Breaking News

Photo by DucDigital/ Flickr

Public has 60 days to comment on plan for public housing smoking ban

U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julián Castro and Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy have announced a plan to make the nation’s public housing properties entirely smoke-free.

Photo by DucDigital/ Flickr

Photo by DucDigital/ Flickr

HUD’s proposed rule would require more than 3,100 public housing agencies (PHAs) across the country to implement smoke-free policies in their developments within 18 months of the final rule.

The rule would ban lit tobacco products (cigarettes, cigars or pipes) in all living units, indoor common areas, administrative offices and all outdoor areas within 25 feet of housing and administrative office buildings.

HUD is seeking public comment on this proposed rule for the next 60 days.

“We have a responsibility to protect public housing residents from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, especially the elderly and children who suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases,” said HUD Secretary Julián Castro.

“This proposed rule will help improve the health of more than 760,000 children and help public housing agencies save $153 million every year in healthcare, repairs and preventable fires.”

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), cigarette smoking kills 480,000 Americans each year, making it the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

Since 2009, HUD has encouraged Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) to adopt smoke-free policies in their buildings and common areas.  During this time, more than 600 PHAs adopted smoke-free policies. Currently, there are nearly 1.2 million public housing units across the country.

More than 228,000 public housing units are already smoke-free. If finalized, the proposed smoke-free rule announced Monday would expand the impact to more 940,000 public housing units.

3 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Jack Listerio
    Nov 19, 2015 - 08:46 AM

    First off they don’t give a rats are about any public comment,its merely window dressin for a decision already made by these jackbooted nannystate prohibitionists in public health at the federal level. When OSHA called for commens in the 1990s over passive smoke they got over 180,000 of them and nothing OSHA could find proved any harm from breathing in passive smoke. So they finally made the following announcement:

    OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

    OSHA SAFE LEVELS

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

    Reply
  2. Jack Listerio
    Nov 19, 2015 - 08:48 AM

    There is absolutely no reason for any smoking bans at all anywhere or in anything save for flammable zones.
    What you are witnessing is the same thing that happened right prior to alcohol prohibition and that was tobacco prohibition as follows:

    Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

    1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

    1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

    1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

    1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

    1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

    Reply
  3. Jack Listerio
    Nov 19, 2015 - 08:54 AM

    For thse curious about the actual chemical make up of passive smoke here it is and its sure a long way from what the radicals claim!

    The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). – (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)

    Feel foolish yet like you’ve been lied to for years by the Government and all those so called do gooder non profits like the ACS ALA AHA…………YA there all in it together leftovers created by th last prohibitionists with big endowments. They changed their names and spent 40 years creating a so called armor shield to the public as good organizations when all along they were fronts for a new rpound of prohibition out taking illegal grants and lobbying for smoking bans everywhere! Paid pharmaceutical shillsiving junk science testimony and payoffs to cities and states to pass smoking bans and buy billions worth of NRT drugs for the quit lines in everystate. Those nicotine replacement therapy drugs all have a 98% failure rate,its nothing but a shrewd business deal for pharma to make money and hate and criminalize smokers,next its the obese folks laws against eating restaraunts andmaybe even child abuse charges for having overweight kids,oh wait the already are doing that!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2013 FUEL THEMES. All RIGHTS RESERVED.