HUD Smoke-Free Proposal - Vanishing Liberty for Low-Income Americans

[Solomon Zorn]

The title sounds a little dramatic, unless it affects you.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HUD-2015-0101-0001

FR 5597-P-02
Action
Proposed rule.
Summary
This proposed rule would require each public housing agency (PHA) administering public housing to implement a smoke-free policy. Specifically, this rule proposes that no later than 18 months from the effective date of the final rule, each PHA must implement a policy prohibiting lit tobacco products in all living units, indoor common areas in public housing, and in PHA administrative office buildings (in brief, a smoke-free policy for all public housing indoor areas). The smoke-free policy must also extend to all outdoor areas up to 25 feet from the housing and administrative office buildings. HUD proposes implementation of smoke-free public housing to improve indoor air quality in the housing, benefit the health of public housing residents and PHA staff, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, and lower overall maintenance costs.
Dates
Comment Due Date: January 19, 2016.
Addresses
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule. All communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments.
1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically.

There is very little time left to respond. I urge low-income Americans to comment on this official site, or by mail. Also get the word out about this curtailing of our liberty. You can comment on any aspect, but here are the specific questions they want to address:

1. What barriers that PHAs could encounter in implementing smoke-free housing? What costs could PHAs incur? Are there any specific costs to enforcing such a policy?
2. Does this proposed rule adequately address the adverse effects of smoking and secondhand smoke on PHAs and PHA residents?
3. Does this proposed rule create burdens, costs, or confer benefits specific to families, children, persons with disabilities, owners, or the elderly, particularly if any individual or family is evicted as a result of this policy?
4. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what exceptions to the requirements have been granted based on tenants' requests?
5. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what experiences, lessons, or advice would you share based on your experiences with implementing and enforcing the policy?
6. For those PHAs that have already implemented a smoke-free policy, what tobacco cessation services were offered to residents to assist with the change? Did you establish partnerships with external groups to provide or refer residents to these services?
7. Are there specific areas of support that HUD could provide PHAs that would be particularly helpful in the implementation of the proposed rule?
8. Should the policy extend to electronic nicotine delivery systems, such as e-cigarettes?
9. Should the policy extend to waterpipe tobacco smoking? Does such smoking increase the risk of fire or property damage?

[TomFoolery]

I was a smoker for nine years before quitting last year.

Every apartment I've ever lived in, I smoked outside. Why? Because I would get charged a horrendous cleaning bill for smoking inside and it wasn't worth it to me when I could just easily step out. I smoked in my car, but my car was my property.

I also spent five years in the Army where you could get in serious trouble for smoking within 50 feet of a building, not 25 feet, as this proposes. 

I never saw the big deal about not being able to smoke wherever I wanted because there are plenty of people who don't like it and I try to be respectful of them. "Smokers' rights" were never a big priority to me even as a smoker. Especially since I've quit smoking, I hate being around other people's cigarette smoke. I stayed in a smoking room at the Motel 6 last year because they were out of regular rooms, and I got nauseated. Smoking allowed? Felt more like smoking required.

I fail to see how it infringes on low-income Americans. I get that this has to do with public housing, but no one can smoke cigarettes in other publicly-owned buildings. Hell, you can barely smoke inside in any privately-owned public establishments anywhere any more.

[aitm]

One of the first obnoxious human behaviors I ever met was the "born again" fucktard. The second most was the ex-drunk, then the ex-smoker. When I quit smoking, I made sure I never became one of those fucks that pranced about all self righteous. If I let someone in my car who smokes, I don't ask them not to,  I invited them into my car knowing they smoked, if they choose not to, thats considerate of them, but if they ask, I let them. Frankly, I have far less fear of getting cancer from second hand smoke as I do a coronary from getting pissed off from fucktard religious people.

[Solomon Zorn]

I never saw the big deal about not being able to smoke wherever I wanted because there are plenty of people who don't like it and I try to be respectful of them.

It's not "wherever" I want. I don't expect that. But this is the privacy of my apartment, for Christ's sake. People have smoked in these buildings for decades, and it's never been a problem. It's just another attempt by health-nazis to force their agenda on the poor.

I fail to see how it infringes on low-income Americans.

Really? I fail to see how it doesn't.

I get that this has to do with public housing, but no one can smoke cigarettes in other publicly-owned buildings.

Other public buildings are public spaces. My apartment is not a public space. I live alone.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

 I want to oppose this but ... they don't own the property they live in and the landlord can and should set usage rules.

Free money always comes with strings.

[TomFoolery]

It's just another attempt by health-nazis to force their agenda on the poor.

There are lots of private rental companies that don't allow tenants to smoke indoors.

I fail to see how it infringes on low-income Americans.

They aren't saying you can't smoke at all if you live in public housing, just that you can't smoke inside.

Other public buildings are public spaces. My apartment is not a public space. I live alone.

But it's being partially subsidized by taxpayers.

I guess I don't really know what to say. Smoking is expensive. When I smoked a pack a day I spent about $180 a month on cigarettes. I get that it's really hard to quit smoking, but it's really expensive to keep smoking.

