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”.

If it's purely for health reasons then why are we only concerned about council tenants? because only the people who own the properties can decide what goes on in them I guess.

For the record. While I agree with this in principal, I am fully aware that the type of people who smoke in the house among children are not likely to stop simply because it's becomes a condition of the rental. Some people just don't value their children's health.

Oh eff me. Empire. Have you heard yourself lately?

NRTWT - the government would ban smoking in a heartbeat if it could find a replacement for the £6-£9 billion it receives net each year (taking into account NHS costs).
This is equivalent to 3% of income tax, 5% of NHS spending or 20% of defence spending.

I don't see how it's invasive. Millions of people live long term in private rented property, where it's almost always banned.

It would be good for children, it might discourage smoking but equally they could smoke outside.

I think anything which stops children being exposed would be good for the families themselves and also the NHS.

Just ban smoking.

Ban drinking too then, it causes far more harm.

it is sad but it's unlikely to be taken seriously by those who need help the most.
it is a huge generator of revenue as is alcohol (both should be banned)
it's a good idea in general but it would be very unfair to the marginalized who have nothing in life but cigs.
but I guess not much different than people not being allowed to drink in shelters.

Drinking is different, unless you are physically addicted and need a supervised detox to go without. Not drinking in hospitals and places vulnerable people and addicts are is common sense because people often change their behaviour and become aggressive and a problem while drunk and its a temptation for other addicts to be around that. Sneaking off for a sneaky quiet fag when you are stressed out beyond belief hurts noone but the smoker. Most patients in psychiatric wards are smokers and they find it almost impossible to give up.

Because its seen as a lower class issue people have no sympathy for smokers. But how would you feel if your landlord/ mortgage provider told you no pinot noir in your own home? Due to drunk people doing stupid shit. Then bare in mind that you are not an addict and that smoking is harder to give up than heroin and alcohol.

If smoking is banned then so should drinking and drug taking, which can cause far more damage to property,
I agree smoking shouldnt be around children ,but drinking can cause domestic violence etc,
I dont smoke now, but when i stopped the house was decorated and everything thoroughly cleaned and washed, there is no residual smell now
Anyway how can it be policed,

It's a filthy habit, nothing to do with lower class.

Those who say they smoke but their house doesn't smell are sadly deluding themselves.

It's everything to do with lower class when poor people can't smoke in their own home but wealthier people can

BY LAW

No, mists, if not all, expensive rental properties have a non smoking clause.

Renters are generally poor. Private or not. The majority are renting because they can't buy.

Or, look at the other side, the extreme minority of very wealthy renters. I once did an inventory for a landlord in Regent's Park. Very large house rented to ME family for their summers. They needed a detailed inventory because they were remodelling the entire house, including adding bathrooms/ lifts/ fitted dressing rooms. When they left, they would have it remodelled back to the way it was as per the inventory.

You reckon their landlord is going to tell them they can't smoke? 😂😭 and enforce it? They'd tell them to go fuck themselves.

Sorry rather than generally poor that is relatively poor.

NRTWT - the government would ban smoking in a heartbeat if it could find a replacement for the £6-£9 billion it receives net each year (taking into account NHS costs). This is equivalent to 3% of income tax, 5% of NHS spending or 20% of defence spending.

(Drifting OT ...)

Of course, thanks to the smoking ban, not only has the tax take from tobacco plummeted, but costs to the NHS of ex- and quitting smokers is slowly rising, as they (rather inconsiderately) start living longer and developing expensive illnesses that now need treating.

I wonder if the smoking ban would have been as enthusiastically championed if it had been made clear we all have to pay for it ?

A long-lived population sounds great on paper. But given we can't cope now with the ageing population it does ask questions of the next 30 years.

As food for thought, I recently attended a lecture where the speaker noted that the child that will live to be 150 has already been born

I would disagree with the renters being generally poor.

Many families I know are renting four or five bedrooms for thousands of pounds.
Same with the top market. Non smoking clauses are there.

Your little inventory anecdote is just that, an anecdote.

But I suppose if you insist on regarding everybody who rents as a homogeneous poor and suffering mass then you are deliberately not seeing the other side.

Not all renters are poor.

Some people choose to rent, for whatever reason. Not all renters are forced into the situation by the market.

I know people who pay well over $1,000AUD per week in rent because they choose to. They like the non-commitment of renting, generally.

I live in an expensive rental, large flat in a Victorian villa. I could afford to buy, but for a number of reasons it's better for me not to right now. I don't smoke inside and I have been asked not to by the landlord. Whether she would know/find out/kick me out if I did is another matter, but I think it is perfectly reasonable of her to ask me not to, in the same way it is reasonable for a ha/council to ask their tenants not to.

It it is also naive to think that vulnerable/very poor people only live in social housing. In my area the vast majority of vulnerable adults such as those with mental health problems live in private lets.

Your thousands of pounds a month renters are still the minority. I am
Sure you know that.

Still everyone is ignoring that councils and housing associations do not want to ban smoking. This article is coming from a public health official who is unlikely to have any housing experience or knowledge.

They are a minority but they nonetheless exist, andthey have a nice non smoking clause in their rental agreement which most of them are happy with, so insisting similar clauses are an attack on the lower class, as stated by an above poster is ingenious, to say the least.?

Disingenuous, of course, and I have a random question mark there as well.

I hate the way 'society' tries to police the poor; that they're not 'allowed ' Sky TV, mobile phones, holidays etc. It's disgusting.

I agree. This is precisely the kind of arrogant "I-know-best-for-you", "you-dont-think-for-yourself-the-Sun-does-or-I-do" attitude that leads to so many problems these days.

If actually enforced this could prise lots of people out of social housing into the low rent domain of slum lords, the streets, friends' sofas etc. freeing up lots of council houses to be given to more slavishly compliant people. I suppose for the compassionate political factions that think they own the working class in the UK, it's a great way to accidentally punish the poor for not voting how they're compassionately told to, "not wanting to work" etc. to boot.

We are not talking about clauses. As I've said a number of times councils and housing ascoiations are already free to put in such clauses (and some do) we are talking about making it law. That's completely different.