Hamilton considers smoking ban in public housing

Yeah, who cares about the right of non-smokers to breathe clean air in their own homes, anyway? What a stupid idea -- and discriminates against smokers! Who were born that way!

While we're at it, why don't we repeal clean air workplace laws? Why should restaurant workers get clean air when social housing tenants don't? That would be unfair. Also, it means that poor people can't go to restaurants now.

Let's just go backwards on all our health legislation to make it "fair" for smokers - and, by extension, poor people. Smokers have had such a tough break in the last two hundred years. In fact, let's repeal car emissions laws, too. Why have clean-burning engines in the cities if social housing tenants can't have clean air in their own homes? Not much point. Might as well go back to coal-burning, too. All this talk about "clean air" is just a bunch of hokum, propagated by "busybodies" who have nothing better to do.

No, a policy can't be about protecting the rights of non-smokers, who now represent the majority, or about reducing insurance costs or about fire safety in a public building. It must be an attack against smokers. And poor people. Because poor people smoke. And poor non-smokers don't mind smoke in their apartments. Why? Probably because they're poor.

I didn't understand your illustration, and admit I just glanced over it after I saw the word "paternalism" because I don't believe that's the motivation behind public no-smoking policies. At all.

I do definitely see the inconvenience and severe pain in the ass that not being able to smoke in your own home poses. I think there should be a phase-in of the policy. I think there should be provided some kind of sheltered space, sunroom, well-separated common room, that is pleasant to sit in, where people can smoke. I also would be incensed if that policy were to try to extend to privately owned homes or backyards. But rental dwellings, I'm sorry - I see that the building owner, public or private, has a right to make that decision.

And, since I tried, directly, to avoid confrontantional language you still took afront to this.  Makes me wonder directly what your motives were.  Argue on the basis of humanism; not smoker and non-smoker.  Quitting any addiction is not easy. And given there is still many people in society whom look down upon poor people, as an expense, or as lower, or weaker.  Why ask only the people that fell through the cracks to take up your cause?

I will note, I just read your post as writing this, the reason I try to avoid emotional responses.  And instead, try, reasoned approaches.  And, I will leave my initial words because your original, in your last post, words begged of them; but will put forth my original argument again. My point is strictly autonomy, and it should not be a luxury only afforded to those that are wealthy enough.   You can argue it both ways, if you wish, I already was concillatory towards that.  My direct problem with that is that I expect given the empathy people living together who have fallen through cracks would have towards each other, the human instinct of not wanting to see a person forced out into the cold would be overwhelming.

If there is a correlation existing between economic class divisions and smoking, why not even address affluence?  This is the most appropriate time to address inequality because of the inherent disparities and the current recession.

And why the divisions between private property if it is their homes?  Problem with this is that this leads to people with enough wealth to afford such luxuries.  Property has uses, but need not be triumph out of fear of backlash.

EDIT - To explain this further, the motives may or may not be paternalist - but the consequences of how it will be implemented will be, and will be perceived as.

What does tug your heart strings?  Of course, you skimmed over the part where I went into a personal story because you simply reject that any implementation of this could be seen as being paternal. Yet are in this for the greater good.  At what part am I or her, or the next person not part of that collective? As it stands under her tenancy agreement she can't live with anyone else.  Do you see that as an infringement?  What if I mention there is a 5-year waiting period for other supportive-housing options, thus she can live with someone in five years.

I can't really define why I would want to live with someone other than it being a want.  How about a discussion on the intrinsic values of each possible want and come up with a threshold it must meet before it becomes permissable.  Then we can just tell them on the list of intrinsic values of wants that smoking is below the threshold.  I'm certain we can also have different lists for different classes.

Or we can be balanced.  Allow the individual to make the choice and let progress take its natural pace and let cultures evolve.

I think there are ways to address the rights of smokers and non-smokers in public housing.  Someone else came up with a good idea - have smoking units and non-smoking units.  This doesn't have to be a death battle between smokers and non-smokers with either a blanket ban on smoking or forcing non-smokers to endure bad air.

BTW, as far as I know, unless things have changed, landlords are NOT allowed to designate units "non-smoking" in self-contained apartments - only if you are renting a room in someone's house are they allowed to say you can't smoke in the house.  So, landlords can demand all they want that you not smoke in their units, and you can say, "Oh yes, I won't smoke, I promise!" and sign your life away in the lease, but when you move in, if you want to have a smoke in your own unit, you're allowed.  You can't sign away your rights. 

