PUBLIC HOUSING SMOKE-FREE (HUD)

[sofarsogood]

HUDNo_15-144

The announcement says they have not decided whether to include ecigs in their new rule and during the next 60 days seek public comment about that. I can't find the online link for doing that. Can anybody help with that?

Hud should allow vaping to see what happens. Low income smokers who switch will save money. If they learn to mix and rebuild they will save a LOT of money and that can only be good for the families. This is the perfect scenario to see what might happen. Lets persuade them to allow vaping and then follow up and see how many tennents switch and how much money that saves them. It could add up to a lot and get some of them out of public housing, eh?

 

[Scottitude]

At the end of the article there's a URL and mailing address....

This proposed rule will be open for public comment for the next 60 days. Interested persons may submit comments electronically at www.regulations.gov. Comments may also be submitted by mail to the Regulations Divisions, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410

I would give it some time, hours or days, and then hit the link and search for the document HUDno 15-144. Currently, there are no relevant search results.

Good luck & thanks for sharing the link.

 

[sofarsogood]

At the end of the article there's a URL and mailing address....
I would give some time, hours ir days, and then hit the link and search for the document HUDno 15-44.
Good luck & thanks for sharing the link.

The link you mention doesn't lead to the link for emailing. It will turn up.

In the mean time making a pitch for helping low income people switch for the sake of family income is getting a significant response when I post comments on ecig news stories. Helping kids by reducing the waste of family income appears to be a strong argument. It's the closest I've come to an idea on the ecig topic going viral. Science and health has nothing to do with the ecig debate. It's all about money. But the most important money is not taxes, it's the household income of poor people and the well being of their kids. Hud may have millions of tenants and many 10's of thousands of them smokers with kids. This is an opportunity HUD should not ignore.

 

[Kent C]

No new info but an article on it with "our Julie" :- )

Public Housing Ban on Smoking May Include E-Cigarettes

Julie Woessner, executive director of the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, says “it is unlikely that anyone who was dedicated to vaping instead of smoking would obey this rule since there is no way it could be enforced.”

“It is generally a bad idea to create laws that we know people are going to flout, thus undermining the legitimacy of all laws,” she says.

 

[DrMA]

The State has no business telling people what to do in their own homes, least of all bullying the most vulnerable members of society. It's time the smoker haters were brought to justice for all the crimes against humanity they have committed.

 

[sofarsogood]

The State has no business telling people what to do in their own homes

True but landlords can say no smoking if they choose.

 

[Scottitude]

Disregard. No longer relevant.
Thank you.

 

[Scottitude]

Disregard. No longer relevant.
Thank you.

 

[CarolT]

Smokers are not a protected class.

Neither smokers nor anyone else should be subjected to deprivation of their liberties by government lies and fraud. That is a violation of the most fundamental principle of equity, anywhere. To suggest that this should only apply to those who are in a "protected class" is nothing less than outrageous.

 

[jpasint]

But isn’t this going to effect only “public” housing?
To me that means subsidized housing. Maybe I’m wrong though.
Any time you take something being offered that is to some extent, being paid for by taxpayers, they (the gov) get to make the rules.

I was slightly encouraged when the article mentioned electronic cigarettes:

Hookahs and electronic cigarettes were not included in the proposed rule, although the agency is seeking comment on whether to include them in the final regulation.

"The absence of a prohibition on the use of e-cigarettes in this rule should not be read as an endorsement of e-cigarettes as an acceptable health alternative to cigarettes," the regulators said.”

 

[DrMA]

Smokers are not a protected class.

Human rights are innate and intrinsic. They don't need to be labeled "protected" or recognized by any "authority" to exist and be exercised.

 

[Scottitude]

I don't disagree @DrMA but laws are laws until they are revised or repealed through the legislative process or found to be unconstitutional by the judicial system.

FWIW, my quoted comment was in response to a now deleted inappropriate post that was barely relevant to the discussion.