The current study found that the smoking ban in all of the U. S. does gov mean it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .thousand.
Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site. This study calculated the annual economic costs to society that could be avoided by banning smoking throughout the U. Efforts to ban smoking across the U. have been successful in reducing the number of people using tobacco, and states that prohibit smoking tobacco in enclosed public places and private environments are contributing relatively more to the total burden of second-hand smoke (SHS).
Exposure to SHS caused by burning tobacco products causes illness and premature death among non-smokers.1 As the number of people using tobacco increases, subsidized housing would protect health and generate substantial cost savings for society. In addition to health care costs related to SHS, smoking in multi-unit homes can result in excessive spending due to property renovation and fires attributable to smoking,7,8 estimated annual cost savings associated with smoking bans in the U. subsidized housing, by type of cost. Concerns have been raised that anti-smoking policies in subsidized housing may exacerbate socioeconomic disparities by negatively affecting low-income people and displacing residents who refuse to comply with them.20 However, these policies prohibit the act of smoking, not the occupancy of units by people who smoke. In addition, research suggests that these policies do not lead to an increase in voluntary tenant turnover in subsidized housing and may, in fact, help motivate smoking cessation and reduce cigarette smoking.29 Residents who quit smoking in response to smoke-free policies would likely experience better health and save costs by reducing the use of health services and the purchase of tobacco, the latter of which may represent a substantial portion of the income of low-income smokers.30 These benefits can be maximized if the implementation of the policy is accompanied by the provision of evidence-based quitting resources to residents of subsidized housing.20,22The costs for PHAs of implementing anti-smoking policies may include training, administrative, legal, and compliance costs. The costs of implementing an anti-smoking policy are minimized by the existence of current HUD guidance on many of the topics covered by the mandatory smoke-free policy required by this rule.
Hundreds of PHAs have already voluntarily implemented anti-smoking policies. In addition, there is already infrastructure to enforce lease violations, and a violation of the anti-smoking policy would constitute a lease violation. In addition, the time spent by PHA staff implementing and enforcing the anti-smoking policy will be partially offset by the time that staff will no longer have to spend mediating disputes between residents over the infiltration of second-hand smoke (SHS) into housing units. Given current HUD guidance, the initial learning costs (such as the costs of training staff and residents to understand this policy) associated with implementing an anti-smoking policy may not be significant. For the hundreds of PHAs that are already implementing voluntary anti-smoking policies, updating anti-smoking policies will have a minimum cost, and generally, these minimum costs will apply only if their current policies are not consistent with the minimum requirements for anti-smoking policies proposed by this rule. PHAs have the discretionary power to establish designated outdoor smoking locations outside the required 25-foot perimeter, which may include partially enclosed structures, to accommodate smoking residents, to establish additional smoke-free areas (such as in and around a playground), or, alternatively, to make their entire enclosure smoke-free. The flexibility inherent in the rule allows PHAs to implement their anti-smoking policies in a way that does not violate the standards set out in the final rule. This is a cost-effective way to track potential changes in residents' smoking behavior over time (i).
The information submitted by commentators has helped inform HUD about changes to the final rule and to develop more guidelines for PHAs on implementing and enforcing this final rule. A conclusion of no significant impact (FONSI) has been reached with respect to the environment in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102 (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U). PHAs can limit tobacco use to designated smoking areas on public housing grounds or administrative office buildings to accommodate residents who smoke. Residents who smoke and comply with the anti-smoking policy can continue to reside in public housing. The commentators also wrote that HUD should state in the rule that it does not guarantee a smoke-free environment to avoid demands from renters with neighbors who don't meet rules.
In the event that a particular resident is particularly burdened by an anti-smoking policy, PHAs may consider flexibilities such as moving that resident to a first floor unit which would facilitate access to smoking outside their units or modifying a walkway so that resident can use it more easily (e.). In addition, this rule does not replace state or local smoking bans so if such laws prohibit use of partially enclosed designated smoking areas PHAs would continue to be subject to those requirements. This is due to several factors such as fact that many benefits fall to residents and not PHAs implementing new policies can be difficult times fiscal constraints etc.
