Ban smoking at public housing?

[SteelTown]

Today the Board of Health will debate if the the city should ban smoking in its public housing.

Think we should push for the ban?

[ryan_mcgreal]

It seems to me that either people have legal occupancy of their own homes or they do not. Why should people living in public housing have fewer rights than people living in rented or owned properties?

If smoking is harmful, why ban it in public housing but not all multi-unit dwellings - or all homes in Hamilton?

This proposal smacks of hypocritical paternalism.

[adam]

Smoke fumes cause headaches and severe allergies to many people. I remember living in an apartment building and having problems with headaches from fumes coming in from the lady across the hallway even though both our doors were closed. Plus I could smell smoke on my jacket that was hung in the front closet when I went out. I would stuff towels under my front door to help the situation.

[SteelTown]

If we want to be a progressive City than banning smoking at public housing would be a start. If it doesn't start now it'll start within a decade or so, it's bound to happen.

Typically the less fortunate people are the ones that are susceptible to smoking so perhaps having a grace period to ban smoking at public housing would be the step needed to help these people knock the bad habits.

[BrianE]

Doesn't the owner of a building have a right to control the activities that occur inside the building and on the property? The City should be leading by example on this one. They don't have the power to ban smoking in all apartment buildings but they sure as hell can in the buildings they own.

And lets face it, we're talking about smoking here. I have zero sympathy for smokers. If walking down a couple flights of stairs or standing outside is too back breakingly difficult then maybe it's time to rethink the whole smoking thing.

[ryan_mcgreal]

A ban that targets the poor and not the middle class or the wealthy is an unfair ban, even if its goals are ostensibly noble. If we decide that smoking is harmful enough that no one should be exposed to it involuntarily (and that seems to be a reasonable conclusion), then we should push to have smoking banned in all places susceptible to involuntary exposure, not just to social housing.

[BrianE]

Well it's not really targeting the poor is it? It's targeting the smokers... who also happen to live in social housing at that particular moment (They may not be poor forever).

Gotta start somewhere. First City owned buildings to warm up the crowd and then bam! City wide apartment building ban.

[FairHamilton]

They should ban smoking within, I don't know say 20 feet, of HSR Stops first. I hate having to adjust where I stand at a Stop because of someone smoking right where the bus stops.

As for smoking in units in public housing. Any owner should be able to make their property smoke free, city or private. Only don't ban it in the units, ban it at the entire property.

I think that banning it only in units would mean that people would smoke on balconies, in stairwells, etc., which could cause more impact to other non-smoker residents. I know when we lived in an apartment, everytime someone smoked on their balcony it impacted us in our unit. When they smoked in their unit we didn't notice.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by BrianE

Well it's not really targeting the poor is it?

Do you know any rich people living in social housing?

Originally Posted by BrianE

Gotta start somewhere. First City owned buildings to warm up the crowd and then bam! City wide apartment building ban.

Again, if we're that concerned about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, we should be pushing for a citywide ban inside all buildings.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

A ban that targets the poor and not the middle class or the wealthy is an unfair ban, even if its goals are ostensibly noble. If we decide that smoking is harmful enough that no one should be exposed to it involuntarily (and that seems to be a reasonable conclusion), then we should push to have smoking banned in all places susceptible to involuntary exposure, not just to social housing.

That's exactly what's happening, step by step.

- No smoking on airlines
- No smoking at university (when I went there were ashtrays in the hallways)
- No smoking at work
- No smoking at restaurants
- No smoking smoking in cars with children
.................

This is just one more step.

[SteelTown]

I friggin hate when a smoker comes inside a bus shelter and smokes. I usually point to the no smoking sign in the shelter and the person usually gives me the looks and the rolling eyes and step outside.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

That's exactly what's happening, step by step.

Hmmm.

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

No smoking on airlines

All airlines, not just the discount carriers.

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

No smoking at university (when I went there were ashtrays in the hallways)

All universities, not just a subset geared for low-income students.

