Posted on 07/27/2011 6:54:41 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
To the list of places where smokers no longer will be able to light up — government buildings, parks, restaurants and bars — public housing residents in San Antonio soon will add one more: their own homes.
The San Antonio Housing Authority plans to impose a new policy in January that will prohibit residents from smoking indoors or away from designated outdoor spots at all 70 of its public sites.
The ban, which will affect about 15,800 residents, aims to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke and follows a growing nationwide trend to eliminate smoking at public housing authorities.
Since 2009, when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a directive that “strongly” encouraged housing authorities to adopt nonsmoking policies, the number of agencies that have banned the practice has more than doubled to an estimated 250, according to the Smoke Free Environments Law Project, a Michigan nonprofit that tracks the number.
San Antonio will become the biggest housing authority in Texas and one of the largest in the country to adopt a smoking ban, joining other major agencies in Boston, Detroit, Portland and Seattle.
“It’s our responsibility to provide a living environment that’s healthy, safe and comfortable and, frankly, your neighbor’s smoke can often impair that,” said Melanie Villalobos, a spokeswoman for SAHA.
The no-smoking rule will debut here in August or September at the newly renovated Lewis Chatham Apartments, a single, four-story building for the elderly on the South Side.
SAHA’s other properties are expected to go smoke-free in January, but the details of how the new policy will work at each site, including the locations of designated smoking areas, remain undetermined.
Residents will be prohibited from smoking within about 20 feet of exterior doorways, and those who repeatedly violate the rule could face eviction.
The housing authority began putting out the word about the new policy earlier this year, opening the discussion at resident meetings and surveying tenants.
Later this month, the housing authority plans to launch an educational campaign about the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke. Residents who want to quit the habit also can get free smoking-cessation aids such as patches and lozenges, provided through the agency’s partnership with the American Cancer Society.
The housing authority put off a planned start date in July after studying how other agencies had dealt with the issue. Among the most important lessons was that residents were more agreeable to the change if they had time to prepare and received health information.
“The education campaign is the most important part,” said Lori Mendez, the housing director for the elderly and disabled who has spearheaded the effort. “Residents need to understand the expectations.”
Kids exposed to smoke
Many residents have yet to hear about the change, but so far the new policy has inspired a mix of strong support, ambivalence and anger.
A survey sent to all 6,029 households in January shows that a large majority of tenants support the no-smoking policy. Of the 200 residents who responded, 81 percent said they liked the idea, while 17 percent opposed it, and 2 percent said they had no opinion.
In some cases, smokers decried what they view as a violation of their rights.
“This is my house even though I’m receiving help from SAHA, and I should be able to smoke in my own home if I want to,” one resident wrote.
Another resident who smokes on the balcony suggested forcing residents to go outside would put them at risk.
“It’s dangerous enough at daytime. Understand that you will be putting people’s lives in danger,” the tenant wrote.
But many cheered the idea, and some smokers even welcomed the change as an inducement to help them quit.
“I think it’s really, really great. I want to stop,” said Norma Garcia, 47, who smokes about a pack a day inside her Wheatley Courts apartment on the East Side. “They’re doing something that’s for our own good.”
I’d say there is a good chance for black market cigs in NY.
Nope. I know the answer ;)
Abortion takes the life of an innocent child who has committed no crime nor made any action themselves to end their life.
Smoking is an action taken on willingly by people and while some will die specifically from smoking, not all will and it won’t take place the first time they light up. Unlike abortion.
I do not want to support with my tax dollars smoking or abortion either. I simply do not trust the government not to extend this law to others who do not live off the tax payer. Nor do I believe the government has the authority, to determine what legal activities one can perform in ones own home, yet we know it happens all the time. Allowing them another excuse under the overused guise of “for the public good” or “for the children” is simply surrendering our rights to the whims of politicians scoring points for reelection.
I agree with you completely about those on the dole having the funds to spend on cigarettes. Read my above response to 2ndResponsibility though why I am concerned over even more government intervention.
Frankly, I’d like to know if there is a law on the books that states any monies from social programs given to welfare collectors can not be used to purchase cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets etc.
It seem we all agree people living off of the back of tax payers should not be using that money to buy cigarettes etc. Instead of legislating activities in ones own home, why not legislate items that are off limits for welfare recipients to purchase with tax dollars. If they make monies above their monthly distribution, why aren’t we forcing them to return it to the people?
I agree, except it is still not their house. It belongs to the taxpayers. Which brought this thought to my mind (stay with me):
Yes, we resent having to dole to welfare kings and queens, so there is a satisfaction to be had to see them targeted for a change. The government is counting on us to feel that way.
Because, if we allow it to happen to them,we've given permission to the feds to do it to us
Exactly right and why I’m against this issue.
The government does this all the time. They take an extreme issue and role it into an emotional argument that raises the hackles of the tax payers. In this case smoking in tax payer owned housing. Enough of a percentage of people get behind the idea because well damn it, we own that home and we pay for it so we damned well get to decide what goes on in it. Big win for the government, another loss of rights for the public.
Once the president is set that the government can regulate a legal activity in one group of people’s homes, by the 14th Amendment (would be the argument) then that restriction must be applied equally to everyone.
Bloomberg up in NY doesn’t like salt, you can no longer own a salt shaker in your home. Another do gooder detests fat, butter, oils and red meats, illegal to possess.
When we get behind ideas like this one, although they sound great on paper and obviously raise an emotional response amongst people, we forget to look at where the idea may end. Anytime the government wants to regulate what *I* can or can not do in my own home I worry and I’m not willing to give them a single inch knowing they will take thousands of miles.
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.