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.
Can the still smoke Meth?
yes ,what about all the drugs they smoke
If I was Dictator, Welfare types would eat in a cafeteria, and get issued clothing. If you want the public to pay for your survival. . . that’s what you get. Survival shelter, food, and clothing. . .
Just as long as someone pays for their housing, iPhone, cable TV, and cigarettes.
Since Minnesota is being taken over by Mudslimes and their drug of choice is tobacco, it will probably be deemed racist to ban smoking in public housing.
Many lives are being saved by imposing these restrictions ?
That's a good thing.
My understanding is that science has proven that second hand smoke can be quite harmful - if you are a cat.
My problem is with Public Housing period.
But, if you take the King’s Coin, you do the King’s Bidding.
Exactly!
I doubt any lives are being saved. Here is my question: If these welfare clowns are spending a minimum of $5 a day per pack of cigarettes (x 30 days is $150.00) why are they in subsidized housing in the first place?
If they don't like it, they can get on their obamaphone and call a taxpayer that gives a $h!t.
Then it’s okay to blow smoke in a baby’s face, I guess.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obnoxious? Yes. Stupid? Yes. Deadly? No.
Also, babies usually aren’t “shotgunned” by anyone except dips%^#s. Parents smoked around babies since the 1960s, and if the babies were anything like me, they didn’t have lung trouble or a desire to smoke when they grew up.
Then it’s okay to blow smoke in a baby’s face, I guess.
How do they verify that people aren’t sneaking a cig now and again?
Good for you!
We are in Montana and she has been here for more than 20 years. Her sisters and their husbands in Minnehoota land are lost causes...
Best to you!
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.