kids in public housing, it also seems to make sense from a public health perspective.

ETA: Also, while I don’t disagree that mold is a major, perhaps even the primary, cause of that high asthma incidence so is the fact that low-income children are twice as likely to be exposed to cigarette smoke, which is an independent risk factor.

[kadams767]

Jul 11, 2018 20:18:38 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Jul 11, 2018 20:17:30 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Not that I ever want to give this shitbag the benefit of the doubt, but this isn’t Carson’s policy.

Clearly I need to read further. If it's coming from HUD, I just naturally assume it's coming from Dr. Poverbs. ETA: Yes, just noticed the original date, thanks.

Honestly, I don’t know that this is a partisan issue for HUD.  I’ve worked in the housing field through the last 5 HUD secretaries and for as long as I can remember, this type of proposal has been on the table.  

[pixy0stix]

Jul 11, 2018 20:21:38 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jul 11, 2018 19:53:34 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Exactly. It's not about smoking. It's about no skittles for poor people. People should be able to smoke in their homes. This is just government mandated restrictions on poor people.

Except the tide has turned enough that many* (*probably depending on state) renters, no matter their income, aren’t allowed to smoke in their homes. I can’t recall ever renting an apartment that allowed smoking. And when we bought our last house, we asked the tenants not to smoke in it during the 30 day rent-back period. (They were smokers and they didn’t listen to us, but that’s another story.)

So this doesn’t strike me as a crazy restriction. And given the high incidence of asthma for kids in public housing, it also seems to make sense from a public health perspective.

ETA: Also, while I don’t disagree that mold is a major, perhaps even the primary, cause of that high asthma incidence so is the fact that low-income children are twice as likely to be exposed to cigarette smoke, which is an independent risk factor.

Except what you're talking about is the government vs. private. Private companies can do whatever they want. The government can't and shouldn't. I could give two shits about what people who are renting privately are required to do, since they have a choice of where they can live. If they don't like the restrictions, they can go elsewhere.

See also why the 2015 thread is several pages long.

[goldengirlz]

Jul 11, 2018 20:35:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jul 11, 2018 20:21:38 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Except the tide has turned enough that many* (*probably depending on state) renters, no matter their income, aren’t allowed to smoke in their homes. I can’t recall ever renting an apartment that allowed smoking. And when we bought our last house, we asked the tenants not to smoke in it during the 30 day rent-back period. (They were smokers and they didn’t listen to us, but that’s another story.)

So this doesn’t strike me as a crazy restriction. And given the high incidence of asthma for kids in public housing, it also seems to make sense from a public health perspective.

ETA: Also, while I don’t disagree that mold is a major, perhaps even the primary, cause of that high asthma incidence so is the fact that low-income children are twice as likely to be exposed to cigarette smoke, which is an independent risk factor.

Except what you're talking about is the government vs. private. Private companies can do whatever they want. The government can't and shouldn't. I could give two shits about what people who are renting privately are required to do, since they have a choice of where they can live. If they don't like the restrictions, they can go elsewhere.

See also why the 2015 thread is several pages long.

But by that same logic, the children with asthma can’t go elsewhere either. I skimmed the 2015 thread and it seems to hinge on whether people think children are a straw man argument or not. I think they’re not.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 11, 2018 20:38:52 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jul 11, 2018 20:35:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Except what you're talking about is the government vs. private. Private companies can do whatever they want. The government can't and shouldn't. I could give two shits about what people who are renting privately are required to do, since they have a choice of where they can live. If they don't like the restrictions, they can go elsewhere.

See also why the 2015 thread is several pages long.

But by that same logic, the children with asthma can’t go elsewhere either. I skimmed the 2015 thread and it seems to hinge on whether people think children are a straw man argument or not. I think they’re not.

I think they are. Therein lies the crux. There are many many many more environmental factors that the government can control asthma occurrences that do not involve secondhand smoke in it's housing. Smoking is just a low hanging fruit that they can pluck without addressing the real environmental factors. Such as building housing on non-mitigated contaminated soil.

[goldengirlz]

Jul 11, 2018 20:45:28 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jul 11, 2018 20:38:52 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

But by that same logic, the children with asthma can’t go elsewhere either. I skimmed the 2015 thread and it seems to hinge on whether people think children are a straw man argument or not. I think they’re not.

