Nanny State of the Week: Butts out in public housing
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
By Kevin Glass | Watchdog.org
The federal government proved again there are always strings attached to government money. If the federal government is going to help people out, the bureaucrats in charge are always going to try to take on the role of nanny.
This time, it’s with the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s proposal to ban smoking in all public housing. This applies not just to common areas but to the interiors of the living units — and to all spaces within 25 feet of the buildings, too. This will affect over 700,000 public housing units nationwide.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user Sarah Scicluna
CLEAR THE AIR: Smoking will be prohibited in all public housing units nationwide under the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s new rule
The HUD rule applies to “prohibited tobacco products,” which includes cigarettes, cigars and pipes. E-cigarettes would be exempted. Its policy says “HUD’s rule does not prohibit individual PHA (public housing assistance) residents from smoking,” merely that it’s trying to protect its residents. But it’s difficult to see this as anything other than an attempt at a nanny intervention: if people are going to rely on the government, they’ll get to set the rules for behavior.
Public health experts have pushed for policies like this for years. They believe the government should use all of its behavioral levers to prevent people from doing anything unhealthy, even if it’s perfectly legal.
The New York Times reported that Harvard’s John Spengler said of proposed bans:
“Some people will respond that it’s a person’s right to do what they want in their own property. But then I pose there’s the question: where is the response of the state government to protect those who can’t protect themselves?”
Like most nanny laws, this is framed as protecting people — from neighbors, friends and themselves.
Smokers in America are disproportionately low-income, so this rule will likely have a disproportionately large effect on those receiving public assistance. It’s similar to many proposed nanny provisions for low-income Americans who receive assistance, like drug testing for unemployment benefits or restricting junk food for those on nutritional assistance programs.