The policies can go a long way toward improving tenants' health, but they needn't result in evictions.
With temperatures in parts of the country threatening to hit record lows this winter, it's hard to imagine not having a safe, affordable place to live. But a rule prohibiting indoor smoking in public housing could result in evictions for tenants who break the rule repeatedly -- literally leaving them out in the cold. Last year, Jim Armstrong, a policy analyst for the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, predicted that evictions for smoking violations would likely start around now.
Smoke-free housing has tremendous potential to improve health by ensuring that tenants have cleaner air to breathe and to enhance their safety by reducing fires. But, somewhat ironically, this potential will not be fully realized if residents are evicted for smoking.
Safety and stability are both essential elements of a healthy home. A safe, stable, affordable home is a critical foundation for good health and well-being. Stability not only provides families with consistent, predictable access to schools, jobs and social connections but also with the ability to plan beyond tomorrow. Conversely, housing instability creates disruption and anxiety for families and their children. Evictions can result in disruptions of work, school, support networks of families and friends, and health and other services.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
9 comments:
Dinduit
Such BS. I don't even smoke in my own home. I stand on my porch. If I can do it then so can they.
Legislating behavior is not in the purview of the government. Period. It’s a person’s choice to engage in legal behavior and until cigarettes are outlawed, that personal choice is nobody’s business. Maybe if our local and state government worried more about illegal aliens Less about what people do in the privacy of their own homes, the country would be a much better place to be. Virtue signaling is ridiculous and trite, but of the public continues to allow themselves to be lead around with hooks in their noses, then it will only get worse.
The anti smoking nazis are just as badd as any other liberal marxist dictorial dictates. open a window. What cost us more than fires and health hazards is the abuse and the theft of these services by illegals and people who do not deserve it that's what they should be focusing on. not worrying about what someone is doing to their lungs that's their problem.
We're talking about public housing. These people are unable to support themselves!!! Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that they are spending $70+ per week on cigarettes?????????????
Good point but still virtue signaling and legislating behavior. Would you like the government to begin telling you which days of the week you can have sex? Or perhaps they can mandate that we should all only have sex if we plan to procreate. My guess is you wouldn’t like such a legislation; therefore, why is this any different?
$7.00 a day per pack times 30 days of smoking = $210.00 for smokes per month. Any smoker should not be receiving free housing if they can afford smokes. Or, maybe reduce their benefits by $210.00 a month.
Bad comparison idiot
Who died and made you the judge of other people’s behavior? You telling people not to smoke only makes some want to smoke more. Why don’t you mind your own business and get out of someone else’s? Nosey bodies are never very popular or desire.
Post a Comment