ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Our take: York Housing Authority's no-smoking rule makes sense





Jackie Green, a smoker, said that there are other priorities in her Parkway neighborhood, like the bullet that went though her porch post last week while she was standing on the porch. (File)





It's definitely not a good time to be a low-income smoker in York County. The York Housing Authority is planning to impose a no-smoking rule in its houses and apartments come October.
Nonsmoking residents of those complexes are probably happy about the rule.
Smoking residents are, predictably, angry. What's next, they say? Banning soda, potato chips, bacon, candy, alcohol or other things that are legal but not good for you? That's a valid question, but they won't find too many allies besides other smokers.
Liberals won't have much sympathy.
Smoking is terrible for you - cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc. From the liberal perspective, it's not such a bad thing for the government to be a bit of a nanny - to promote public health and protect children from second-hand smoke.
Conservatives probably won't be on smokers' side either.
Many will say they don't care if people smoke - if they want to destroy their health, go ahead - but just don't do it on my dime. If you're in public or subsidized housing, you shouldn't be spending your money on tobacco. Save it. Use it for tuition for yourself or your children. Get a job (or a better job) and move to a privately owned apartment that allows smoking - or buy your own house where you can smoke until the walls are yellow. Let this no-smoking rule be a motivator to become more self-sufficient, they might say.
Both sides of the political coin could make some good points on the policy.
York Housing Authority officials also note that it's expensive to clean the units of smokers after they move out (hopefully not on stretchers from smoking-related illnesses). And smoking in the public housing units can also present fire hazards - not to mention the mess made by cigarette butts all over the place.
So, beginning in October, the new policy is no smoking inside or within 25 feet of a building entrance or window.
Honestly, it's hard to dispute either the liberal or conservative perspectives on this.
Except that many of the residents of these apartments are older people who are simply not going to stop smoking. Many of them are frail or disabled and will not be able to go outside.
They'll smoke inside - running the risk of eviction. There will be a lot of fuss and heartache when some 70-year-old wheelchair-bound grandmother is left homeless because she couldn't stop puffing away in her apartment.
Trying to enforce this rule fairly and consistently will be as difficult as enforcing all the other laws that are routinely broken. One resident reportedly pointed to a bullet hole in the outside of her home and wondered whether policing smokers should really be the authority's highest priority.
Maybe, given the anger displayed by residents at a recent meeting on the new policy, an incremental approach would be better. Compromise a little.
Maybe allow current residents who smoke to continue until they leave - but make it clear to new tenants that smoking is forbidden in units. Maybe make certain floors in apartment buildings smoke-free and work toward a time when all floors are smoke-free. Maybe back off enforcing the rules about smoking outside near units - or have a designated smoking area.
And for goodness sake, forget the rule banning the use of electronic cigarettes - which merely emit water vapor. Why would the authority outlaw devices that many use to help them quit smoking?
After all, isn't that the goal?

No comments: