General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo HUD is angling to ban smoking in public housing? What the Fuck??
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
(21,115 posts)Good....they mostly have children..they can go outside...
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)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
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)This is rectilinear, orthodox doctrinaire prohibitionism. With all the corruption, expense and abuse thereunto appertaining.
Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)thing with public housing. This has been around since the sixties.
randys1
(16,286 posts)to the extent that they do.
That is pretty much the whole reason.
Or Gay people, or Women, etc.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Perhaps he needs to be asked some questions.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)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
(14,449 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(78,249 posts)There's a half-hour of my life I'll never get back.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)With El Supremo, joeybee12, and trumad. Yet you didn't send me a meeting invite to it!!
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)HUD is "looking into that".
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Just another possible infraction they can charge people with to hold against them.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(32,008 posts)Darn facts!
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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 childrens 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 didnt matter how wealthy the families were if they lived in an apartment, their children were exposed to more tobacco.
SNIP
former9thward
(32,008 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
Its 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 dont!
former9thward
(32,008 posts)Get real. Which you won't.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(18,318 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(135,425 posts)Please.
At least TRY to acknowledge reality.
Speaking of "darn facts" and all....
former9thward
(32,008 posts)The smells do not come through the vents as the poster alleged.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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
(785 posts)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
(108,978 posts)TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)So are you ready to create more Eric Garners on this issue?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)It's a legal activity.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)poor children shouldn't be protected from other people's cigarette smoke in their own apartments?
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)You are a guest there.
The place you PAY to RESIDE in should remain open to all legal activities. Period.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Maybe smokers should wear special smoking hoods.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)But I am assuredly not a fan of an authoritarian nanny state.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Or is it just people in their homes that shouldn't be able to breathe clean air?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(30,151 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)if it were a public hospital full of patients who had no other choice.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(30,151 posts)Would you have been the neighbor complaining to mgmt I SMELL WEED!
LOL
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)and the particulate in smoke is a trigger.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)get the red out
(13,466 posts)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
(15,317 posts)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
(5,417 posts)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
(30,481 posts)The list of legal activities all renters and even many home owners can't do on their own property is very very long.
onenote
(42,703 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)... And no smoking is written into the contract.
If they don't own the home they have to abide...
madville
(7,410 posts)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
(18,318 posts)No "ifs." The government can't deny RKBA in public housing.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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
(68,868 posts)to those who are more fortunate.
Having human smokestacks nearby doesn't help that.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)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
(33,345 posts)its really not that hard.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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 childrens 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 didnt matter how wealthy the families were if they lived in an apartment, their children were exposed to more tobacco.
SNIP
raccoon
(31,111 posts)had to deal with smoking neighbors. The smoke doesn't just stay
in the apartment of the smokers.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And most of them smoked. Why should it only be available to those who can afford to avoid it?
panader0
(25,816 posts)getagrip_already
(14,750 posts)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
(108,978 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)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
(18,585 posts)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
(885 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)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
(108,978 posts)Only yourself. That is not true of cigarette smoke, which can travel among the units of apartment buildings.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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
(7,759 posts)public housing are banned from smoking in the home by their spouses. Good call.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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 childrens 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 didnt matter how wealthy the families were if they lived in an apartment, their children were exposed to more tobacco.
mentalsolstice
(4,460 posts)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
(48,121 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(12,194 posts)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
(48,121 posts)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
(12,194 posts)And spot on, every word.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)And they deserve the same clean air that people who can afford private apartments and houses have access to.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)could be transmitted into other apartments.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)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
(108,978 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Even a private free standing dwelling?
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)If it's a rental unit, the landlord can set the terms of the lease, no?
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(16,199 posts)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
(108,978 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... 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
(30,884 posts)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
(33,224 posts)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
(30,884 posts)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
(13,390 posts)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
(30,884 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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
(30,884 posts)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
(4,019 posts)onenote
(42,703 posts)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
(30,884 posts)Subsidized housing is often housing of last resort so if the tenants can't quit smoking they become homeless.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... Or you can have housing.
Seems like an easy choice...
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(30,884 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)kcr
(15,317 posts)Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)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
(26,328 posts)Do they have a duel in the street?
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)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
(33,345 posts)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
(108,978 posts)maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)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
(33,224 posts)Stinky The Clown
(67,799 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(12,194 posts)So does perfume, exhaled breath, and fumes from cooking.
The worst of them, however, seems to be smug self righteousness.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's coming. Probably in ten years it will be the paradigm.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)"surveys of residents that showed a majority of both smokers and non-smokers prefer freedom from second-hand smoke within their apartments"
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(25,348 posts)It's their place.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(25,348 posts)...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
(33,345 posts)are they special because they're low-income?
I'd like to understand your logic.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)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
(25,348 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)... 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
(23,664 posts)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
(10,274 posts)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
(8,052 posts)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
(2,323 posts)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
(63,221 posts)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
(35,338 posts)put restrictions on the renters. If you can't live with the restrictions move.
