HUD proposes smoking ban (and likely a vaping ban) at all public housing

[Bill Godshall]

HUD proposes banning smoking in all public housing (and outdoors within 25 feet of buildings).
Proposal doesn’t ban vaping, but demonizes it, then requests comments on it, and says Final Rule may also ban vaping. 60 day public comment period
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=smoke-freepublichousing.pdf
(see pages 13/14)

Public housing nationwide may be subject to smoking ban (and vaping ban that NY Times article fails to mention)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/n...nwide-may-be-subject-to-smoking-ban.html?_r=0

 

[AndriaD]

You know... considering that one part of the gov't is trying like mad to keep everyone smoking and not vaping... this just doesn't make a bit of sense. They want money, yet they want to completely marginalize and demonize the habit that nets them all that money.

Smokers ought to be Most Favored Citizens, considering how much of their money goes to the gov't.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

HUD proposes banning smoking in all public housing (and outdoors within 25 feet of buildings).
Proposal doesn’t ban vaping, but demonizes it, then requests comments on it, and says Final Rule may also ban vaping. 60 day public comment period
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=smoke-freepublichousing.pdf
(see pages 13/14)

Public housing nationwide may be subject to smoking ban (and vaping ban that NY Times article fails to mention)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/n...nwide-may-be-subject-to-smoking-ban.html?_r=0

From the first link:

Over 700,000 units would be affected by this rule (including over 500,000 units inhabited by elderly households or households with a non-elderly person with disabilities)

OK, so they'll have to go outside, but what about third hand smoke? These elderly and disabled misfits will be giving off toxic fumes from their hair and clothing. What are we gonna do to eliminate the danger they'll still be exposing innocent, well-behaved people to?

 

[bigdancehawk]

From the first link:


OK, so they'll have to go outside, but what about third hand smoke? These elderly and disabled misfits will be giving off toxic fumes from their hair and clothing. What are we gonna do to eliminate the danger they'll still be exposing innocent, well-behaved people to?

That's easy--they should be required to take detox showers before re-entering the building.

 

[Lessifer]

You know, I have mixed feelings about this. It sucks for the smokers, and extending it to vapers is ridiculous, but if it were a private landlord that said "no smoking" most people wouldn't have an issue with it. That's basically what public housing is, except that the government is your landlord.

Yes, the SHS aspect is BS, but smoking indoors does damage the property.

 

[AndriaD]

You know, I have mixed feelings about this. It sucks for the smokers, and extending it to vapers is ridiculous, but if it were a private landlord that said "no smoking" most people wouldn't have an issue with it. That's basically what public housing is, except that the government is your landlord.

Yes, the SHS aspect is BS, but smoking indoors does damage the property.

That's true, it does, but that "25 ft from entrance" bit is a step too far -- a lot of steps too far, in fact -- smoking on the covered front porch doesn't damage anything.

I still maintain that smokers should be treated as Most Favored Citizens, with the ungodly amount of taxes they pay to the gov't. It's exactly this Sin Tax that has proven that the gov't is far more addicted to tobacco taxes than any smokers are to smoking. If gov't REALLY wants to discourage smokers from switching to vaping, they really need to be treating those smokers a LOT better.

Andria

 

[Lessifer]

That's true, it does, but that "25 ft from entrance" bit is a step too far -- a lot of steps too far, in fact -- smoking on the covered front porch doesn't damage anything.

I still maintain that smokers should be treated as Most Favored Citizens, with the ungodly amount of taxes they pay to the gov't. It's exactly this Sin Tax that has proven that the gov't is far more addicted to tobacco taxes than any smokers are to smoking. If gov't REALLY wants to discourage smokers from switching to vaping, they really need to be treating those smokers a LOT better.

Andria

True, the 25' thing just matches up with other indoor bans. It's also much more than a minor inconvenience for some. The elderly, the infirm, or those that live in the massive 10 story, block wide public housing.

 

[AndriaD]

True, the 25' thing just matches up with other indoor bans. It's also much more than a minor inconvenience for some. The elderly, the infirm, or those that live in the massive 10 story, block wide public housing.

Plus the fact that 25 ft away is almost certainly NOT covered -- so when it rains, they're supposed to just stand out there and get wet? I don't think so!

It's high time for this shabby, HEINOUS treatment of smokers to END. They're not hurting ANYONE! but themselves.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

Health groups call for e-smoking ban in public housing

With the comment period closing, dozens of health groups on Tuesday urged HUD to extend the smoking ban to e-cigarettes and make sure the rules apply not only to future residents but also current residents.

http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/advocacy-archive/partners-comments-smokefree-housing.pdf

At the same time, our organizations believe the proposed rule could and should also include electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)and water pipe tobacco (hookah) in restricted areas. Our organizations also believe that the rule should apply to all government-subsidized housing rather than just all government-owned housing.

 

[subwayaznm]

Well I can relate even if I don't like it. Your a renter or guest; so when it's not yours there are rules that you must abide by, and in fairness it affects all not some that read there. And as stated in an earlier post it does damage the property some and has to be repaired before it can be used by other renters. Which would come out of our Taxes/Income at some point and time.
Just some thoughts that come to mind with this topic.