I think they are. Therein lies the crux. There are many many many more environmental factors that the government can control asthma occurrences that do not involve secondhand smoke in it's housing. Smoking is just a low hanging fruit that they can pluck without addressing the real environmental factors. Such as building housing on non-mitigated contaminated soil.

Let’s be real though. The science linking second hand smoke and asthma is incredibly strong and uncontroversial. I would venture it’s significantly stronger and more immediate than the link to soil. You can’t dismiss it as this little inconsequential thing that would make no difference.

Poor kids have asthma because people smoke around them. Is that the only reason? No. Is it a major one? Yes. You can’t dance around that. And what's that famous phrase? “Your rights end where my nose begin.” The unmitigated right to smoke ends where kids’ lungs begin.

[goldengirlz]

Also, when we think about privilege, which statement comes to mind?

“I’m privileged because I’m lucky enough to choose an apartment that allows smoking”

-or-

“I’m privileged because I’m lucky enough to live in an apartment where people aren’t smoking around my children”

Which building would a privileged person prefer to live in, all things being equal? How do ACTUAL privileged people live?

[kadams767]

Jul 11, 2018 20:45:28 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jul 11, 2018 20:38:52 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

But by that same logic, the children with asthma can’t go elsewhere either. I skimmed the 2015 thread and it seems to hinge on whether people think children are a straw man argument or not. I think they’re not.

I think they are. Therein lies the crux. There are many many many more environmental factors that the government can control asthma occurrences that do not involve secondhand smoke in it's housing. Smoking is just a low hanging fruit that they can pluck without addressing the real environmental factors. Such as building housing on non-mitigated contaminated soil.

The ban is not entirely a health issue argument though.  It’s a maintenance and cost issue as well.  HUD and PHAs across the country have basically no money for operations, let alone renovation and maintenance on units of former smokers upon turnover.  WTF are they supposed to do with a unit that has housed a smoker for the past several years, just throw on a coat of paint and let new tenants move into it?  They can’t do that, but they can’t properly renovate units either, and you want them to also address the 1000 other contributing environmental factors?  These are not well-funded agencies and projects.  It is just not possible.  This is why PHAs are turning units over to public-private partnerships at a record clip right now.  

[pixy0stix]

Jul 11, 2018 20:50:44 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jul 11, 2018 20:45:28 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I think they are. Therein lies the crux. There are many many many more environmental factors that the government can control asthma occurrences that do not involve secondhand smoke in it's housing. Smoking is just a low hanging fruit that they can pluck without addressing the real environmental factors. Such as building housing on non-mitigated contaminated soil.

Let’s be real though. The science linking second hand smoke and asthma is incredibly strong and uncontroversial. I would venture it’s significantly stronger and more immediate than the link to soil. You can’t dismiss it as this little inconsequential thing that would make no difference.

Poor kids have asthma because people smoke around them. Is that the only reason? No. Is it a major one? Yes. You can’t dance around that. And what's that famous phrase? “Your rights end where my nose begin.” The unmitigated right to smoke ends where kids’ lungs begin.

You'd be wrong. There is a ton of substantive evidence that black children have a higher incidence of asthma due entirely to their environment. (Based on where the neighborhoods occur due to unfair housing and lending, etc.) Most of which is based on where the housing is built in proximity to industrial and other pollutants. Plus, for subsidized housing, where the housing is built is based entirely on land value, and many of them are built on brown sites, ie sites that were previous industrial, etc.

Smoking is just a drop in the bucket. These kids could spend their entire lives not exposed to second hand smoke and still have a higher incidence of asthma.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 11, 2018 21:04:24 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Jul 11, 2018 20:45:28 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I think they are. Therein lies the crux. There are many many many more environmental factors that the government can control asthma occurrences that do not involve secondhand smoke in it's housing. Smoking is just a low hanging fruit that they can pluck without addressing the real environmental factors. Such as building housing on non-mitigated contaminated soil.