[_Xenu_]

While there's a point to be made if enough smoke passes through ventilation to cause a health danger, if that's not the case people really need to be left alone. I smoke in my own apartment, but I don't share any sort of ventilation with any of my neighbors. I was directly asked on the application if I smoked, and I answered honestly. If I lose my deposit over this, I will be understanding about it and move on.Cigarettes are already the most heavily taxed product in the US. While I acknowledge that its a deadly habit, at some point I think we deserve to be left alone like anyone else as long as we are paying our own way.

[Solomon Zorn]

I want to oppose this but ... they don't own the property they live in and the landlord can and should set usage rules.

Free money always comes with strings.

Jason! I'm surprised! You're straying from your core value - liberty for all. I mean were talking about peoples homes.

I don't think we should punish the poor, any more than we already have with exorbitant taxes on tobacco, by taking away their home if they smoke. This rule will affect nearly a million households.

And what the hell is with the 25 feet from the building bullshit? What asshole added that provision? Outside is outside. Period. I mean that's just common sense.

[Jack89]

To be blunt, it's not your apartment.  You necessarily give up some of your liberty when you ask the government to help you out.  I kind of agree with the new rule.  After all, it is public housing and someone else may be living in the apartment in a couple of years. 

[Baruch]

To be blunt, it's not your apartment.  You necessarily give up some of your liberty when you ask the government to help you out.  I kind of agree with the new rule.  After all, it is public housing and someone else may be living in the apartment in a couple of years.

The apartment doesn't "belong" to the landlord or the government either.  They are stewards of G-d's property ... ahem.  Everything in modern society involves some subsidy or other by the taxpayer.  So the taxpayer should have ... thru representatives of course ... direct involvement in everything you do and don't do.  I call that  ... democratic totalitarianism.  As an opponent of totalitarianism ... the shit monkeys can kiss my ass.  And no, I am not a smoker.

[Hakurei Reimu]

If you have a disgusting habit that clearly not all people are on board with, then it's just common courtesy to take reasonable steps to make sure your habit inconveniences as few people as possible. Filling the ambient air with noxious smoke is obviously far more an imposition onto those around than spitting on the floor.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Yet another restriction on poverty. Here's the rub. You can live in such a place and refuse to bathe to the point that you can stink out all of your neighbors and there's nothing illegal about it. You can run around all day spraying room 'fresheners' that I find personally offensive and they make it difficult for me to breath with it in the air.  You can have a barbecue daily if you like and burn what is kerosene and have high carbon pollutants permeating the neighborhood with little to no restrictions, but a cigarette?  OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Hey, want the restrictions? Fine, forfeit the deposit. It's not rocket science, but evicting people who smoke is creating a whole new class of homeless people.  Unless cigarettes are outlawed I think that trying to micro manage people's lives smacks of 'class warfare'.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jason! I'm surprised! You're straying from your core value - liberty for all. I mean were talking about peoples homes.

I don't think we should punish the poor, any more than we already have with exorbitant taxes on tobacco, by taking away their home if they smoke. This rule will affect nearly a million households.

And what the hell is with the 25 feet from the building bullshit? What asshole added that provision? Outside is outside. Period. I mean that's just common sense.

But we're not talking about their homes.  We're talking about how they live in someone else's property.  You can't have liberty without property rights, and they don't have property rights where they live.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

[Baruch]

If you own your house free and clear ... then the government (eminent domain) owns it.  After all, it was an American army (in our case) that took it from the original owners.  If you have a mortgage, you don't even have that, the lien holder is a steward for the government.  Fictional property rights, is where society falls down, ever since the invention of farming.  People became stationary, and deluded themselves into thinking they had ownership.

What if I reject 5000 years of property rights bull shit?  As an American in particular, anything I can say about property rights is hypocritical bull shit about holding stolen property.  I rent, but I have owned.  I have abandoned ownership ... because I didn't want to be that big a hypocrite.  In England as I understand it, the Queen technically owns all the real estate ... and that all other people there are legalized squatters, dating back to the Domesday Book.

So here I am, in a shit hole I inherited ... I am either staying in property that is ultimately owned by the government (sorry Any Rand) or I am staying in someone else's property that is ultimately owned by government.  And either I or my landlord is guilty of the felony of holding stolen property.  And the government of course is guilty of irreligion ... the Natives knew that the Great Father owned the land, and they are right.

The larger question isn't some legal crap ... it is what do you have to do to get along with people in your neighborhood.  Of course are usual answer to that today is to drone them from Nellis AFB.  So ethically, to what degree does a smoker have to take into consideration the life of the people around him?  And to what degree does the non-smoker have to take into consideration the life of the smoker.  Today the answer to that is democratic totalitarianism.  No drugs, no smoking, no drinking intoxicants ... in short, Sunni Islam ;-)  Of course we also need commissars and grupenfuhrer (ward healers) to go around taking the food out of the hands of the fat people ... gotta hate fat people, right?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One of the first obnoxious human behaviors I ever met was the "born again" fucktard. The second most was the ex-drunk, then the ex-smoker. When I quit smoking, I made sure I never became one of those fucks that pranced about all self righteous. If I let someone in my car who smokes, I don't ask them not to,  I invited them into my car knowing they smoked, if they choose not to, thats considerate of them, but if they ask, I let them. Frankly, I have far less fear of getting cancer from second hand smoke as I do a coronary from getting pissed off from fucktard religious people.

I quit smoking in 1988. I don't care if people want to kill themselves, nor do I care what means they use. Just don't leave a mess, please.