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

No smoking at work

All jobs, not just Ontario Works placements.

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

No smoking at restaurants

All restaurants, even the expensive ones.

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

No smoking smoking in cars with children

All cars with children, not just subcompacts.

If the next step is to ban smoking in apartment buildings, then it should be all apartment buildings, not just publicly funded housing.

[SteelTown]

It's up to the owner if he or she wants to ban smoking at his/her building or house rental. He/she has the right.

In this case the City, the owner, has the right to ban smoking from it's buildings. If not the City could be vulnerable to a lawsuit from second hand smoking.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

Do you know any rich people living in social housing?

I don't think this should be wrapped in the discriminating against the poor agrument. On the flip side, one could argue that no-smoking policies in places that attract the 'rich' people are in place because we don't care about the poor.

I think it's about establishing a policy at a city owned & managed building. It just happens that city housing is used by the poor, that's all.

There are policies against smoking at every other city owned building, whether it be a community centre, pool, library, arena, greenhouse, museum, municipal building or garage, etc. Why should city owned housing be exempt from smoking policies? Non-smokers exist in city owned housing just like they use the library, pool, community centre, etc. And they should be allowed to live in a smoke free environment, the same as using any city service.

Smoking is not a right, it's is a personal decision. A decision that has a negative impact on everyone, even those who don't smoke.

[Blurr]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

It seems to me that either people have legal occupancy of their own homes or they do not. Why should people living in public housing have fewer rights than people living in rented or owned properties?

If smoking is harmful, why ban it in public housing but not all multi-unit dwellings - or all homes in Hamilton?

This proposal smacks of hypocritical paternalism.

I agree. It is either all buildings or none.

Currently landlords cannot enforce smoke free buildings.

The main agruement I have heard is, "the apartment is considered my house and so I have the right to smoke there. "

Eventually I think that the rights of the person living smoke free in the next door apartment will be a greater right (like the examples of progression above), but I think it has to head to the courts before it is allowed to be enforced.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

Hmmm.



All airlines, not just the discount carriers.



All universities, not just a subset geared for low-income students.



All jobs, not just Ontario Works placements.



All restaurants, even the expensive ones.



All cars with children, not just subcompacts.

If the next step is to ban smoking in apartment buildings, then it should be all apartment buildings, not just publicly funded housing.

Or, since the city dictates smoking policies (to a certain extent) at it's properties then all city owned buildings, including public housing.

Why does this have to a housing to housing comparison? Why not ownership policy to ownership policy?

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

Why does this have to a housing to housing comparison? Why not ownership policy to ownership policy?

If we're going to implement a city-wide policy for a given type of building (e.g. multi-unit dwellings), it should apply equally to all such buildings, regardless of owner. To do otherwise is to discriminate unfairly against a group of people who are already the most limited in their housing options.

[vid]

Why not fund a programme to help them quit smoking? The units would be cleaner, the residents would be healthier and have more money. Just banning it will probably result in lots of people breaking the law in their own homes, the city isn't going to enforce this.

[Jon Dalton]

The point of this isn't to stop people from smoking (it won't) but to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke. A fairer way to do that would be to structure buildings into smoking and non smoking sections.

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

If we're going to implement a city-wide policy for a given type of building (e.g. multi-unit dwellings), it should apply equally to all such buildings, regardless of owner. To do otherwise is to discriminate unfairly against a group of people who are already the most limited in their housing options.

I'm not advocating a city-wide policy, you are saying there should be one for this proposal to not discriminate.

What I'm advocating is a policy that applies to all property owned by the city, regardless of the use i.e. library, community centre, arena, public housing, etc. That's very much different than a 'city-wide policy'.

A non-smoker living in public housing should ask; "Why am I be protected from second hand smoke at all publically owned city property, except the one where I live?"

IMO, that's a fair question. And that's the flip side, i.e. I'm a poor non-smoker who can get protection from second hand smoke at the library, but not at my home.