The ban is not entirely a health issue argument though.  It’s a maintenance and cost issue as well.  HUD and PHAs across the country have basically no money for operations, let alone renovation and maintenance on units of former smokers upon turnover.  WTF are they supposed to do with a unit that has housed a smoker for the past several years, just throw on a coat of paint and let new tenants move into it?  They can’t do that, but they can’t properly renovate units either, and you want them to also address the 1000 other contributing environmental factors?  These are not well-funded agencies and projects.  It is just not possible.  This is why PHAs are turning units over to public-private partnerships at a record clip right now.  

Again, it's a straw man. It's not about smoking. This is just the latest boogeyman the government has come up with to blame on how they maintain their premises.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 11, 2018 20:57:38 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Also, when we think about privilege, which statement comes to mind?

“I’m privileged because I’m lucky enough to choose an apartment that allows smoking”

-or-

“I’m privileged because I’m lucky enough to live in an apartment where people aren’t smoking around my children”

Which building would a privileged person prefer to live in, all things being equal? How do ACTUAL privileged people live?

Uh. One that fits their lifestyle. Whether it be parents that smoke or not.

[kadams767]

Jul 11, 2018 21:13:39 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jul 11, 2018 21:04:24 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

The ban is not entirely a health issue argument though.  It’s a maintenance and cost issue as well.  HUD and PHAs across the country have basically no money for operations, let alone renovation and maintenance on units of former smokers upon turnover.  WTF are they supposed to do with a unit that has housed a smoker for the past several years, just throw on a coat of paint and let new tenants move into it?  They can’t do that, but they can’t properly renovate units either, and you want them to also address the 1000 other contributing environmental factors?  These are not well-funded agencies and projects.  It is just not possible.  This is why PHAs are turning units over to public-private partnerships at a record clip right now.  

Again, it's a straw man. It's not about smoking. This is just the latest boogeyman the government has come up with to blame on how they maintain their premises.

Do you personally spend a lot of time in public housing developments?  As someone who does, I will have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.

[1yeartogo]

I agree with this and I’ve worked with tons of ppl who live in HUD housing. Smoking is a safety hazard for everyone, neighbors, kids, future tenets in the apartment. If they want to smoke they can damn well do it outside. Many/most people who smoke now know it destroys buildings and lives in the walls essentially forever and they don’t want to do that to their own apartment or house (or wouldn’t be allowed in an apartment). I think is is a major safety issue. As the concept of the long ranging effects and damages become more known, policies change accordingly.

[pixy0stix]

Jul 11, 2018 20:26:40 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Jul 11, 2018 20:18:38 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Clearly I need to read further. If it's coming from HUD, I just naturally assume it's coming from Dr. Poverbs. ETA: Yes, just noticed the original date, thanks.

Honestly, I don’t know that this is a partisan issue for HUD.  I’ve worked in the housing field through the last 5 HUD secretaries and for as long as I can remember, this type of proposal has been on the table.  

In part because it appeals to the Republicans and Democrats - Republicans in that the poors shouldn't be using their money to buy smokes. The Democrats because won't someone think of the children?!?!?!

Frankly, this is another example of limousine liberal thinking. It's racist and classist at the root. 

[pixy0stix]

Jul 11, 2018 21:17:17 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Jul 11, 2018 21:13:39 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Again, it's a straw man. It's not about smoking. This is just the latest boogeyman the government has come up with to blame on how they maintain their premises.

Do you personally spend a lot of time in public housing developments?  As someone who does, I will have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.

So the government maintains their housing in tiptop shape?

[pixy0stix]

All I'm saying is, would everyone be just fine and happy if the government banned smoking in all housing, including privately owned homes? And if you wouldn't be ok with that, then why are you fine with the government banning it in it's housing?

[Deleted]

I stand by everything I said in 2015. I absolutely do not want this to be the end of improving conditions of public housing. But when balancing the competing interests of smokers and non-smokers - particularly children, the elderly, and those with respiratory ailments or disabilities - I will side with the nonsmokers. Smokers are not being prohibited from residing in public housing; they just cannot smoke within 25 feet of the building. I simply believe it is unreasonable to force nonsmokers to bear the burden of their neighbors' indoor smoking. Going outside to smoke is a reasonable option. As we know from the prior thread, YMMV.

[pixy0stix]

Y'all "go outside to smoke" people realize that in a lot of communities outdoor smoking is also being banned, right?