Posted on 08/11/2016 6:38:15 AM PDT by Drango
Smoke-free policies have the potential to provide healthier environments at multifamily, public housing while also motivating residents to quit or smoke less, according to a new study by the Minnesota Department of Health’s Office of Statewide Health Improvement Initiatives.
The eight public housing properties in this study implemented smoke-free policy changes after working with local public health agencies through the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP).
After the smoke-free policies were implemented, the study found a 46 percent drop in frequent indoor secondhand smoke exposure among non-smokers. In addition, 77 percent of smokers reported reducing the amount they smoke and 5 percent reported that they had quit. Smokers noted the policy change was as much of a factor in their reduced smoking as wanting to improve their health.
“These results show that implementing smoke-free policies at public housing properties can produce positive results and healthier environments,” said Minnesota Commissioner of Health Dr. Ed Ehlinger. “These policies protect residents, who are more likely to experience tobacco-related health inequities and be exposed to dangerous secondhand smoke in their homes.”
The work by SHIP grantees and other partners puts the state in a strong position to prepare for proposed changes by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that would prohibit the use of cigarettes, cigars or pipes in all public housing living units, indoor common areas, administrative offices and possibly outdoor areas within 25 feet of housing and administrative office buildings. The final rule is expected this fall.
The mix of urban and rural properties that participated in the study prohibited smoking in all indoor areas, and three properties prohibited smoking on all outdoor grounds. Participating properties had a high proportion of seniors as residents.
Smoke in housing developments can easily pass from one unit to another through walls, doors and shared ventilation systems. The percentage of residents reporting exposure to secondhand smoke a few times per month decreased from 44 percent to 24 percent after the properties went smoke free.
SHIP grantees are working across Minnesota to help implement smoke-free policies at public housing and privately owned properties in their communities to ensure greater access to quality, smoke-free housing. Between November 2013 and August 2015, SHIP grantees and their partners achieved smoke-free policies at 365 rental properties. Currently, SHIP grantees are working with an additional 250 properties.
HUD estimates that annual cost savings nationally from eliminating smoking in public housing would be $153 million; the bulk of the savings would come from reduced health care costs related to secondhand smoke. In Minnesota, smoking causes more than $2.5 billion in medical costs annually.
For a second component of this study, MDH interviewed local public health staff and property managers and owners of affordable housing properties who have implemented smoke-free housing policies.
Factors that led to greater implementation and enforcement success included educating staff and residents on the adverse health effects of second- and third-hand smoke (residual nicotine and other toxins left on indoor surfaces by tobacco smoke), receiving assistance from experts such as local public health staff and technical assistance providers, emphasizing the economic benefits of going smoke free and practicing consistent enforcement policies.
Goofy and odious that we are subsidizing people who have enough disposable income to buy cigarettes.
Nearly half? Why not 100%?
Can the still smoke Meth?
they*
Minnesota is a lost cause.
Happy I got my wife out of there!
Drug use is OK then? What are they going after next? Diet soda, Beer, nice cloths. It is a power grab.
About time. As others write, if they can afford these habits, they don’t need public assistance. If people require public assistance, they should be drug and tobacco free. These locations, both inside and outside, should be 100% drug and tobacco free.
Drug use is already banned for public housing, by federal regulation if I recall correctly.
People who spend $5 a day(or more)on cigarettes,and a like amount for beer ,shouldn’t be getting so much public assistance.You want me to pay your rent and health care then you are going to have to give up PROVEN unhealthy habits.
Drug use is already banned for public housing, by federal regulation if I recall correctly.
It does not seem to work to well either. I suppose they want another class of criminals.
This is why grocery store chains, for example, lobby heavily to expand the eligibility for food stamps, and to increase funding for them.
You and me both! Our family moved to Texas in June. A huge sense of relief!
I, for one, welcome our know-better bureaucratic overlords. See? They reduced smoking simply by outlawing it and punishing people with losing their shelter if they disobey. Easy-peasy.
But it’s racist to forbid smoking in public housing, ‘cause everybody knows that...
My understanding is that science has proven that second hand smoke can be quite harmful - if you are a cat.
I really, REALLY hate cigarette smoke and LOVE that, being in a band, I can come home from a gig without that smell in my clothing and on my equipment. But the second hand smoke thing is “almost” as bad as the global warming nonsense.
Yeah, it stinks and it is annoying, but it’s all about PPM. And don’t tell anybody, but smoking does not increase your cancer risk as much as most people think. Yes, it’s bad, but not THAT bad. And to be clear, I HATE smoking and have a hard time mustering personal respect foe people who do. But I see it with eyes open.
If I were dictator, there would be public housing and government supplied food, rather than food stamps etc. Enjoy your rolled oats. When you earn enough to get out you might be able to get a bag of Doritos and a Big Mac, but not until then.
In my case, it was from Seattle to rural KY. Same sense of relief.
With my beliefs about where the US is going, both culturally and economically, I’d be at my wits end if I was still in Seattle. With all the deer, rabbits, turkeys that wonder by my bedroom window, and the cattle and chickens, I feel oddly prepared.
Oooooh goody....and second hand smoke is right at the top of my concerns list
How is this enforced and what is the cost of enforcement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.