Stinky The Clown
(67,799 posts)People in public housing, generally speaking, have little in the way of choice.
doc03
(35,338 posts)apartment I paid for.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)HUD is empowered to make the decisions on subsidized housing rules, not you.
doc03
(35,338 posts)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
(30,884 posts)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
(35,338 posts)the money to move out of a HUD apartment. Don't claim poverty and spend $200 or $300 a month on cigarettes.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)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
(33,688 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)A private landlord can make restrictions that the state cannot.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(18,585 posts)I mean, since it's 'health' related.
Think carefully.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(18,585 posts)I mean, if those poor kids could be eating cancer-causing processed meats?!?
FOR THE CHILDREN!! BAN HOT DOGS!!
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)puts people in other apartments at risk.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(18,585 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(22,457 posts)alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Nice.
Smokers have more rights than them.
Nice.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)And public health and safety are both improved in apartments that enforce this rule.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)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
(11,619 posts)MFrohike
(1,980 posts)It's personal dislike justified by "but think of the children!" That line of argument alone should convince anyone that it's garbage.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)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
(16,199 posts)And other anti-gay hate groups worldwide.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)as Stan Lee used to put it.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Love your comment.
I just cannot think in an authoritarian way, even if it's supposed to be "good" and my thinking "bad".
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(135,425 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(6,409 posts)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
(2,841 posts)but this policy reeks of "attacking the poor". jmho
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Better news for the health and wealth of the tenants and their kids.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)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
(42,703 posts)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
(48,121 posts)onenote
(42,703 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(17,045 posts)TANF or food stamps.
I am kind of surprised so many posters think this is OKAY. Bothersome.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Principles schminciples!
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)to live in apartments contaminated by the smoke of others.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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
(6,498 posts)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
(37,428 posts)Wonder if the usual Rw freedumb-types will protest at all.
nruthie
(466 posts)I see nothing here that merits a controversy.
onenote
(42,703 posts)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
(21,691 posts)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
(42,703 posts)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
(21,691 posts)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
(17,045 posts)or maybe blood testing for drugs. Oh wait... Hair follicle testing! YES!
onenote
(42,703 posts)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
(17,045 posts)Are you aware that many states are piss testing for TANF benefits now?
Yes, this reminds me of that very much so.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)But fuck em, it's healthy and shit! That'll learn em!
onenote
(42,703 posts)in "housing of last resort."
Should they be able to remodel the unit? Have as many people stay in it as they want?
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)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
(18,585 posts)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
(3,212 posts)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
(18,585 posts)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
(3,212 posts)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
(18,585 posts)If you would throw someone out on the street because of their addictions, you're on the wrong fucking site.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)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
(18,585 posts)Oh we want the state to house people in dire straits. Cept those damned dirty smokers, out on the street!
*shaking my head*
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)They. can. smoke. outside.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Did someone ninja up to your computer and type those words?
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)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
(18,585 posts)Any other edicts against addictions you'd like to enforce with the threat of eviction? At the point of a gun?
Fucking disgusting.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)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
(108,978 posts)to breathe clean air trumps the right of smokers to smoke indoors.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)As we just saw, KY is just about hopeless , but NC and especially VA are not.
onenote
(42,703 posts)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
(78,249 posts)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
(10,849 posts)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
(23,340 posts)Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)However, only assholes smoke in apartments, because that smoke will end up in other people's homes.
tzar paul
(50 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)#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
(2,188 posts)It's impossible to enforce for now.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)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
(17,045 posts)and food restrictions for subsidized recipients?
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)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
(52,162 posts)renters have that in their leases quite often. I have it my current lease and I live in tobacco country.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)simply ridiculous.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(46,192 posts)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.
Response to CreekDog (Reply #129)
NutmegYankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
Stinky The Clown
(67,799 posts)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
(48,181 posts)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
(5,281 posts)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
(108,978 posts)I guess, to the libertarians among us.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(67,799 posts). . . . . 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
(108,978 posts)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
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 cant 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 smokes poisons.
Smoke from one cigarette can stay in a room for hours. Dont smoke at home, even when children arent there.
From the American Cancer Society:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke
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.
Childrens 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
(13,466 posts)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
(5,402 posts)Though as a reformed smoker I still love the smell of cigarettes.
LynnTTT
(362 posts)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
(108,978 posts)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
(10,849 posts)in which smoking is forbidden and also vaping.
PersonNumber503602
(1,134 posts)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
(35,338 posts)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
(2,474 posts)If not then it is reasonable that the actual owners would want to stave off easily avoidable damage to their property...
Calista241
(5,586 posts)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
(27,670 posts)FSogol
(45,485 posts)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
(67,799 posts)FSogol
(45,485 posts)Pro Tip: Everything isn't about you.
Stinky The Clown
(67,799 posts)But then it isn't about me.
Pro tip?
So you're a professional poster?
Oy, I should have stayed gone.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)welfare is a form of probation.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)and other poor non-smokers deserved the same right to clean air and clean water as people with greater means.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)that their children cannot live in a house where people smoke?
I did not know that.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)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
(20,190 posts)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
(18,318 posts)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
(67,799 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)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
(13,566 posts)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
(30,674 posts)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
(39,215 posts)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
(20,176 posts)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.