Essay on Smoking Ban in Public Housing Violates Rights: HUD Authority Questioned

A policy prohibiting smoking in and around the public housing was viewed to be affecting a vast majority of household units that are managed by local authorities. Some residents argued that it was an overreaching and intrusive executive order during the administration of Obama (Sullun). Most lawsuits filed underscored that the ban violates the rights of most smokers residing in public housing and that it exceeds the statutory authority of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Hence should never be justified as an interstate regulation in carrying out their federal policy. Is the ban justified on smoking in low-income homes by the HUD justified? Yes, it is, and HUD acted in the scope of their authority on the issuance of the ban. The HUD's warranted for the ban is, therefore, of the essence since the ban on smoking in low-income homes a form of their right to explore ways to protect the tenants in the multiunit rental homes from involuntary exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in their homes.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The smoking ban juxtaposed in low-income homes, federally subsidized, albeit in the ownership and operated by the local housing authorities (PHAs), applies to the housing units. The policy resulted from the 2015 HUD Rule that was aimed at improving the quality of indoor areas within the houses and the public tenants' health, coupled with the staff of the PHA (Sullun). It was also aimed at the reduction of catastrophic risks of fire, together with lowering the costs of maintenance. However, the New York City residents filed a lawsuit lobbying against smoker harassment, which they presented in the District Court of Colombia. They cited that HUD had no right in the regulation of indoor air quality and should never dictate what people do in the privacy of their homes.

HUD smoking ban was, however, valid and constitutional as it was a government's exercise of power against the no general right to smoke. Additionally, individual smoking in such mobile homes endangers the lives of those people living there as smoking presents more risks to second-hand smokers (Olfene). According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, second-hand smoking poses more risks and health hazards to the people. Hence there should be the implementation of smoke-free policies that prevent youths and nonsmoking adults from second-hand exposure to tobacco smoke, coupled with the reduction of its prevalence and cessation.HUD's ban on smoking in low-income homes was, therefore, justified. The U.S. Department of Public Health and Human Services appealed to the government to implement legislation and regulations on smoke-free policies and laws even at the local levels after carefully analyzing the dangers of second-hand tobacco to the youths and nonsmokers.

The HUD's ban on smoking on low-income homes is aimed at protecting the children, elderly, and those from chronic health conditions from getting exposed to second inhaling of smoke fumes as it would be hazardous to their health. The residents in low-income homes are often vulnerable, and they may not be aware of their rights hence the need for the HUD to protect them from smoke hazards. The court also had jurisdiction over that matter, and each public housing agency(PHA) was to implement the smoke-free policy not later than 18 months from its date of effectiveness. The policy extended to all outdoor areas 25 feet from the buildings of the administrative offices and the housings. In the quest to grant the rights for the smokers, they were to designate them smoking areas to accommodate tenants who smoke, and the areas were enclosed structures.HUD emphasized that failure to abide by the policy of nonsmoking in the low-income household would result in eviction; hence abiding by the policy was non-negotiable in spite of the complaints by the plaintiffs who viewed it as a violation of their smoking rights. In a nutshell, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the constitution Section 1437(1) (6) Title 42 of the U.S. Code asserts that the public housing leases must contain a clause stating "any drug-related criminal activity on and off the premises engaged by the public housing tenant or any tenant household member or the tenant's guest may lead to tenancy termination.

Works Cited

National Center for Chronic Disease Control and Prevention. "Eliminating Exposure to Secondhand Smoke." Outcome Indicators for Comprehensive Tobacco ControlPrograms.2017,www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/tobacco_control_programs/srveillance_evaluation/eliminating-exposure/pdfs/eliminating-exposure-koi-goal2-508.pdf

Olfene, Amy. "Maine LAW Review of Asthma and Ashrays: Examining the Rights of andExploring Ways to Protect Maine Tenants Living in Multiunit Rental Housing who areInvoluntarily Exposed to Secondhand Tobacco Smokes in their Homes." Maine LawReview.Jan.2013,www.digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl=1105&context=mlr

Sullum, Jacob. "National Ban in Public Housing is Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Says." ReasonFree Minds and Marketing.2018, https://reason.com/2018/07/23/national-ban-onsmoking-in public-housing/

The United States Department of Justice. "Hud Rucker Oakland Housing Authority vs.Rucker-Brief Merits." Supreme Court Briefs.2017www.justice.gov/osg/brief/hud-vRuckerOakland-housing-auth-v-rucker-brief-merits

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "The Health Consequences of InvoluntaryExposure to Second Hand Smoke." National Centre for Chronic Disease PreventionandHealthPromotion.2000,www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/fllrport.pdf.