Smoking should be banned in council housing, public health chief says

[LurkingHusband]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/smoking-banned-council-housing-faculty-of-public-health-a7722726.html

Smoking should be banned in all new council houses to protect children from harmful second-hand smoke, a public health chief has said.

Anti-smoking campaigners consider smoke-free housing to be the next major frontier in reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.

In 2015, the Government introduced a ban on smoking in all vehicles carrying children.

“Housing associations and councils are looking at smoke-free housing buildings. Where children are involved I think there is a real case for it,” Dr John Middleton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, told The Sunday Times.

Dr Middleton said he believed housing association residents should sign contracts which would make non-smoking a condition of their tenancy.

“You wouldn’t evict a load of tenants for smoking. Where you have got new premises, you could have smoke-free agreements from the start," he said.

In the United States, the Obama administration passed a federal law which banned smoking in all public housing - the equivalent to UK social housing - in November last year.

The legislation, which will come into effect in August 2018, will affect more than million homes. In New York alone, which has the largest public housing agency in the country, 400,000 people will be bound by non-smoking agreements.

Pro-smoking campaign Forest said the proposed policy “would penalise unfairly those who can’t afford to buy their own homes”.

It's only for new-build social housing - the majority of social housing is obviously not newly-built. Smokers can stay on the waiting list for a house built pre2017. Meanwhile asthma sufferers have a chance to accept a social housing option which won't kill them - because living next door to a smoker will trigger attacks when smoke drifts through windows, through cracks and under doors.

Smoking definitely affects the sale value of a house. Seen it myself.

Neighbours said that home had to be replastered, carpets replaced and the kitchen ripped out it all stank that badly. This is 20+ years of who knows how many a fags a day, so an extreme example.

I've viewed houses before where smoking has stained the walls and ceilings - you're always assured it could just be repainted - bollocks. It usually needs replastering to actually be smell free.

Sorry but that's rubbish. No estate agent/ bank surveyor knocks money off the asking price for a smoking household FFs. You don't know why the house across the road sold for less than yours.

Sorry but that's rubbish. No estate agent/ bank surveyor knocks money off the asking price for a smoking household FFs. no you are correct. The estate agent or bank don't knock anything off. The SELLER does. And they do it because they are struggling to sell the property. Which very often does have a connection to cigarette smoke.

Katherina I can confirm that the oozing happens. The house we live in now had a smoker living on the top floor. We didn't use that floor for the first couple of years as it was the last area we decorated. We ripped out all curtains and carpets and repainted. We thought we'd eradicated all nicotine until we started using the shower up here. The tiles sweated brown gunk when it got steamy in there. It was disgusting. If we weren't planning on moving I'd tear the whole bathroom out. Eugh.

there isn't any point responding to these small minded, massively inexperienced ideas you have to be honest.

Mn baffles me sometimes. The same group of people who thinks it's unreasonable for someone to have a cig when they're sat outside a cafe thinks it's ok for people to chronically smoke indoors in a house with kids in. Go figure. Or is it because the odd cig outside a cafe may taint their own middle class pfbs for all of 30 seconds?

So thinking smoking is dangerous and is ruining properties for their owners, in this case councils, and which will have have to be renovated at the expense of the taxpayer and for the next tenants is small minded?

Councils / housing associations don't want to ban smoking

Councils/ housing associations don't use tax payers money to renovate property

Smokers don't generally destroy properties by smoking in them

My opinion is that whilst it's naive to assume this will be easy to enforce, it is not a bad idea to set out in the tenancy that smoking indoors is not acceptable. In the same vein that hospitals are no smoking sites but patients (and often staff) still end up flouting the rules. However it is irresponsible to not be seen to have that rule in place and to condone smoking in places that may cause people harm when they have the ability to set rules/boundaries. Public authorities have less influence in what happens in private tenancies, but they can set out that they expect people not to smoke indoors in social housing. It is only following the trend that most private landlords will stipulate no smoking indoors. It is not discrimanatory to do this, and in fact it is socially irresponsible not too. The gradual social unacceptability of smoking HAS been effective in reducing smoking since the smoking ban. Obesity is the newest biggest public health threat, not because smoking has become less harmful, but because fewer people are doing it. If this legislation saves a few children from the harmful effects of passive smoking then I'm all for it.

I think its a disgusting idea, if people pay their rent and keep the house well decorated etc,
This Government goes too far we are getting like a nanny state

I don't allow smoking in my investment property, and be infuriated to find out that someone was doing it regardless of that term.

If you don't own the place, you don't get to dictate how everything will be.

Empire, the media is forever having a go at people on benefits for daring to spend their money on something other than gruel.