As a non-smoker, I lived in a house that had three apartments in it, and the landlords demanded that people be non-smokers if they wanted to live there.  As a non-smoker, it didn't affect me.  But a smoker moved into the basement apartment, and yes, that affected the air in all three apartments.  And you know whose responsibility that was?  The landlord's - for not ensuring that the air system was adequate for having three self-contained apartments in one house.

jas if they REALLY cared about public safety esp kids. Hmm you would see a lot more rehab programs for heroin n cracc cuz u know how many kids get shit stucc in their foot from those alone? what about alcohol. the air system is supposed to be setup so that it doesnt affect other units esp in townhouse complexes if it aint adequate the city of hamilton is supposed to make it like that not just so smokers can have a smoke but bcuz of air quality and fire safety. If it that reason this just a cheap way to draw attention away from that or as I forget the guy but unionist or sum1 else liked the speaker it was a jewish guy n he said whenever something has a class attached to it basically when poor use something a lot more it gets banned. Like gin used to be banned in Britain but not whiskey n his friend said in 99 within the next 20 tobacco will proyl be banned n i said this already in the thread but just look. Help ppl quit not do this to them. And yea it really is 5-10 years waiting. It fuccin 8 years if you wanna move to a dif unit in the same area like let's say in the rex. they could be down the street from each other.

Well, again, no one is banning smoking. This is not Prohibition. It is merely a move to consider smoke-free public housing. Actually, according to a different article, it's really only about considering smoke-free housing options.

Hamilton eyes ban on smoking in public housing

By THE CANADIAN PRESS

Last Updated: 27th November 2008, 2:24am

HAMILTON -- City health officials say they're meeting with public housing tenants about a plan to ban smoking in their homes.

Dr. Chris Mackie, associate medical officer of health, said yesterday that his department is consulting with tenants about several options -- including offering smoke-free buildings or grandfathering the move so it would only apply to new tenants -- instead of an outright ban

earthquakefish wrote:

 Why should it not be considered unpallatable to breach tenants personal space by society?

That's the whole idea.

Smoking in public housing places neighbours at risk

Quote:

Someone at the Health department told me it’s a person’s right to smoke in his own home. What about my right to not have smoke in my home? I should not have to move out of my home because of someone else’s addiction.

Quote:

The complainants allege discrimination based on physical disability due to being exposed to second-hand smoke in their subsidized residence, contrary to sections of the Human Rights Code.

Public housing kicks smoking habit

Quote:

It costs about $3,000 to prepare a non-smoker's apartment for the next tenant, but a smoker's unit runs as high as $6,000 because of additional painting, cleaning and carpet repair, says Paul Franco, a housing manager in Rancho Mirage, Calif., which began a smoking ban in January.

My argument, as stated above, is that no-smoking policies should be established in all multi-unit dwellings whether privately or publicly owned, unless they are constructed in a way that smoke cannot travel between units. Legislation should establish the right to breathe smoke-free air at all times in one's own home. And actually, that could even apply to detached privately owned dwellings, as protection for families where there may be disagreement about smoking in the house, where one member may be disregarding the rights and health of other family members.

Michelle wrote:

landlords can demand all they want that you not smoke in their units, and you can say, "Oh yes, I won't smoke, I promise!" and sign your life away in the lease, but when you move in, if you want to have a smoke in your own unit, you're allowed.  You can't sign away your rights.

I'd still like to know what law, bylaw, or Charter clause it is in Ontario, or elsewhere, that would override and nullify the terms of a rental agreement or lease that one has signed on to. And would that override also apply to no-pet clauses or other stipulations in the lease? If not, why would it only apply to smoking? If someone could fill me in, would greatly appreciate.

rural - Francesca wrote:

Hamilton considers smoking ban in public housing

 

John Fraser, a program director at the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation in Toronto, said because people with lower incomes are over-represented in the smoking population, imposing the ban could be construed as discrimination against low-income families.

"Social tenants don't have a choice to be there. They're living there because they don't have a lot of other options," he said.

 

I have no idea what to say to this.

These are people's homes.  If we are going to say we need to not let them smoke because there are children, then make it so for every home.

And lets ban potato chips from stores located near public housing too, as poor people eat chips, and don't forget we need to ban parents from these homes, because face it, poor parents are a bad influence on children.

While the law obviously affects poor people, I don't know that it is such a bad thing.
Presumably, these people are not intended to live in these homes permanently.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume it will be passed on to someone else - when that happens the new tenant will want the building to be in decent condition. If there is no smoking inside, it will be in much better condition.

If we can pass laws to forbid people to smoke in the same house/cars as their children, we can pass laws so that people can not smoke in public housing. It is really not such a hardship to step outside for a smoke, and will probably do them, as well as their family some good.