On Sunday, the City of Boston banned smoking in public housing, according to an article in The Daily Free Press Wednesday.
Beginning in January 2012, residents were asked to sign addendums to their leases “dictating that each household member and their guests agree to not smoke inside their apartment, elsewhere in the building or within a specified distance from the building,” according to an article in The Boston Globe Friday.
The consequences for residents who violate the addendum are vague. Violators will be fined a maximum of $250 and will be subject to “other lease enforcement actions,” according to the Globe.
While it’s admirable that the city is trying to promote smoke-free living environments, the ban is unrealistic.
Yes, smoking can kill. Yes, non-smokers living in public housing would benefit from a smoking ban.
But are all smokers going to abide by the policy? Chances are, they’re not. In fact, any policy that prohibits a large group of people from engaging in a particular activity in a particular setting is going to run into obstacles.
How about the people who think they’re above the law?
Chances are not every smoker finds the $250 fine and other disciplinary actions all that perturbing.
Some people are going to continue to smoke in those residences.
A more viable plan for eliminating smoking in those settings would have been to offer up several designated smoking areas for residents and their guests, not ban their activity in those residences outright.
Despite its impracticality, is it all that surprising that the city enacted the newest no-smoking policy? No.
Over the last few years we’ve seen smoking sections disappear from restaurants, hospitals and airports.
However, those settings are small. Forbidding smoking in public housing is unrealistic.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