If the rental property is advertised as no smoking in the first instance then fair enough, to blanket ban all and only council/HA properties is unfair on those who cannot afford to rent or buy elsewhere. People should be allowed to smoke in their homes if they so choose.

I am a private tenant and I am not allowed to smoke in my own home. And all the money in the world could not buy me the right to do so whilst renting. I don't see why people in LA homes should be any different. As I mentioned I am a smoker.

Empire, the media is forever having a go at people on benefits for daring to spend their money on something other than gruel. That's just opinions, not much bearing on actual terms and conditions of rental properties. These CAN dictate whether people smoke, regardless of whether they are earning 100K or basic benefits. I still don't see how you draw a comparison with people's opinions on low income families having sky tv.

unfair on those who cannot afford to rent or buy elsewhere

They might be able to afford to rent privately if they quit smoking, which is a bloody expensive and unjustifiable habit.

It's ridiculous! I saw it on tv, they basically said it's because the harmful chemicals stay for 50+ years. The conversation then went onto to say about damaging carpets and curtains because apparently when you take tenancy of a council house you get those too, shortly followed by "smokers should maybe pay £10-£20 extra a week to the council for the clean up??" I mean... it's a joke. If the chemicals are harmful and stay for 50 years then nobody should smoke in a property unless they own it mortgage free & are prepared to sell at a massive reduced rate in the future. I'm a ex smoker, I did think then and do think now smoking should be illegal. But the gov won't do that, it's all about money isn't it

I have mixed views about this, mainly due to the practicalities. I privately rent and smoking is not allowed - i don't smoke but I wanted to, or when I have guests that want to, it easy to go and do it in the garden.

Where I live though, a huge amount of the social housing stock is high rise flats (even the newer builds.) Many of them don't have balconies so where would smokers go if smoking inside was banned? I get that there is some choice in which home you take, but actually not nearly as much as people think - people in the area I live move down the list if they are not 'bidding' often enough for properties and you can only reject a couple of offers before you move right down the list. I could envisage vulnerable people being pushed into accepting a tenancy with a no smoking clause and no where to smoke outside, so smoking inside and thus risking losing their home. I say vulnerable because, for example, the percentage of people with long term mental health issues that smoke is much higher than in the general population, and they are also statistically much more likely to be in need of social housing. The number of older properties coming up for rental would lessen, as people wouldn't want to give them up if they would also have to give up smoking. It doesn't seem workable to me.

Of course they're not identical scenarios but they're both situations where someone is trying to dictate (or at least criticise) how people should live their lives based on them being "poorer".

Of course they're not identical scenarios but they're both situations where someone is trying to dictate (or at least criticise) how people should live their lives based on them being "poorer". No they are not even similar. Opinions of people on benefits is not comparable with action taken regarding social housing, which by the way is leased to people who work also. It's nothing to do with being poor and everything to do with health.

I am an avid anti-smoker but even I think that is a step too far. The difference with public housing and private tenancies is that theoretically you have a longterm home in a council or HA property, not a short-term let. There are more effective ways to work with people on this, to encourage rather than try to force. Also as there is so little public housing available it's a bit irrelevant at the moment. Yes it's bad for children but so is living in a mould-ridden, overcrowded and unmaintained property, and no one seems to be prepared to address that. And the funding is being cut for smoking cessation programs so it's hard to believe this is truly about reducing exposure to smoke.

Oh for fucks sakes. I'm a smoker, I live in a HA property and any damage to my property from smoking or anything else I am expected to fix and decorating and general maintenance is down to me.

I have quite severe mental health problems, smoking is one of my few pleasures in life and I find it too hard to give up.

I'm not going to stand outside my house smoking in the middle of winter in snow and hail.its my home, I pay the rent and look after it and you all with your this is a good idea posts can fuck right off. Go and harass someone else.

titania maybe you should go back and read things properly before telling people to fuck off. It would only apply to new properties, so not you.

If it's purely for health reasons then why are we only concerned about council tenants? Why are they the ones who are told what to do in their own homes? That's what people find distasteful. Surely you can understand that?
It's discriminatory. And unenforceable.

Yes thanks i did read that. But first of all, once it starts being policy in new builds that will most certainly extend it to all and also it will affect people like me, the poorest and most vulnerable and ill, who do tend to smoke more. Its just another way of attacking us and keeping us in our place. The whole banning smoking thing has gone too far. If I get hospitalises due to my illness I'm banned from smoking anywhere on the hospital grounds too. Of a psych ward! What sadist came up with that idea? And of course all the snooty middle class fuckwits who agreed with it and allowed it to happen. Boils my piss it really does. Stop poking about in poor peoples lives.