The federal government has proposed the ban to protect the health of residents and reduce building maintenance costs
The legislation would require homes, communal areas and administrative offices on public housing land to be smoke-free, the
New York Times reports. It is thought the changes would affect around a million homes.
It has argued the ban is necessary to protect residents from second-hand smoke, to lower building maintenance costs, and to reduce the risk of fires. But the proposal has already met with resistance from some residents who believe it would be an infringement of their right to make personal choices about their lives. One told the newspaper: "What I do in my apartment should be my problem long as I pay my rent."
Many of the country's public housing agencies, which provide subsidised housing for people on low-incomes, have already voluntarily enforced the ban since calls for the move surfaced in 2009. Those living in New York City Housing Authority homes - more than 400,000 people - are expected to be among those most severely affected by a ban.
Sunia Zaterman, executive director of the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, told the
New York Times: "It's a fraught process because to do it properly you need community buy-in. To do this successfully it can't be a top-down edict because you want people to comply with the policy."
The council said smoking bans have become more popular over time and that, as the number of smoking tenants has dropped, more people have come to expect smoke-free spaces."
This is a health equity issue," Patrick Kwan, director of NYC Smoke-Free, added. "For people living in public housing and are subjected to second-hand smoke, the only option is to be at the mercy of their neighbours who smoke in their homes. "People who can afford it choose a smoke-free unit. Smoke-free housing shouldn't only be for the wealthy and privileged."
Comment: Smoking bans are fascism, plain and simple, though their proponents would have the population think that bans are initiated for health and safety reason. To the thinking person smoking bans should stimulate their curiosity as to why they are consistently proposed.