 

[nicnik]

And as stated in an earlier post it does damage the property some and has to be repaired before it can be used by other renters.

Vapor doesn't damage property.

 

[subwayaznm]

No it doesn't but sure makes it easier on government regulation to ban it all verses eating up tax dollars in court fighting that point. So they ban it all. Simple
Not my rule obviously but I can see their point

 

[nicnik]

No it doesn't but sure makes it easier on government regulation to ban it all verses eating up tax dollars in court fighting that point. So they ban it all. Simple
Not my rule obviously but I can see their point

But that's not the point they attempt to make. There's no justification for their dishonesty, let alone the counterproductive (and abusive) policies.

 

[skoony]

And as stated in an earlier post it does damage the property some and has to be repaired before it can be used by other renters

I am not sure what is meant by damage. Most states require that units be maintained
at regular intervals. In Minnesota I believe units have to be painted every so many years
Carpeting has to be replaced regularly. Normal wear and tear is not considered damage.
If you lived in a place for 12 years you can't be charged for a carpet that was damaged
unless it was replaced at the required intervals. The only time the smell of smoke lingering
is a problem is because they never clean the air vents. Units that do not have forced air
heating or cooling are easily remedied by cleaning and repainting that should be done
on a regular basis anyway. Some places repaint whether or not it's needed or required
every time renters are changed.
A note to current smokers. Do not rent a place with aucustic ceiling tile. The only
way to get rid of the smell is replacement.
Gleaned from 40+ years of renting regards,
Mike

 

[Jman8]

The damage to property thing is only thing I think is legitimate. I'm pretty sure we all agree this doesn't apply to vaping. As we are on that type of forum, that seems most pertinent to any ensuing discussion.

But for smoking, there are so many places I've been in that at one point did allow smoking and today I cannot tell if anyone ever did smoke in those places. It's plausible to say that upkeep/renovations are a result in ALL instances of what I'm noting, but I beg to differ. As a dual user who has history of going cold turkey, I know in my own case that if I stop smoking in my automobile, that it takes months (not years) to get rid of the smell and visible effects. Yes, this assumes a few car washes, but nothing extraordinary. 1 year after not allowing it, I would challenge anyone to determine if smoking was ever done in that vehicle. I'd even be willing to go with 6 months to prove the point, but admit that could be pushing it.

For public housing, I would think it could be like smoking sections of old. Allow a certain set of units to be for smokers only. When one leaves, a new smoker moves in. Regular maintenance/upkeep makes sure the unit doesn't get to some place beyond repair (if that's possible). When society gets to a point where no one is smoking anymore, especially among class of people that would most likely want public housing, then we can talk about how fair it is to no longer allow it.

The notion that smoking damages a property is challenging to argue against. But given where things are currently, I don't see why we (even vapers) wouldn't accept that challenge and argue against it. To let it flow on by as if there is no argument to be had does make me think they (antis) can make same claim about vaping, even if damage is negligible. Then like indoor public vaping, people (vapers) could be like, "I think of it as the same as smoking, therefore it does equal damage and shouldn't be done. This is indisputable."

 

[DC2]

The notion that smoking damages a property is challenging to argue against. But given where things are currently, I don't see why we (even vapers) wouldn't accept that challenge and argue against it. To let it flow on by as if there is no argument to be had does make me think they (antis) can make same claim about vaping, even if damage is negligible.

No.

I have a number of rental properties, and no one is allowed to smoke in them.
And if they do, it's not like it won't be obvious, and take up most of their deposit to remedy.

But vaping?

Sure, vape all day long inside for all I care.
That is not an issue, like smoking inside would be.

 

[Jman8]

No.

I have a number of rental properties, and no one is allowed to smoke in them.
And if they do, it's not like it won't be obvious, and take up most of their deposit to remedy.

But vaping?

Sure, vape all day long inside for all I care.
That is not an issue, like smoking inside would be.

I noticed you didn't present an argument. Just a statement of your position. To which I respond: whatever.

 

[DC2]

I noticed you didn't present an argument. Just a statement of your position. To which I respond: whatever.

I thought it was obvious.


A place where a smoker has been smoking indoors for any length of time smells like crap.
And it costs a lot of money to fix.

It's not really a subject for argument.
It's simply a fact.

 

[AndriaD]

I thought it was obvious.


A place where a smoker has been smoking indoors for any length of time smells like crap.
And it costs a lot of money to fix.

It's not really a subject for argument.
It's simply a fact.

I think the point is, it smells like crap in there for some time, before finally becoming unnoticeable. But that length of time may be longer than you're willing to let the property sit empty and not earning money.

Andria

 

[LaraC]

No.

I have a number of rental properties, and no one is allowed to smoke in them.
And if they do, it's not like it won't be obvious, and take up most of their deposit to remedy.

But vaping?

Sure, vape all day long inside for all I care.
That is not an issue, like smoking inside would be.

"Vape all day long inside."

Some kind of statement like that would be nice to add into your rental agreements - in the section where "no smoking" is mentioned. Something simple like "Vaping (using electronic cigarettes) is allowed on the premises, including inside."